The 2013 Budget: Najib’s Last Hurrah? (2)

[contd from
The 2013 Budget: Najib’s Last Hurrah? (1)
]

Taken as a whole, Malaysia appears to have accumulated debt rapidly even as it loses competitiveness and is thus precariously placed. The Budget Speech made no reference to these issues despite the urgency and importance of these facts to the economic health of the country.

A full and transparent accounting is imperative to permit the development of strategies to avoid a debt crisis of the type affecting many of the countries, large and small, in the EUROZONE.

Current Economic Developments and Prospects

The preliminary estimates of growth cited in the Prime Minister’s Budget Speech for the first half of 2012 are somewhat exaggerated and contradicted by recent economic indicators. Inflation has been under estimated and thus there is an illusion of a high rate of GDP growth in the first half of the year. What growth occurred can be largely attributed to expanded exports of oil and gas and an expansionary fiscal policy adopted in the Budget for 2012.

There are recent indications of a slowdown in exports resulting partly from weaknesses in global commodity markets; industrial output has also shown weaknesses. Growth in the second half of the year is likely to fall short of growth in the first half. Thus, the projected rate of growth of between 4.5 and 5.0 percent for the current year as a whole is unlikely to be achieved. A lower growth rate has implications for revenues; lower tax receipts will mean a higher deficit further compounded by rising public expenditures. Thus, the overall deficit for 2012 is almost certainly going to exceed the projected figure of 4.5 percent cited by the Prime Minister.

The claim that there was “robust private sector investment” is not supported. If anything, private sector players e.g. IPPs such as YTL, Genting Power etc., have divested.
 The claims regarding FDI are audacious indeed when account is taken of the fact that the numbers cited are based on APPROVALS rather than actual flows. Moreover, no account has been taken of the large OUTFLOWS, both legal and illicit.

The outward flow of capital poses a legitimate question: Why are domestic entrepreneurs rushing to buy real estate and other assets in the UK, the USA and elsewhere? These purchases are indicative of the poor investment climate brought about by an incompetent and corrupt regime.  It is also provides an indication of the fact that the various incentives offered in previous Budgets have failed to induce the private sector to invest and provide the necessary investment response.

These trends are indicative of a ringing failure of policies. The so-called reform agenda, with its alphabet soup initiatives, has failed to move the economy forward to meeting the goals of achieving advanced economy status by 2020. It is becoming increasingly clear that the Malaysian economy is mired and stuck and will remain caught in a middle income trap until and unless bold measures are taken to implement true reforms.

The growth in market capitalization cited by the Prime Minister needs to be judged more realistically. Almost a third of the capitalization can be attributed to the GLCs. Market values have been raised by incestuous dealings and by the inflow of “hot “ short term capital flows and reflect a return to the conditions that preceded the 1997/8 Financial Crisis that had a devastating impact on the economy. Earnings reported by the listed companies do not justify the euphoria and gloating about the size of the capitalization. Indeed, the observed growth in capitalization needs to be taken as a cautionary signal indicative of an emerging bubble.

Citation of per capita income growth from RM 25,000 in 2009 to RM 31,000 in 2012 needs to be taken with a grain of salt. The numbers cited are in current price terms and ignore inflation.  Neither did the Prime Minister make mention of the worsening income disparities. Household incomes have largely stagnated and Malaysia continues to be caught in a low wage trap.

Turning to the economic prospects for the year ahead, the Prime Minister dealt with the matter in a single paragraph:

In 2013, based on the prospects of an improved global economy, the Malaysian economy is forecast to expand strongly between 4.5% and 5.5 percent. For the first time, the nation’s nominal Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is expected to exceed RM1 trillion. The higher growth is supported by private investment and consumption at 13.3% and 5.7%, respectively. The construction sector is expected to increase 11.2% followed by the services sector at 5.6%.

It is indeed remarkable that the Budget has been built on such grossly over optimistic set of assumptions both about the global and domestic economies. The Prime Minister’s assertion that 2013 will see an improved global economy is most audacious indeed and at variance with the carefully considered assessments offered by virtually every financial expert or international institution.  His assumption is an irresponsible and wholly unrealistic one.

By taking this tack, the Budget fails to take account of the bleak prospects for the global economy which will inevitably impact on Malaysia. The stark reality for the global economy is that the prospects for growth in the US economy are weak; the EURO zone according to moist observers is likely to stagnate; the UK economy is in a double dip recession; so too Japan; the two recent engines of growth in the world economy– China and India—are unlikely to recover with robust growth restored. Thus, the external environment for Malaysia is not favorable as virtually every single market for Malaysian products will be either shrinking or stagnating.

Given its integration with the rest of the world, it is widely acknowledged that the Malaysian economy is vulnerable to any prolonged downturn in the global economy or a sharp escalation in global financial stress. A fall in exports and a worsening of the terms of trade would spill over into domestic demand. Financial spillovers could include a reversal of short term foreign capital. The Prime Minister has chosen to ignore these downside risks that Malaysia faces.

Christine Lagarde, Managing Director, International Monetary Fund in a speech on Sept 24th indicated that the IMF’s updated forecasts  for the global economy will be released in Tokyo in a couple of weeks. In her speech, providing a pre-view, she forewarned and focused on the broad direction of the global economy.

She noted: “The global economy is still fraught with uncertainty, still far from where it needs to be. ……….. “  She went on to add and pointed to the increasing divergence of economic fortunes in the Eurozone; a tepid recovery in the United States; the slowdown in emerging markets; great concern in low-income countries about rising food prices and volatile commodity prices; growing frustrations across the Middle East.

Her remarks are of particular relevance to the Malaysian situation given its extensive exposure to the global economy. She noted that the major emerging markets are slowing. She urged that the need for focus should be on countering vulnerabilities—albeit domestic or external. This is a call the Prime Minister has ignored wholly.

The Prime Minister’s reference to buoyant domestic investment and consumption to support a GDP growth of between 4.5 and 5.5 per cent in 2013, rates exceeding the optimistic projected outcome for 2012, do not tie in with the facts on the ground. His assumptions are based on a hope and a prayer and are designed to lull the nation into a false sense of security even as he pursues a desperate fight to retain power.

The huge fiscal transfers to households, represented by the so called goodies, cannot be expected to support consumption. The existing high indebtedness of households would limit increases in consumption spending. Consumption would also be curtailed by the impact on confidence by the general economic outlook by lower disposable incomes in commodity intensive sectors such as palm oil and sectors linked to the manufacturing supply chain, including small and medium enterprises (SMEs).

The Prime Minister’s Budget is a huge gamble driven by short-term political and electoral considerations. He has ignored the realities of the circumstances and chosen to go forward with a fiscal package that does not address the serious challenges confronting the country. It is nothing but a desperate roll of the dice.

The policy course he has charted incorporates continued large spending resulting in a persistent and unsustainable budget deficit that has been a feature of the government’s economic policy for well over a decade.  No new initiatives were offered to get Malaysia out of the vicious circle.  It is rather telling that the Speech contained nothing substantive about needed policy reforms or a course correctioin. It focused largely on the giveaways he proposes and a political tirade against those who offer an alternative vision.

The nation needs to take particular note of the following statement in his Speech.

“Apart from the transition from bulk subsidies to targeted subsidies, a review of Malaysia’s taxation system will be continued to ensure the taxation system better reflects the household’s financial position. The transition from income based taxation system to a more comprehensive and fair taxation system will eventually benefit the rakyat”

This statement is most ominous as it lays out the intention to reduce subsidies and at the same time to introduce a GST after the General Election. This is an indication of what the Prime Minister has in store. Thus, returning him to power guarantees a double whammy of new tax burdens and a scaling back or even an elimination of consumer subsidies that benefit low and middle income groups.

It is indeed cynical of the Prime Minister to incorporate far reaching strategic policy intentions and mention these only in passing. It would appear that the Prime Minister intends to satisfy the markets in meeting deficit targets by riding on the backs of ordinary citizens.

He shows no inclination to address the pressing fiscal issues by taking a balanced approach that looks at both the revenue and expenditure dimensions. Prudent fiscal management demands that equal attention needs to be paid to both the revenue and expenditure sides of the fiscal equation. He appears to be oblivious of the needs to take a balanced approach.

It is clear that there is ample scope to check the bloated and run away expenditure. The size of the public sector has as a result of all kinds of initiatives taken by the Government under its so-called Economic Transformation Program grown rapidly.

This outturn contradicts the Prime Minister’s statement that the era of ‘government knows best is over’. Indeed, the public sector is projected to expand by a further 13.3 per cent in 2012 to account for 25.2 per cent of GDP (up from 23.3 per cent in 2011), meaning that the government will play an even larger role in the economy, rather than scale back its footprint and allow the private sector to assume a lead role in moving the economy forward.

Any rationalization of the fiscal structure of the nation must begin by improving the productivity of the public sector; the adoption of competitive bidding processes in the purchase of goods and services and construction works are needed to lead to not only greater efficiency and lower costs but also to reduce the obscene levels of corruption. It is also time to review the nation’s defense policies. There is no justification for expending billions of ringgit in acquiring over-priced submarines that do not submerge, planes that do not fly and patrol boats that can hardly float.

The time has come for true accountability and transparency in public spending. It time for the Government to disengage from activities that are best left to the private sector. It is time for the monopolistic GLCs to be delinked and to play on an even field with small and medium sized businesses permitted to grow and prosper. Malaysia needs to go through a new round of true privatization to restore vigor to the economy. The public sector, now accounting for almost a quarter of the economy, should be targeted to represent no more than 20 percent of the entire economy.

In this context it is important to note that following the Annual Consultations, the IMF concluded that high and stable growth would require sustained structural reforms anchored around medium-term fiscal consolidation. The IMF also made the following additional recommendation:

 Efforts should concentrate on increasing fiscal space to allow room for countercyclical fiscal policies, putting federal government debt on a declining trajectory, and removing distortions in the tax and subsidy system. Broadening the tax base through the proposed goods and services tax would help reduce reliance on pro-cyclical oil˗related revenues. Resource allocation would be improved by the streamlining of subsidies and wasteful tax incentives, and replacing them with targeted assistance to the needy.

The Prime Minister has ignored these important policy recommendation and stuck to policies that have failed.

Conclusion

The Budget for 2013 is grossly irresponsible as it fails to respond to the dangerous challenges the nation’s economy faces at a time when the global economy is in turmoil.

This Budget is irrelevant to the needs of the country. When bold leadership with a clear vision is demanded, the nation has been presented with a package that fails to offer realistic solutions to the problems that have accumulated after decades of poor governance.

The Budget statement is narrowly designed with a single goal: winning the upcoming General Election at whatever cost. And the cost is high both in terms of the billions of ringgit being dished out and the long term damage being inflicted on the economy by inaction and the adoption of irresponsible policy measures.

This current Budget is essentially dead on arrival. The Prime Minister would be well served under these circumstances to withdraw this Budget and seek an interim allocation to allow the Government to operate in the early months of 2013.

The most responsible and appropriate approach would be to allow for the introduction and adoption of a Budget following the General Election. A Budget introduced, post GE 13 by the winning coalition, would enjoy greater credibility, have the mandate of the people and allow for a level field for the Election to be fought out.

That would represent a victory for democracy and provide proof that the power was not being bought by a discredited incumbent regime whose mandate has all but run out.  The adoption of an interim Budget would thus mark a milestone in the maturing of governance.

The Prime Minister must take account of the fact that this Budget will not stand and will inevitably be overturned in the post-election.

A Pakatan administration will introduce a responsible Budget that reflects reality and boldly takes on the need for fiscal consolidation and other reforms that put the country on a new trajectory leading to sustainable growth providing equitable distribution of the fruits of development.

In the event the BN coalition is returned to power with a fresh mandate, it too will almost certainly be compelled into presenting a new Budget. The compulsion will arise from the fact that there will be a demand from market forces and the rating agencies for a policy package that fully addresses the serious challenges facing the economy. It will not be able to resist change, unless it wishes to face a collapse of confidence and the onset of a major economic crisis.

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 6 October 2012, 11:25 pm and is filed under
Budget Debate
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Muslims Have Pushed for Democracy

Richard W. Bulliet, a professor of history at Columbia University, is the author of “The Case for Islamo-Christian Civilization”

The New York Times

October 4, 2012

If democracy is to be born in the Muslim world, religious political parties will be the midwives.

Elections do not necessarily mean democracy, of course. Most majority-Muslim countries, including monarchies like Kuwait, Jordan and Morocco, hold elections. Usually nationalist regimes instituted them, and nationalist leaders transformed them into instruments of dictatorship, partly by banning religious parties.

Muslim political parties have been the strongest and most consistent force urging genuinely free elections in majority-Muslim nations.

The question is whether a Muslim party, once elected, would inevitably make a mockery of that process by creating a religious dictatorship.The question in both the Western and the Muslim world, however, is whether a Muslim party, once elected, would inevitably make a mockery of that process by creating a religious dictatorship.

After all, the Iranian Revolution of 1979 brought into being an Islamic Republic that seemed only a veil for Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini’s religious autocracy. Elections were held, but only candidates wedded to a religious government could run.

Iran is a failed model, however. Not only was it a product of Shi’ite political thought, which Sunni thinkers are loath to follow, but also no one knows who’s in charge – the elected president or the unelected “supreme leader.” Today even Shi’ite leaders outside Iran shun the phrase.

Muslim thinkers have long argued that fundamental Islamic texts dealing with consultation and representation support both constitutional government and elections. These arguments have gained wide acceptance, along with commitment to pluralist systems in which anyone can run for office and losers peacefully turn over power to their successors.

Is Islam compatible with democracy? Decidedly so. Does Islam encourage democratic government? No more than does any other religious tradition. But individual Muslim leaders do find in their faith the resources to sustain a commitment to elections and pluralism.

In and of itself, Islam does not prescribe a governing form. What is crucial is that more and more Muslims believe in both their religion and democracy.

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 7 October 2012, 11:32 pm and is filed under
Islam
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Nothing political in Penang dialogue, say pastors

By Opalyn Mok

The Malaysian Insider

Oct 07, 2012

Penang church pastors have refuted allegations that Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng had engaged them in political talk recently. — File picture GEORGE TOWN, Oct 7 — Penang church pastors refuted today allegations in Utusan Malaysia that Lim Guan Eng had engaged them in political talk during a recent dialogue session, the latest black mark against the Umno daily in its reporting of the state chief minister.

The DAP secretary-general has been under fire by Umno leaders and Utusan Malaysia columnist Awang Selamat for allegedly telling Christians to stand up to injustice.

“There were no political speeches made during that luncheon dialogue session between the state government and us,” national co-ordinator of the National Evangelical Christian Fellowship Pastor Sam Surendran told a press conference here this evening.

“I was present at the lunch dialogue session and all the pastors here also attended the session and we are refuting any claims that the chief minister had delivered any politicial speeches on that day,” he added.

The Umno-owned Utusan Malaysia had claimed Lim delivered a political speech at a church to garner votes for the upcoming elections. The news report had also quoted the Bishop of Lutheran Evangelical Church Rev Dr Solomon Rajah and National Church Council president Rev Dr Thomas Philips allegedly criticising Lim for using churches as a place to win votes.

Surendran said the dialogue session took place in Caring Society Complex and not in a church as reported.

“This is a dialogue session between the state government and the Penang churches, held on a neutral ground,” he said.

He said Lim did not say anything much except to listen to the grievances raised by the churches and answering the grievances.

“We were all there so we know what went on during that dialogue session and we can vouch that there was nothing political throughout the whole session,” he said.

The nine other pastors who attended the dialogue session were also present at the press conference.

Surendran said the issues discussed during the dialogue session involved problems faced by the churches such as land issues, burial ground and assessment of churches.

“This is an annual dialogue session where we get to meet with the state government so that we could voice out our concerns and issues,” he said.

“Before this, we have never had this opportunity to meet with the head of state to air our grievances and we feel this is a good move by the state government to make this an annual event,” he said.

The pastor also said other state governments should emulate the Penang state government to hold annual dialogue sessions with churches so that the churches could air their problems and grievances.

Lim, who had called the press conference, said both Rajah and Philips have denied the statements published by Utusan Malaysia and attributed to them.

“Dr Solomon had contacted me through DAP MPs that his comments were twisted while Dr Thomas has said that he was not asked to comment on the dialogue session at all and that he had no idea he was commenting on me or Penang state government,” Lim said.

Surendran also said both the senior Christian priests  did not attend the dialogue session.

The dialogue session was held on Friday afternoon between the state government and the pastors of Penang churches to discuss any issues the churches had.

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 7 October 2012, 10:11 pm and is filed under
Hishammuddin
,
Lim Guan Eng
,
Media
,
UMNO
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Rejected by Religions, but Not by Believers

by Reza Aslan, an associate professor at the University of California is the author of “No God but God” and “How to Win a Cosmic War”

The New York Times

October 5, 2012

The question of whether Islam is compatible with democracy is nonsensical at its core, first because it ignores basic empirical evidence (the five most populous Muslim countries in the world are all democracies) and second because it presumes that Islam is somehow different, unique or special — that unlike every other religion in the history of the world, Islam alone is unaffected by history, culture or context.

Anyone who would answer “no, Islam is not compatible with democracy” does not even deserve a response; this is merely recycling the same old tired and disproven stereotypes about Islam that are frankly starting to get boring.

The truth is no religion either encourages or discourages democracy. Indeed, because religions are in their nature absolutist, all religions reject the principles of liberalism and popular sovereignty that are at the heart of the democratic ideal.

But so what? Religions do not exist outside of our interpretations of them. It is no coincidence that in the United States both slave owners and abolitionists not only used the same Bible to justify their arguments, but also used the exact same verses. The power and purpose of religion lies precisely in its malleability. The same gospels that compel a middle-class American Christian in the Midwest to “turn the other cheek” compel the pummeled and poverty-stricken Christian in the hills of San Salvador to “sell his cloak and buy a sword.” The same Torah that commands the elderly Jew in Palm Beach to love his neighbor as himself commands the zealot settler in Israel to violently cleanse the Holy Land of all Arabs. The same Quran that feeds the religious fascism of Iran’s supreme leader nourishes the young Iranian activist willing to risk his life for democracy.

Here is the simple, unavoidable truth: there is no such thing as Christianity, Judaism, Islam. There are only Christians, Jews, Muslims. Religion promotes neither love nor hate, neither war nor peace, neither democracy nor fascism. People do those things, and in religion they will find the justification for any and every answer to whatever question they ask.

So, the question is not whether Islam promotes democracy. The question should be: “Do Muslims promote democracy?” And the answer is some do and some don’t, as is the case with followers of every religious tradition on earth.

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 7 October 2012, 11:22 pm and is filed under
Islam
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Stubborn Umno ‘killing’ race relations

Mohd Ariff Sabri Aziz | October 7, 2012

Free Malaysia Today

Umno’s refusal to adapt to the changing socio-political setting in the country is its own doom.

The Malaysian people have already shown that they no longer accept the Umno solution.

The coming together of various races during Bersih 3.0 earlier this year sent shivers along the spine of the Umno leadership unless of course they misread or simply refused to read the signals sent by the tens and thousands of participants who voluntarily rallied.

Umno’s approach to ‘unity’ is something like the Nazi final solution. It thinks it can achieve national unity by pitting one race against one another.

Today the Chinese, tomorrow the Indians and later all other non-Malay Malaysians.

Eventually, it will apply the same gas-chambering treatment to the Malays who dared challenge and reject Umno.

The Malays who are opposed and reject Umno are classed as either not having sufficient Malayness or apostates. The majority of us reject this fascism.

The socio-political setting in the country has changed but Umno refuses to adapt.

And those who don’t adapt will perish.

As a DAP member, I am also ready to concede that in the long run, DAP will lose its wider relevance if it also refuses to adapt to the new social setting.

The new social setting demands recognition that despite being of different races, heterogeneity does not prevent the sharing of universal and common values.

Different races value the same freedom and economic justice.

Being of different races does not preclude sharing similar ideas about equality or sharing the same idea about a common future.

You think the right thinking Malay is unmoved to see Umno abuse the Malay definition?

The ordinary Malay finds it reprehensible when Umno exploits the Malay name to enrich the elite and selected few among the Malays.

Vilifying the Chinese

Umno commits the fatal mistake of thinking it can justify almost everything by using the Malay name.

Look at the general vilification on Malaysian Chinese who are now more readily associated with DAP.

Let me ask you, who is the closest Malaysian Chinese to the Prime Minister these days?

It’s a Malaysian Chinese who just secured a RM1 billion contract to do the Ampang LRT extension works.

In that sense, the Umno president is selling out the Malays.

It is certain now that Najib had interceded on behalf of George Kent to award the Ampang LRT extension project to a Malaysian Chinese.

The company failed the technical and financial pre-qualification requirements but for Najib’s intercession, got the project anyway.

Mind you, this is the same Malaysian Chinese who was rumoured to have brokered the contract for the double tracking project for China Harbors.

Additionally, this same Malaysian Chinese was rumoured to have asked US$500 million from the Chinese government allegedly for the benefit of Najib.

‘Tanda Putera’

Umno’s direct or indirect support and endorsement to the film Tanda Putera must also be condemned as an attempt by a desperate government to drive a wedge in between the races of Malaysia.

Umno’s ‘black hand’ must be condemned as a highly irresponsible act of a government that claims it’s committed to democracy and a united Malaysia when in reality its interest is to maintain divisons within this country by playing of one anti-Umno/BN group against the other.

Is that how one proves one’s Malayness? That is the way of an imbecile.

Now, isn’t it the Malay leadership that is responsible for havoc visited upon the ordinary Malay?

The writer is a former Umno state assemblyman but joined DAP earlier this year. He is a FMT columnist

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 7 October 2012, 11:58 am and is filed under
DAP
,
UMNO
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


This week has been a great Public Relations triumph for MACC but a major setback for the war against corruption, particularly “Grand Corruption”

This week has been a great Public Relations triumph for the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) but a major setback for Malaysia’s war against corruption, particularly “Grand Corruption” by top political and public personalities.

How much of Malaysian public taxpayers’ money was spent for MACC to host the 6th International Association of Anti-Corruption Authorities (IAACA) and General Meeting 2012?

It was clearly well-spent for MACC and the Barisan Nasional Government from the harvest of superlative praises showered on Malaysia – which were all music to the ears of the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak and the MACC officers, from the plaudits by the IAACA participants  commending Malaysia’s “serious efforts” at tackling corruption to praises for the Prime Minister himself “as someone very serious about the priority he has given to fighting corruption”.

Those who do not know the true situation would be excused for thinking that Malaysia must be one of the top 20 if not top 10 countries in the annual Transparency International (TI)  Corruption Perception Index (CPI) ranking and score in terms of being least corrupt nations in the world.

But the facts tell a very different story.

The 2011 TI CPI  released last December was in fact Malaysia’s worst international report card on the anti-corruption front in 17 years since the introduction of the annual TI CPI, both in ranking and score, plunging from No.23 placing in 1995 to the worst ever of No. 60, as well as registering the lowest-ever score of 4.3 when Malaysia scored 5.28 in 1995 and 5.32 in 1996!

Is such a dismal anti-corruption record something for the MACC to celebrate by playing host to the 6th International Association of Anti-Corruption Authorities (IAACA) and General Meeting 2012?

But apparently, this glaring blemish and in fact national shame for Malaysia and the MACC had also been looked after, with the MACC arranging for a member of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Academy (MACA) international advisory board, Dmitri Vlassis, who is chief of the Corruption and Economic Crime Branch of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), to decry and discredit the TI Corruption Perception Index, dismissing it  as “outdated as it is unable to accurately account for complexities in the countries it ranks”, “counter-productive” and  “does not serve anyone’s purpose”.

Vlassis said each country responded differently in tackling corruption and as such, a country should be compared with itself and not others.

Even when comparing with itself and not others, the ineluctable fact is that the TI CPI 2011 is the worst ranking and lowest-ever score for Malaysia in 17 years, highlighting the tragic fact that corruption under Najib’s premiership is worse than the five years under Tun Abdullah and 22 years under Tun Mahathir!

Malaysia’s TI CPI ranking and score, which ranges between 10 (highly clean) and 0 (highly corrupt), from 1995 to 2011 are as follows:

Year

CPI Rank

CPI score

1995

23

5.28

>

1996

26

5.32

1997

32

5.01

1998

29

5.3

1999

32

5.1

2000

36

4.8

2001

36

5.0

2002

33

4.9

2003

37

5.2

2004

39

5.0

2005

39

5.1

2006

44

5.0

2007

43

5.1

2008

47

5.1

2009

56

4.5

2010

56

4.4

2011

60

4.3

It is indeed shocking and even outrageous that a senior official from the UN Office in Drugs and Crime (UNODC) could be  calling on Malaysians to ignore the  TI CPI 2011 on Malaysia’s  17-year worst-ever 60th ranking and lowest-ever 4.3 score.

What type of a United Nations anti-corruption officer is this?

Unlike MACC and anti-corruption globetrotters like Dimitri Vlassis, Malaysians remember that in 2004, the then new Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi announced with great fanfare the National Integrity Plan with the five-year target to improve Malaysia’s TI CPI from 37th place in 2003 to at least 30th position in 2008 and the 5.2 CPI score for Malaysia in 2003 to at least 6.5 by 2008.

Malaysia not only failed to reach these TI CPI targets of at least 30th ranking and 6.5 score in 2008, we are now double the ranking at No. 60 with lowest-ever score of 4.3 in the 2011 TI CPI!

It is most worrying that neither the Najib administration nor MACC seems worried or concerned by the trend of Malaysia being left far behind other countries in the fight against corruption in the past 17 years, including countries which had been down the list of the TI CPI ranking behind Malaysia like China, Thailand, India and Indonesia.

China was ranked No. 40 with a CPI score of 2.16 in 1995. In 2011, China is ranked No. 75 with a CPI score of 3.6.

At the annual average rate of China’s improvement and Malaysia’s regression of their CPI score in the last 17 years, China will not only catch up but will leave Malaysia behind in the TI CPI, both in ranking and in score in a matter of four years – come 2015!

Other Asian countries like Thailand, Indonesia and India are making major strides in the battle against corruption. Thailand, which was ranked No. 34 with CPI score of 2.79 in 1995 (out of 41 countries) is now ranked No. 80 (out of 183 countries) with an improved score of 3.4. India was ranked No. 35 with CPI score of 2.78 in 1995 is now ranked No. 95 with an improved score of 3.1.

Even Indonesia is making significant strides in the anti-corruption front. Ranked at the very bottom of No. 41 in 1995, with CPI score of 1.94, Indonesia is now ranked No. 100 with an improved CPI score of 3.0 in 2011.

The only other Asia-Pacific country  to keep Malaysia company of being hit with a double whammy of a lower TI CPI ranking and score in the past 17 years is the Philippines – whose TI CP ranking was No. 36 with a score of 2.77 in 1997 and both indices fell 17 years later in the 2011 TI CPI being ranked No. 129 with a score of 2.6.

But the Philippines is looking forward to great improvements in its CPI ranking and score with the catching of several “big fishes” in the anti-corruption campaign of President Aquino, most notably the sacking of Chief Justice Renato Corona by the Philippines Senate impeachment court and the indictment of former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, former Transportation Secretary Leandro Mendoza, former Commission on Elections Chair Benjamin Abalos and Local Water Utilities Chair Prospero Pichay.

Only last Thursday, Gloria Arroyo was arrested at hospital and charged over a third case of plunder and corruption during her time in power. Today it is reported that government auditors reported that Philippines lost 101.82 billion pesos (RM7.6 billion) through misuse of state funds and assets during the latter years of Gloria’s graft-tainted presidential regime.

With Philippines joining other Asia-Pacific countries with the political will to fight corruption, particularly “big fish” or “grand corruption”, Malaysia will become the “sick man” in the Asia-Pacific in the war against corruption – with other countries making progress while Malaysia going backwards in the war against corruption.

How has the just-concluded 6th International Association of Anti-Corruption Authorities (IAACA) and General Meeting 2012 helped to formulate a strategy to ensure that Malaysia keep abreast with other Asia-Pacific countries in chalking up progress in the fight against corruption instead of being relegated as the “sick man” of corruption in Asia-Pacific to keep Myanmar company?

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 7 October 2012, 3:57 pm and is filed under
Abdullah Ahmad Badawi
,
Corruption
,
Mahathir
,
Najib Razak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Voices of reason

— Foong Li Mei

The Malaysian Insider

Oct 07, 2012

Oct 7 — Tired of politicians’ mudslinging and dirty tricks? We are, too. Thankfully, the panelists at REFSA’s recent forum showed that our country still has political leaders who rise above the muck to focus on working for the best interest of Malaysia.

Her crisp and confident voice swept through the packed hall with grace and conviction. It was nothing like the ferocity fired from the top of the lungs that one has come to expect whenever a political figure is handed a microphone.

She emphasised that politicians should not be given full control of the country’s finances. She spoke of the need for an independent authority to release a pre-Budget report that serves as a reference point for the actual Budget, much like the Office of Budget Responsibility (OBR) in the UK.

She urged Malaysians to remain vigilant over government spending, and insist on having a say in how tax monies are spent.

She stressed on the importance of bridging income inequality, as poverty enslaves people’s minds, preventing them from understanding the policies that are made and the politics that are played at their expense.

The crowd did not get riled up. They were listening — which, as crowds go, was a pretty rare sight.

Nurul Izzah Anwar speaking as one of the panelists at REFSA’s recent forum.

I had to remind myself, time and again, that Nurul Izzah Anwar is a politician. I had never heard or met the Lembah Pantai Member of Parliament in person before, but given my scepticism about political leaders, I expected her speech to be yet another “We are saviours, they are evil” chin-wag.

I was wrong. As a panelist on REFSA’s recent forum Creating an Economic Tide that Lifts All Boats, Nurul Izzah stirred style into substance, but the real spark of her speech was the sincerity she exudes.

The vice president of Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR) dangled the many weaknesses of the BN administration for all to see, yet steered clear of dipping into acidic, scathing remarks.

Her illustration of policies that have worked in developed countries showed that her vision for Malaysia is built upon realistic optimism rather than baseless idealism. She did not hijack minds with personal attacks and distasteful, snide remarks about her political opponents, but captivated hearts instead with charismatic intelligence and self-deprecating humour.

Several young women were as surprised as I was at Nurul Izzah’s eloquence, and enquired if she was a lawyer by training.

In truth, this up-and-coming leader holds a Bachelor’s Degree in Engineering from Universiti Tenaga Nasional before earning her Master’s Degree in International Relations from John Hopkins University, USA.

Being a public figure calls for a very basic and necessary skill and that is the art of public speaking. The fact that many of the attendees, including yours truly, were dazzled by the quality of Nurul Izzah’s rhetoric only hammered home one sad truth — Malaysians are used to, and have come to expect, the more disgraceful variant of political speeches.

Joining Nurul Izzah as forum panelist was Liew Chin Tong, Member of Parliament for Bukit Bendera and international secretary for DAP (Disclosure: Chin Tong is also a trustee of REFSA). He, too, spoke with clarity and conviction as he offered alternative solutions to Malaysia’s current economic woes.

Liew spoke on restoring the country’s economy by reducing the reliance on cheap foreign labour. The strength of his speech lies in the examples that ordinary Malaysians can relate to.

“Why can’t garbage collectors be paid RM2000 per month?” he asked.

He went on to explain that if Malaysia’s garbage trucks could be upgraded to make the process automated, we would only need to pay for one garbage man to operate the truck, instead of an army of workers trailing along to pick up the trash bags. With manpower slashed, the sole garbage collector can be paid more, thus making garbage collecting a more attractive job, especially for the locals.

With that real-life example based, Liew successfully illustrated that most of the time, businesses do not need as many  labourers as they claim they do.

They could reduce manpower by investing in productivity improvements, but there is currently little incentive for businesses to do so, especially when hiring a whole troop of foreign labour can be much cheaper.

Liew also pointed out that to maximise profit, some businesses even prefer to employ migrant workers rather than the more expensive locals. This ultimately contributes to the rising unemployment rate in our country and low-incomes and bad work conditions.

Liew agreed with a member of the audience that one way to reduce reliance on foreign labour is to pay them wages comparable to that given to locals. If there is no longer an option of cheap labour, businesses would be forced to upgrade their productivity methods, and Malaysian workers would not be faced with unfair competition.

The forum also offered attendees a rare chance to meet a PAS leader, Dr Dzulkefly Ahmad, who was the third panelist of the day. The Member of Parliament for Kuala Selangor and executive director of PAS’ research institute clarified that the party is no longer Islamist, but Islamist Democrats (the full story has been duly highlighted in REFSA Rojak Special Feature recently).

I thought Dr Dzulkefly’s speech revolved too much around PAS’ ideologies and would have preferred him to address specific economic issues and give solid solutions.

However, the Kuala Selangor MP must have impressed the multiethnic audience of various ages as the Negara Berkebajikan (Benevolent State)  document which outlines PAS’ policies, sold like hot cakes. His own book, Striving for Change also recorded a good number of sales.

All in all, the three panelists were a breath of fresh air to me, very unlike those who engage in dirty political games that get splashed across our news pages every day. These three represent a new breed of enlightened political leaders who are ready to lead thinking Malaysians, not angry mobs.

Will Nurul Izzah, Liew and Dr Dzulkefly keep up their resolve to establish a transparent government and acknowledge citizen empowerment should the Pakatan Rakyat coalition seize Putrajaya? Only time will tell if they are immune or susceptible to power’s tendency to corrupt.

However, in the present, watching the three of them speak inspired confidence — I can imagine them taking our country out of the rut it is in. That is more than can be said about what most politicians are doing these days.

I write this not merely to give credit to these three leaders, but more importantly, to remind those politicians constantly embroiled in wars of words that their conduct is not so different from a display of fireworks – amusing, but short-lived. Malaysians are long tired of explosions, and are finding relief instead in the voices of reason and professionalism.

Nurul Izzah, Liew and Dr Dzulkefly not only struck a chord with the audience at REFSA’s forum, but also left this resounding tune in the hearts of the rakyat – Malaysia is our home; let’s do our best for her. — REFSA Rojak special feature

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 7 October 2012, 12:28 pm and is filed under
Budget Debate
,
Pakatan Rakyat
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


What Islam Says, and Doesn’t Say

Omid Safi, a professor of religious studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, is the author of “Memories of Muhammad: Why the Prophet Matters” and the editor of “Progressive Muslims: On Justice, Gender, and Pluralism.”

The New York Times

October 5, 2012

Modern nation states utilize political models that were unanticipated in any of our premodern scriptures. It is anachronistic to ask whether “Islam” endorses constitutionalism or democracy. Islam as such does not proscribe any one particular system of government. (Of course “Islam” doesn’t do anything, Muslims do. We human beings are the agents of our religious traditions.)

Rather, there are general ethical principles that have to be guaranteed under any system of government that Muslims adopt, like social justice; protection of life, property, and honor of humanity; accountability of rulers to law; distribution of wealth; and protection of minorities. All systems of government are imperfect, and it is not only good but also healthy to be perpetually vigilant against abuses of any form of government. However, it may also be the case that a genuine and robust democracy is the least imperfect of all imperfect political models today, as others before us have said.

By speaking of a robust democracy, we are not talking about simply copying the American model of democracy, which is in many ways broken — beholden to special interest groups, and perhaps better labeled as an oligarchy or plutocracy. The ideal model that I see for Muslims would be more akin to some of the European models that combine democracy with guaranteed social services like universal health care, widespread education, respect for human rights and minimized military spending. Then again, we see some of those same European models struggling today with their own inherent racism toward Muslims, so we have to be honest enough to admit that the “perfect” system is one that we will have to adapt, rather than adopt wholesale.

The conversation is ultimately about citizenship, not some mythical blending of “Islam” and “democracy.” All of us, Muslim and non-Muslim, are now citizens of pluralistic societies where we live together as neighbors. We have to begin by realizing the holistic nature of justice (and injustice); that what happens to the least of us has a profound political and moral impact on all of us.

If we are going to insist that Muslim Americans are full and complete citizens, not merely tolerated guests (and we do); if we are going to insist that Muslim Indians are full and complete citizens of India, not the tolerated descendants of “foreign invaders” (and we do); and if we are going to insist that Palestinian Muslims (and Palestinian Christians) are not second-class citizens in Israel but fully deserving of the exact same set of rights, responsibilities and privileges that Jewish citizens of Israel receive (and we do) — then moral consistency demands of us that we recognize the exact same set of rights and responsibilities for non-Muslim citizens of Muslim-majority societies. In other words, quite apart from world opinion and public relations, the fundamental commitment of justice demands that our commitment to democracy goes hand in hand with a robust notion of citizenship that encompasses every citizen of a country regardless of race, religion, gender, class and ethnicity.

To sum up, there may not be an “Islamic democracy” any more than there can be a “Christian democracy” in American that privileges Christians over non-Christians or a “Jewish democracy” that privileges Jewish citizens of Israel over Palestinians, but there can be — and today, must be — a democracy of Muslims who live side by side in a commitment to a “greater we” alongside our neighbors.

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 7 October 2012, 11:56 pm and is filed under
Islam
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Corruption: The more things change…

— Qiu Yaofeng

The Malaysian Insider

Oct 08, 2012

OCT 8 — The deputy prime minister said at the weekend that Malaysia’s gains in the Corruption Barometer (CB) over the previous two years showed Putrajaya’s fight against graft was paying off.

Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin noted that 49 per cent of Malaysians polled in 2011 by Transparency International (TI) thought that the government’s efforts to stamp out corruption were “effective”, up from 28 per cent in 2009.

But the Umno No. 2 conveniently forgot to mention that the proportion of those who responded positively rose by only one percentage point from 2010 to 2011.

So even if the poll were accepted at face value, this suggests Barisan Nasional’s (BN) anti-graft campaign has hit a brick wall, at least as far as the voting public is concerned.

But what is even more underwhelming is the fact that getting 49 per cent of the respondents to say the government has made the right moves is actually not an improvement at all.

That’s because in 2006 that proportion was almost the same at 45 per cent. The year after that, it was markedly higher — 53 per cent.

Only 2009’s outlier result of 28 per cent makes it seem as though Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak’s administration has made great strides in tackling graft. But really, we’ve just been spinning our wheels.

Hardly something for BN to crow about, especially this close to elections.

                This entry was posted on Monday, 8 October 2012, 9:17 pm and is filed under
Corruption
,
Muhyiddin Yassin
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Migrants, church may end BN’s Borneo vote bank

Reuters/The Malaysian Insider

Oct 08, 2012

KOTA KINABALU, Oct 8 — Housewife Fawziah Abdul wants to thank former Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad for making her a citizen 10 years after she illegally slipped into Borneo from the southern Philippines in search of a better life.

The 50-year-old lives on the outskirts of Kota Kinabalu, the capital of Sabah, where her tin-roofed shack jostles for space with more than 1,000 others in a slum where children play beside heaps of rubbish.

She is hopeful that her three children will get a new home and identity cards if she votes for the government again.

With a general election due within seven months, the 13-party ruling Barisan Nasional (BN) coalition is banking on Sabah and neighbouring Sarawak to prolong its 55-year grip on power.

But its support in the two Borneo states, which account for a quarter of Parliament seats, is showing signs of slipping.

A large presence of Muslim immigrants, like Fawziah, has fuelled complaints of government discrimination against Christians who have also been a bedrock of government support.

Fawziah said she was a beneficiary of a secret plan said to have been approved by Dr Mahathir that has helped fuel a five-fold surge in Sabah’s population since the 1970s and turned it into a vote bank for the ruling coalition.

“I am part of Project Mahathir,” she said, referring to the plan. “I was told to turn up at an office with two photographs and some money,” added Fawziah, who showed her identity card that lists her as a Sabah-born citizen.

Without support in the two eastern states, the ruling coalition would have lost power in the last general election, in 2008, when a resurgent opposition won a majority of votes on Peninsular Malaysia. Now that support looks fragile.

Residents of Sabah complain about competition from Filipino and Indonesian migrants for jobs in the oil and gas-rich region, whose revenues are mostly channelled to the federal government and where one in five people lives on less than US$1 (RM3.10) a day.

Christians, mostly members of indigenous groups such as the Kadazandusun in Sabah and the Dayaks and Ibans in Sarawak, once made up nearly half of Sabah’s population but now form less than a third of its 3.2 million people.

But they can still give a potentially vital boost to the opposition, which won a majority of votes in mainland Malaysia in 2008 but only got three of 56 seats in Sabah and Sarawak.

FLEXING POLITICAL MUSCLES

The election is expected to be the closest in the former British colony’s history after the coalition lost its two-thirds majority for the first time in 2008.

This is partly due to Christian, Buddhist and Hindu minorities in the mostly Muslim country abandoning the coalition, complaining of discrimination over issues such as the airing of Islamic programmes on state television.

Arnold Puyok, a political scientist at Universiti Teknologi Mara Sabah, says the frustration could translate into votes for the opposition led by Dr Mahathir’s former deputy, Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim, which could pick up at least 10 seats out of 25 in Sabah.

Opposition strategists say they need to win an extra 10 seats each in Sabah, Sarawak and mainland Malaysia to win the election with a simple majority of 112 seats.

The opposition — a coalition of Borneo parties and a mainland alliance that campaigns for greater transparency — won 15 seats from the ruling bloc in Sarawak state elections for its best showing in 24 years. It got votes from indigenous Christians as well as from the ethnic Chinese minority.

As Christian frustration grows over Muslim migrants, churches are becoming more vocal. Malaysia’s largest evangelical group held a 40 day-fast last month, which included prayers for the resolution of what they see as the immigrant problem.

The National Evangelical Christian Fellowship also held prayer meetings across the country for Malaysia Day on September 16 — a holiday marking Sabah and Sarawak’s entry into Malaysia 49 years ago. The Borneo states agreed to join Malaysia on condition that religious freedom as well as the protection of native lands and cultures were guaranteed.

“There are quite a few unhappy Sabah people. Sabahans do not usually show it openly, they are doing it through prayer,” Stephanie Rainier, a Kadazandusun among 7,000 worshippers at a stadium in Kota Kinabalu, said of people’s frustration.

“They are taking over businesses. They are everywhere,” she said of migrants.

INQUIRY, INTOLERANCE

The ruling coalition can still rely on an election system that is skewed in its favour, particularly in Sabah and Sarawak. Seat allocations are weighted heavily in favour of rural constituencies with smaller populations compared with urban centres that are more likely to favour the opposition.

But in an apparent sign of concern over his coalition’s chances in Sabah, Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak bowed to pressure in June and formed a royal commission of inquiry into the granting of identity cards to illegal immigrants.

A survey by independent pollster Merdeka Center found that immigration was the number one concern among Sabah voters. The survey also found scepticism over Najib’s motive for announcing the inquiry, with only 46 per cent of respondents believing it was a genuine attempt to address the problem.

“Only because there is an election around the corner, the government decides to do an inquiry,” said Wilfred Bumburing, a lawmaker in Sabah who quit the government coalition over its handling of the immigrant issue.

Government sources say the inquiry panel has yet to meet due to opposition from the dominant party in the ruling coalition, Umno, that controls Sabah, and from the still influential Dr Mahathir.

While repeatedly denying links to Project Mahathir to the media, Dr Mahathir said in his blog that the Filipinos and Indonesians were qualified to become citizens as they had stayed in Malaysia for more than a decade and spoke the Malay language.

The influx of Muslims, who can largely be counted on to support the ruling coalition, would appear to bolster the government. But despite that, some Christians worry about what they see as Muslim authorities’ growing intolerance.

An example, some Christians say, is the unease over Christian congregations in Sabah and Sarawak using the Arabic word Allah to refer to God.

While these Catholics, like their brethren in Indonesia, have used “Allah” since converting to Christianity in the 19th century, the government says the use of the word is subversive and is aimed at converting Muslims.

Mindful of votes, Najib has not stopped Christians in Borneo from using the word in prayers. But the government has appealed against a court ruling that allowed a Catholic newspaper to use Allah in its Malay-language editions.

“I hope there is tolerance. In reality, not publicly, subtly, you can feel there is some erosion of religious tolerance,” said Catholic Bishop Cornelius Piong after Sunday Mass in the rice-growing region of Tambunan.

“If there is no balanced leadership, people will think and they will decide,” he said, referring to the election. — Reuters

                This entry was posted on Monday, 8 October 2012, 1:41 pm and is filed under
Elections
,
Mahathir
,
Najib Razak
,
Sabah
,
Sarawak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Sendiri yang tak pandai, salahkan Soros pula

— Aspan Alias

The Malaysian Insider

Oct 08, 2012

8 OKT — Dr Mahathir semalam bercakap lagi dan menambahkan keyakinan ramai yang beliau tidak lagi berasa senang melihat kejatuhan Umno dan BN. Jika BN jatuh beliaulah orang yang paling merasakan panasnya dan ini merupakan satu igauan bagi beliau.

Beliau tidak pernah menyangka yang suatu hari nanti beliau akan tertekan dengan keadaan politik ciptaan beliau sendiri. Beliau tidak pernah menyangka yang suatu hari nanti rakyat akan membuka mata dan politik selepas itu akan menjadi mimpi ngeri bagi beliau.

Selama ini beliau merasakan beliau boleh melakukan apa sahaja terhadap politik dan rakyat negara ini. Beliau tidak pernah menyangka yang pada suatu hari selepas beliau meletakkan jawatan dan bersara dari kerajaan pimpinannya akan datang isu-isu yang menjadikan parti dan kerajaan pimpinannya akan dibelakangkan oleh rakyat semua kaum.

Berbagai cara beliau untuk mempertahankan kejatuhan Umno yang beliau tubuhkan itu. Menuduh semua orang bertanggungjawab di sana sini terutamanya pihak pembangkang. Dr Mahathir bukan sahaja mengutuk pembangkang untuk memalingkan rakyat mengarahkan kesalahan kepada beliau malahan beliau menumpukan masa dan waktunya untuk menuduh Abdullah Ahmad Badawi pemimpin yang beliau pilih sendiri untuk menggantikannya.

Semua orang salah kecuali beliau dan keluarga beliau. Dr Mahathirlah pemimpin yang bergaduh dengan semua pihak semasa beliau memegang kuasa beliau seorang sahajalah yang betul. Orang lainnya semuanya tidak betul. Orang lain semuanya anti Melayu. Hanya beliau sahajalah pejuang Melayu. Orang yang benar-benar Melayu tidak memperjuangkan Melayu tetapi mereka yang menjadi Melayu “by choice” memperjuangkan hak Melayu. Itu kepercayaan Dr Mahathir.

Kali ini Dr Mahathir mempersalahkan George Soros pula. Beliau cuba hendak menakutkan pengundi Pakatan Rakyat yang pembangkang didukung oleh Soros yang di labelkan oleh Dr Mahathir sebagai penyangak matawang antarabangsa. Soros menjadi sasaran Dr Mahathir dan semua pengikut membuta tuli beliau kerana kejatuhan nilai matawang ringgit di dalam krisis kewangan pada tahun 1997 dahulu yang menyebabkan Malaysia menjadi mangsa terbesar dari kejatuhan dan krisis matawang itu.

Seperti yang saya sebut selalu, Dr Mahathir menyalahkan semua orang diatas kesilapan dan kesalahan beliau kepada negara. Pada penghujung tahun lapan puluhan sehingga penghujung tahun sembilan puluhan Dr Mahathir telah melakukan banyak kesalahan kerana beliau merasakan beliau seorang yang begitu handal dalam semua bidang termasuk dalam bidang perniagaan matawang asing. Bidang ini bukannya bidang yang beliau faham tetapi beliau merasakan yang beliau pandai dan ingin mencuba-cuba bidang yang beliau mengetahui terlalu sedikit.

Dr Mahathir telah terlebih dahulu menjadi “penyangak” matawang asing ini dengan cuba hendak bermain-main dengan pasaran wang antarabangsa pada tahun 1992 dahulu. Beliau telah meminta Bank Negara untuk menyertai perdagangan wang antarabangsa dan akhirnya negara telah rugi melebihi RM30 billion dalam operasi perdagangan wang antarabangsa itu. Bank Negara terpaksa menjual banyak esetnya untuk mengurangkan jumlah kerugian di dalam akaun Bank Negara dan akhirnya telah memberitahu rakyat yang kerugian itu hanyalah RM9 billion sahaja. Jika Dr Mahathir berjaya dalam operasi perdagangan wang antarabangsa itu saya yakin Dr Mahathir akan lebih dahsyat lagi dari Soros. Tetapi nasib beliau tidak berapa baik, kita kerugian sebanyak RM30 billion.

Sebagai spekulator wang antarabangsa Soros dan ramai yang lain akan melakukan spekulasi terhadap mana matawang yang lemah. Kebetulan ringgit kita adalah salah satu matawang yang sudah terlalu lemah semasa itu maka semua spekulator matawang antarabangsa secara “natural” akan memilih ringgit untuk diperdagangkan.

Spekulator matawang asing mengetahui yang ringgit kita sudah lemah kerana semasa itu negara mengimport “capital goods” yang begitu besar untuk melaksanakan projek-projek raksaksa secara ekspress seperti komplek pentadbiran Putrajaya dan KLIA. Kita mesti ingat projek raksaksa seperti KLIA itu tidak pernah timbul di dalam rancangan Malaysia ke-6. Kita hanya tahu projek KLIA itu wujud ketika pembentangan separuh penggal rancangan Malaysia ke-6 itu.

Dr Mahathir mahu segala-galanya berlaku di zaman beliau tanpa berfikir yang semua projek raksaksa yang tidak dirancang itu akan membawa padah kepada kewangan negara. Beliau tidak ambil peduli yang pengimpotan “capital goods” yang terlalu besar untuk melaksanakan projek ekspress raksaksa itu akan melemahkan matawang ringgit dipasaran wang antarabangsa.

Akhirnya apabila ringgit kita lemah maka ianya menjadi mangsa kepada spekulasi matawang antarabangsa. Mereka bukan sahaja dilakukan oleh Soros tetapi ramai lagi spekulator wang anatarabangsa yang lain. Dr Mahathir sendiri mencuba-cuba untuk menjadi spekulator wang antarabangsa pada tahun 1992 dengan menggunakan BNM dan Nor Mohammad Yakcop tetapi gagal dengan kerugian sejumlah yang saya sebut tadi.

Bezanya Soros menjadi spekulator wang antarabangsa yang berjaya, Dr Mahathir pula menjadi spekulator wang antarabangsa yang gagal. Tidak ada bezanya Dr Mahathir dengan Soros itu jika dilihat dari sudut yang lain.

Sekarang Dr Mahathir hendak menyalahkan Soros pula kerana kelemahan yang dihadapi oleh Umno dan BN. Beliau cuba untuk membina pemikiran rakyat, jika memilih PR ia bermakna memilih pilihan Soros. Tetapi mesti ada yang percaya dengan kata-kata Dr Mahathir ini, tetapi kepada siapa yang menggunakan pemikiran yang sebaik-baiknya ia tidak kena mengena dengan Soros dalam membuat pilihanraya yang akan datang ini.

Membuat tuduhan yang Soros adalah dibelakang kekuatan PR itu merupakan tuduhan yang keluar dari seorang pemimpin yang “desperate”. Bagi mereka yang menyokong PR, mereka tidak perlu memberikan apa-apa reaksi. Hanya ringankan lidah dan beristighfar banyak-banyak kerana untuk menolak yang bathil memerlukan fokus dan kesabaran yang tinggi. Anggap sahaja pandangan Dr Mahathir itu sebagai pandangan seorang yang sakit. Tidak perlu di ambil hati dan tidak perlu mendengar kata-kata orang yang sedang dalam kegeringan moral kepimpinan itu.

Tetapi sakit jiwa politik ini bukan sahaja dialami oleh Dr Mahathir tetapi ia sedang dialami oleh pemimpin-pemimpin yang lain seperti Najib, Muhyiddin dan keseluruhan barisan kepimpinan BN khususnya Umno.

Jika berjaya rakyat menolak kepimpinan Umno dan BN dalam pilihanraya nanti kita boleh melakukan penyatuan semula tanpa mereka-mereka yang memimpin pada hari ini yang tidak habis berusaha untuk memecah belahkan kita di bawah ini.

Kita bersatu di luar Umno dan BN. Kita bermaaf-maafan di antara satu dengan lain dan terus bersatu. Selepas itu kita bangunkan negara dengan telus untuk mencapai matlamat negara yang satu, iaitu perpaduan nasional yang sejati dan berkekalan.

Selagi ada pemimpin seperti pemimpin yang sedang kita perkatakan ini serta yang lain-lain dalam Umno itu, selagi itulah kita tidak akan berjaya mencapai matlamat perpaduan nasional yang kita idam-idamkan itu.

Kita sudah jemu dipecah dan diperintah oleh pimpinan dari acuan Dr Mahathir ini. Kita wajib keluar dari budaya pecah perintah ini dan kita berharap kehidupan rakyat tidak lagi “stressful” seperti yang rakyat sedang hidapi sekarang. — aspanaliasnet.blogspot.com

                This entry was posted on Monday, 8 October 2012, 1:57 pm and is filed under
Mahathir
,
UMNO
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


The Havoc Education Reform Inflicts: Education Blueprint 2013-2025 (Part 4 of 5)

By M. Bakri Musa | October 7th, 2012

www.bakrimusa.com

Fourth of Five Parts:  Roar of An Elephant, Baby of a Mouse

[In the first three parts I critiqued the Blueprint’s recommendations; specifically its failure to recognize the diversity within our school system and thus the need to have targeted programs, the challenge of recruiting quality teachers, and the link between efficiency efficacy, and quality.  In this Part Four, I discuss the major areas the report ignores.]

Education Blueprint 2013-2025 lacks clear authorship.  The document carries forewords by Najib, Muhyyiddin, and the ministry’s Secretary-General as well as its Director General, while the Appendix credits a long list of those involved in this “robust, comprehensive, and collaborative effort,” but the Blueprint itself is unsigned.

            It is also impossible to tell who actually is in charge of this whole reform effort.  According to the complicated box-chart diagram, the entire endeavor was anchored in a 12-member “Project Management Office” (PMO) that reported to the Ministry’s Director-General as well as to an 11-member “Project Taskforce” that in turn reported to Muhyyiddin.  Both the PMO and Taskforce are manned exclusively by ministry officials.  Then there are the local and international panels of experts.

            Such a convoluted arrangement could easily degenerate into a morass when no individual is tasked to be in charge.  Every military operation needs a commanding general; every orchestra, a conductor.  That is the greatest deficiency with this reform exercise; no one was in charge, likewise with writing the report.

            This is typical of the Malaysian civil service “management by committee” mode.  So it is difficult to heap praise, or in this case, lay blame.  That no one was in charge could be gauged by the final product.  For a report that claims to be comprehensive, aimed no less at transforming the system, it is disjointed and lacks a central theme.  It heaps praise on the system’s “remarkable achievements” for the past 55 years.  If that is so, why reform it?  The Blueprint embellishes how well our students had performed on national examinations over the years, and then cites the PISA and TIMSS reports that indicate otherwise.

            There are also many technical but irritating deficiencies, as with the lack of references.  The Appendix makes only general references to reports from such bodies as the World Bank, OECD, and UNESCO.  Those are relatively easy to trace.  However, when it quotes studies done by local universities, there are no specific references, leading one to suspect that those studies are not of publishable quality.

            Those aside, my greatest disappointment is the Blueprint’s failure to address the system’s obvious and critical weaknesses that demand immediate attention:  rural national schools; religious stream; and vocational education.  All three regularly perform at the bottom; improve them and you improve the system’s overall performance.  For another, the students affected are mostly if not exclusively poor Malays.  This failure to address their problems is made more incomprehensible and inexcusable because those involved with this reform, from Muhyyiddin on downwards, are mostly Malays.  While today they may live in plush bungalows at Putrajaya, scratch a bit and the kampongness would ooze out of their pores.  During Hari Raya they all fled en mass balek kampong.

            Surely on those trips they would hear and see the plight of the children of their cousins and other relatives.  I too was once one of those children.  On visiting my kampong recently, I was painfully reminded of my earlier challenges.  Only now they are worse.

            At least during my childhood I could dream that if I were to do well in school, I could escape my kampong.  Today even if those children were to excel, their opportunities would be severely limited because their limited command of English.

            Then there is the problem of school transportation.  At least during my time there was a bus service, erratic though that was.  Today there is none.  Those children have to depend on fellow villagers who happen to have a car.  If perchance he is sick or slept over that morning, then those half a dozen or so children that he normally packs into his tiny Kancil would miss school.

            The biggest school expense my parents faced was their children’s bus fares.  It still is for those village parents.  American schools are required to provide free transportation especially for rural students.  During colonial rule schools had hostels to cater for those from remote areas.  If we have more such facilities then those students would not have to cross rickety bridges over dangerous rivers as often.

            The wonder is that chronic absenteeism and academic underachievement are not worse with kampong kids.  The Blueprint does not address this.  A simple solution would be to have specific transportation allocation for each school for those pupils who live far away.  The headmaster would then issue vouchers to be redeemed by the student and the village taxi driver.  Better yet, the school could contract directly with individual village car owners and taxi drivers.  There are other possibilities; all you need is for someone to first identify the problem and then diligently think about solving it.

            The panel should be less enamored with advanced countries like Finland and South Korea, and instead learn from such poor countries as Mexico.  The problems of our kampong children are closer to those of Mexico than South Korea.  Mexico’s Progressa program pays poor rural families for their children to attend school.  The scheme also extends to healthcare as with immunizations.  The money typically goes to the mothers.  The program has been modernized such that there are no transfers of cold cash as in the past, rather direct deposit into bank accounts.  Yes, bank accounts for poor illiterate villagers!  That also brings them into the modern economy, quite apart from bypassing petty local civil servants.

            The poor are identified through direct surveys, so even those who do not register or distrustful of governments are not missed.  The program is specifically divorced from the ruling political party; hence no political patronage and the associated corruption and leakage.  The initiative has been remarkably effective in targeting the hard-core poor, and with low administrative costs.

            Progressa reveals the close relationship between health, poverty, and educational achievements, and that all three could be simultaneously addressed effectively with a social initiative that is low cost, highly efficient, and remarkably efficacious.  Progressa underscores the wisdom of former US Surgeon General Jocelyn Elders, “You can’t educate a child who is not healthy, and you can’t keep a child healthy who isn’t educated.”

            Then there are the dilapidated conditions of rural schools; many lack power and potable water.  If they have power then they could use computers and two-way videoconferencing so that one teacher centrally located could serve several classes from different schools.  This is particularly useful for small schools as they can be combined online.  Similarly, the shortage of teachers for specialized subjects like music could be overcome by sharing one teacher rotated among many schools in one district.  Both strategies are effectively used in rural America.

            As for vocational education, we cannot be an economic power unless we have well trained and skillful workforce for manufacturing as well as for the service sector.  Specifically for Malays, the only way for signs like “Mahmud Motor Repairs” and “Halimah Hair Saloon” to appear on our main streets is to train these skillful workers.  Again, we do not have to re-invent the wheel.  Germany provides an excellent example of industry/school collaborative apprenticeship programs.

            Then there are the religious schools.  They share all the challenges of national schools, only worse.  Physically, the standard of hygiene of their canteens is atrocious while their hostels are death traps, lacking basic safety features as sprinkler systems.  They lack even mosquito nets.

            Beyond the awful facilities, the religious stream faces an even far daunting challenge.  Its educational philosophy, pedagogical approach, and learning psychology are archaic, misguided, and simply wrong.  This is an affliction peculiar not only to Malaysia but also most Muslim countries, and from the highest institutions like Al Azhar to the lowest local Al Arqam preschool.

            Abdullah Munshi best described the approach and philosophy of modern education:  It treats the human mind as a knife to be sharpened.  Current Islamic education on the other hand considers the human mind a dustbin to be filled with dogmas.

            The possibilities with a sharp knife are limitless.  In the hands of a surgeon it can cure cancer; a sculptor, an exquisite work of art.  With a dustbin all you could get out of it is what you put in, nothing more.  That assumes nothing gets stuck or crushed at the bottom.  Yes, a sharp knife in the hands of a thug is a lethal killing weapon.  This is where religious education comes in so that when we send our young abroad to study nuclear engineering they will come home to manufacture radio-pharmaceuticals to cure cancer, and not build nuclear weapons.

            What goes on in those religious schools and universities is indoctrination masquerading as education.  The emphasis is on mindless recitations and the quoting of earlier scholars and luminaries.  The strength of your argument is not based on logic or data but the pedigree of your quoted authorities.  Religious education as presently practiced entraps rather than liberates Muslim minds.

            The irony is that modern education has all the hallmarks of early Muslim practices and philosophy, at least until the so-called “closure of the Gate of Ijtihad” in the 12th Century.  Many would attribute the decline of the Muslim world since then to this “closure of ijtihad” and with it, the closing of the Muslim mind.  Those longing for an Islamic Renaissance would do well to first critically examine current religious education.

            The other irony is that only in America and Singapore, two secular countries with Muslim minorities, have Islamic schools been modernized.  Blueprint 2013-2025 does not even address religious education in Malaysia.

            Religion is now a major influence in national schools.  That is one reason why non-Malays are abandoning the system.  Removing religious studies from national schools, as some are advocating, is not the solution.  Then we would be back to my childhood days, where I was put in the hands of the pondok ustads in afternoon schools.  The only way I survived that intellectual dissonance was to strictly compartmentalize my mind between my morning secular school and afternoon religious one.  Sooner or later I had to reconcile the obvious contradictions.  We should never burden young minds with such heavy dilemmas; instead we should guide them in reconciling the two and thus benefiting from both.

            We should teach our young early that there is no contradiction between secular and religious knowledge, and that the division between the two is false and artificial.  Keeping religion in our national schools would best demonstrate that unity of knowledge.  Metaphorically put, modern education sharpens the knife while religious education guides one to use it as a surgeon or sculptor would, to good purpose.  I do not suspend my rational capacity on reading the Koran or listening to a sermon, and I do not shelve my religious convictions when I conduct scientific experiments or operate on my patients.

            Before we could bring religious studies into national schools, the manner, objective and philosophy of teaching it would have to be revamped.  It should be taught as an academic subject, not as theology.

            After discussing these major deficiencies, it would seem petty if not anti-climactic to cite the Blueprint’s other omissions, which pale in comparison.  However, I will include two more.  Though seemingly minor, they reflect the panel’s lack of diligence and failure to critically analyze data.

            The Blueprint quotes at length in the text and appendix both TIMSS and PISA.  Malaysia paid considerable sums to participate in those studies.  They are well designed and tested a broad spectrum of students so as to get as representative a sample as possible.  However, its report presents only a composite of the nation as a whole.

            As is obvious, there are vast differences between the students at Penang’s Chung Ling versus Kelantan’s Madrasah Al-Bakriyyah, between SMK Ulu Temiang versus SMJK (Tamil) Ulu Tiram.  Those differences would be captured in the data of TIMSS and PISA but Malaysian scholars and policymakers have not analyzed them.

            In America, Singapore, and elsewhere those statistics are pored over, with reams of papers published.  Not so in Malaysia.  That is all the more surprising as the data are in the public domain.  Had that been done, the disparities within Malaysia would have been shocking.  Perhaps that was why the panel contends itself only with the composite findings.

            The one chapter missing from the Blueprint would be, “Lessons From The Past.”  There is no attempt at critically looking at past reforms, their successes and especially the failures.  If we do not examine them we are no likely to learn and thus likely to repeat the same mistakes.  Then when the next Minister of Education arrives, he too would once again embark on another “bold, comprehensive, and transforming reform.”

            If I were to be tasked with this awesome responsibility of reviewing our education system, I would approach it differently.  And that will be the focus of my next and last part of this commentary.

Next:  Part 5:  Cannot Be Part of the Solution if You Are Part of the Problem

                This entry was posted on Monday, 8 October 2012, 4:43 pm and is filed under
Bakri Musa
,
Education
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


‘Utusan lied about church ticking off Penang CM’

By
Lee Long Hui
 | 1:54PM Oct 8, 2012

Malaysiakini

Two Christian leaders quoted by Utusan Malaysia as having criticised the Penang chief minister, have slammed the report as a “complete lie”.

 Lutheran Evangelical Church bishop Solomon Rajah and former Council of Churches Malaysia (CCM) president Thomas Philips (right) said their words had been taken out of context in the report headlined ‘Church is not a place for politics’.

They have demanded a retraction of the report published in the Sunday edition, Mingguan Malaysia, and a public apology from the Umno-owned Utusan in its next edition.

At a press conference today, at which CCM secretary general Hermen Shastri was present, the two explained that the reporter concerned had only contacted them for their general views on “the church and politics”.

“It was never a reaction or response to Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng’s dialogue with pastors in Penang,” said Solomon.

“Never was I aware that I would be misquoted (or that what I said would be) misconstrued. I never knew that my views would be used to serve Utusan’s own purpose and agenda. This is sad.”

Solomon, who sees himself as an ardent supporter of Lim, stressed that he would not have consented to the interview had he known that Utusan would misquote him.

Among others, the Mingguan report had quoted Solomon as saying “I’m sure (Lim) knows that the church need not be urged to stand up for justice for political purposes.”

‘Reporter should apologise, too’

Philips said the report “is a complete lie” that has jeopardised his reputation, insisting that his actual views had not been reported.

“It is an act of defamation. I am shocked and outraged by the journalist’s lack of competency,” he said.

“What I said was not what was reported, and stands against everything I personally believe in. I would like the reporter herself to apologise for this inaccurate and misleading report.”

However, both said they are not interested in pursuing legal action.

Philips said they just wanted to point out that Utusan “is lying”, explaining that he does not think the church “has time to go into legal action”.

Echoing him, Solomon said it would be enough for the daily to apologise.

“I’m not taking any legal action. I don’t have time for this because I have other things to do,” he added.

                This entry was posted on Monday, 8 October 2012, 4:19 pm and is filed under
Media
,
Religion
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


IMF warns of fresh global crisis unless eurozone finds a fix

Phillip Inman in Tokyo

The Guardian

8 October 2012

World economic outlook warns of fresh downturn as European ministers asked to try and promote growth

The International Monetary Fund has urged Eurozone leaders to act swiftly in response to the debt crisis in Greece and Spain, or risk dragging down the global economy with another financial crisis.

The IMF warned that the situation was grave and could escalate into a wider downturn unless national leaders ended their disputes with a long-lasting deal. As eurozone finance ministers met in Luxembourg for crisis talks and the launch of the euro’s permanent rescue fund, the IMF urged Europe and the US to promote growth to help major developing economies like China, Brazil and India .

The Washington-based lender said at the start of its annual meeting, in Tokyo, that the “downside risks are judged to be more elevated than in the April 2012 or September 2011 world economic outlook reports”. The annual assessment of the global economic situation said it was not clear whether the situation was another bump in the road to recovery or a worsening of the situation. “The answer depends on whether European and US policymakers deal proactively with their major short term economic problems,” it said.

The warning comes against a backdrop of slowing GDP growth across developed countries and much of the developing world as trade dries up and governments increasingly hide behind protectionist barriers. Although Britain was singled out by the IMF as one of the developed nations expected to grow next year, chancellor George Osborne was forced to concede in his speech to the Conservative party conference on Monday that lack of growth in the past two years meant austerity measures could last until as long as 2018.

And the IMF admitted that it, like many other forecasting organisations, had underestimated the negative impact on growth of steep cuts in public spending. It said: “Staff research suggests that fiscal cutbacks had larger than expected negative short-term multiplier effects on output, which may explain some of the output falls.”

The World Bank, which is holding its annual meeting alongside the IMF in Tokyo, added to the gloom with a report that warned of a cuts in growth across the developing world. Stock markets tumbled as the prospects for growth were trimmed by the bank, which mainly lends to cash-strapped poorer countries.

The FTSE finished the day at 5845, down 26 points, while continental stock markets also fell. Figures showing German manufacturing has lost much of its vitality over the summer compounded gloomy assessments of the French economy to further depress markets. But eurozone ministers were adamant that Spain would not need a bailout and was capable of refinancing its banks and keeping within budget constraints without the need for a further EU funds.

The German finance minister, Wolfgang Schaeuble, said Madrid had made clear it wanted no help. “Spain needs no aid programme. Spain is doing everything necessary, in fiscal policy, in structural reforms,” he said as he arrived at the launch of the European Stability Mechanism in Luxembourg, which will eventually have €500bn (£405bn) at its disposal.

Osborne told conference that he would need to make extra cuts in welfare spending until 2018 to reduce the UK’s structural deficit. He blamed the slowdown in the global economy for the difficulties faced by the UK as it seeks to increase exports and rebalance the economy towards manufacturing.

The global economy will grow at 3.3% this year and 3.6% next year, the IMF said, down 0.2 and 0.3 points respectively from forecasts earlier this year. The UK is expected to suffer a 0.4% reduction in national income this year before recovering to 1.1% next year. Only two years ago, world output was 5.1% and the recovery from the 2008 crash seemed under way.

Since then a fall in demand across the west has forced China to cut production. Countries dependent on the sale of commodities have experienced falling prices, further eroding their capacity to pick up the slack left by indebted developed nations.

The IMF’s first deputy managing director David Lipton blamed much of the instability and fear in the global economy on the US, which he said needs to do more to show it is trying to address the expiring tax cuts and automatic spending reductions that will hit early next year unless Congress acts. While most of the focus has been on Europe, Lipton stressed that the US fiscal problems also posed a significant threat.

“We would like to see the United States lower the level of uncertainty by embracing more specifically the need to avoid the fiscal cliff and deal with the medium-term problems,” said Lipton, a former economic adviser to President Barack Obama.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 9 October 2012, 7:24 pm and is filed under
international economic crisis
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Najib – a man trying to do a woman’s job

by Mariam Mokhtar

Malaysiakini

Oct 8, 2012

It is wrongly believed that when women speak, men only hear nagging.

The tragic prime minister Najib Abdul Razak, who is under intense pressure at home, should refrain from bringing his domestic problems into the workplace. For him to dismiss the need for a women’s rights movement in Malaysia is premature and daft.

Millions of women in Malaysia face violence, intimidation and other prejudices, in private, at work and in public. The instruments of the state and the Syariah Court have failed to deal with their problems.

The PM opined that “equality has been given from the start”for Malaysian women.

In the first instance, neither he nor his party gave women that equality. It was the British colonial administration which gave the women of Malaya schooling. Despite that, they still had to fight for jobs, demand equal pay and battle other forms of discrimination.

What was Najib trying to prove, when he took on the role of minister for women, family and community development? That he is a super-man? Or a super-hero? Or was this a Malay male conspiracy to reduce the increasing influence of women? Women like Ambiga Sreenevasan, Maria Chin Abdullah and Cynthia Gabriel.

Najib is probably unaware that men cannot multi-task. Has he tried to juggle a career and start a family at the same time? Has he put himself in the shoes of a working mother, whose work is never done? Women return home only to continue with household chores, childcare, supervision of homework, shopping and for some, caring for their elderly parents.

A woman is better at listening, is more empathetic than her male counterpart, is able to read between the lines and is a better observer. If Najib had any peripheral vision, he would ‘see’ the multitude of problems faced by women in Malaysia and rectify them. His tunnel vision prevents him from seeing that the Malay community is beset with the problems of single mothers, abandoned wives and broken families.

Many Malay men will protect their right to polygamy, but reject the responsibilities towards their wives. Some discard their wives with gay abandon, and make no provision for maintenance and childcare.

Many women give up good jobs to bring up their children and support their husbands while they build their careers. When they are abandoned, the women have to depend on hand-outs or part-time work.

Perhaps, as a means of cushioning their daughters from irresponsible men, some fathers have urged their daughters to be financially independent, by giving them a sound education and a head-start in life.

Although studies may show that women comprise 50-60 percent of the tertiary student population, Najib was wrong to criticise women for constituting only 40 percent of the workforce: “It’s a waste as we spend a lot of money sending women to university but they quit their jobs later. We want them to have families and still work.”

When working women marry, they find that childcare is both expensive and unpredictable. The influx of families to towns and cities means that support from extended families is absent. Furthermore, very few companies provide flexi-time to accommodate the woman’s needs for a family life.

Lack of aspiration

If Najib wants something to chew on, he might like to ponder the lack of aspiration of some of today’s young Malay women. They have no desire to study hard but instead, target middle-aged and established, married Malay men to become the second, third or fourth wife. They are not bothered if the marriage lasts. They are content provided they have a child from the union, a house, a car and access to the man’s pension fund.

If the PM is unconvinced, he should seek the opinions of first and perhaps second or third wives.

A union should be made to last, but in one corner of the Malay world, a union is only till the next sweet-young-thing comes along, or for the modern, material girl, till an old, wealthy man is hooked.

When Najib said the women’s rights movement has no place in Malaysia, was he afraid of the growing influence of women, or was he fearful of PKR president Dr Wan Azizah Wan Ismail’s announcement that the opposition would empower women rather than adopt the Umno attitude of enslaving them? Najib has also failed to meet the requirement for 30 percent representation of women in Parliament.

A few years ago, Ahmad Shah Mohd Zin, the secretary-general of the Congress of Unions of Employees in the Public and Civil Service, complained that too many women were in decision making roles in the administrative and diplomatic service.

Soon after this, the National Population and Family Development Board announced that women should have more babies and not put off marriage. They saw that fertility rates had dropped from 3.4 in 1995 to 2.2 in 2007.

In BN, female politicians are allowed to debate a proposed Bill in parliament, but are banned from voting with the dictates of their conscience. They are forced to be subservient and toe the BN line.

Female politicians like the Umno senior exco member for Perak, Hamidah Osman aka ‘Snake Woman’, provide poor role models for women. Hamidah rejected the idea of a woman menteri besar (MB) because, “a MB would have to meet religious officers and the sultan”.

No reason to fear women

Under Najib, women’s issues are swept under the carpet. Fatimah Abdullah, the Sarawak assistant minister in the Chief Minister’s Department, failed to speak up for the Penan girls who were raped and sexually exploited by the timber loggers.

Also, in Najib’s administration, women continue to be used and abused. Rapists are free to pursue their bright careers whilst victims are hung out to dry.

Of course, Malaysia is seen as a progressive nation when compared to other Muslim countries. Our women can still drive cars, unlike in Saudia Arabia. Our women are merely flogged and imprisoned for pre-marital sex, and not stoned as in Afghanistan.

If men like Najib had their way, it would not be long before women were barred from certain university courses, as the government of Iran announced last month. In the past few days, IKEA had air-brushed women from catalogues meant for the Saudi market.

Najib should stop pandering to the wishes of the male chauvinists and clerics in his political and social circles. Declining birth rates, better educational standards for women and the increasing numbers of female professionals in industry, should not be a reason to fear women.

Najib’s lust for control is destroying the rakyat, more than it is ruining him. He cannot fill the shoes of a prime minister. As finance minister, he is careless with money. Is he also drawing the salary of the minister for women?

Najib may have been emasculated by his wife, but he still cannot do the job of a woman.

——————————————————————————–

MARIAM MOKHTAR is a non-conformist traditionalist from Perak, a bucket chemist and an armchair eco-warrior. In ‘real-speak’, this translates into that she comes from Ipoh, values change but respects culture, is a petroleum chemist and also an environmental pollution-control scientist.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 9 October 2012, 3:30 pm and is filed under
Mariam Mokhtar
,
Najib Razak
,
women
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


War on corruption

— Lim Sue Goan

The Malaysian Insider

Oct 09, 2012

OCT 9 — Deputy Prime Minister Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin believes that Malaysia will be successful in its war on corruption. This is an over-optimistic view.

The government seems to have strengthened its efforts in fighting corruption, including enforcing the Whistleblower Protection Act, establishing special corruption courts, listing those who have been successfully prosecuted for corruption offences on the MACC website, making public the bidding results of government projects, reducing business licences, and 128 corporates have signed the Corporate Integrity Pledge (CIP) to prevent corrupt practices in their companies. However, corruption remains serious, as the government has neglected loopholes in the law that have enabled corrupt practices among senior officials. There is no mandate requiring that senior officials declare their assets and the anti-corruption movement lacks credibility.

The impression of the general public on anti-corruption is, only small fish are convicted and even if the big ones are caught and charged, they would be released as senior officials involved in corruption know how to make themselves “innocent”.

MACC deputy chief commissioner Datuk Mohd Shukri Abdull pointed out a few days ago that, under Section 23 of the MACC Act 2009, it is difficult to charge a decision making officer for corruption if there is no evidence showing him or her to have awarded government project contracts with interest conflicts.

It is why those who have awarded government contracts to their husbands or sons can evade getting caught. It is not necessary for the decision-making officer to attend the meeting when the decision is made, as other attendees would know what to do to impress him or her.

Not only subordinates and colleagues, but business operators also try to please officers who are high in ranking. Therefore, mentri besar can use their status to buy cheap land, houses or cars.

It is indeed hard to find evidence showing one has used his or her power to gain profits. For example, if some government agencies take the initiative to provide manpower and other resources to help the son of a senior official hold a wedding party, can we call it a corruption practice?

Shukri said that the MACC has charged many public officials under Section 23, but the loophole has enabled many big fish to get away. However, the government cannot just leave it and do nothing. Former Deputy Commissioner of Hong Kong’s Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) Daniel Li Ming-chak suggested at the 6th Annual Conference and General Meeting of the International Association of Anti-Corruption Authorities (IAACA) that Malaysia could consider charging crooked public officials for public misconduct, when corruption is difficult to prove.

If the government continues to tolerate such power abuse practices among public officials, it is very likely to lead to habitual organised and crony corruption, and eventually becomes a malignant tumour difficult to eradicate in the administrative system.

In addition, whether there is a mandate requiring senior officials to declare their assets will be enough to affect the outside world’s judgement upon the government’s anti-corruption determination. No asset declaration means the lack of transparency, and it allows senior officials to play tricks behind the scene.

If the MACC lacks manpower to watch over public officials, members of the public can assist the law enforcement units through the asset declaration system.

Under the existing laws, it is helpless even if the people know that children of a high-ranked official are keeping hundreds of millions ringgit in their bank accounts.

To win the war on corruption, members of the society of all levels must work together. When the people doubt the government’s corruption eradication commitment, they would not take initiative to report and stay away from corruption, while those practising corruption would not believe that they would be caught.

How could we say that we will definitely win the war on corruption when the credibility of the anti-corruption movement is low? — MySinchew.com

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 9 October 2012, 7:49 pm and is filed under
Corruption
,
Muhyiddin Yassin
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.