Are UMNO Ministers and leaders  prepared, 66 years after Datuk Onn suggested it,  consider opening UMNO doors to non-Malays to become an inclusive Malaysian political party?

The pathetic statement by the Communications and Multimedia Minister, Datuk Seri Salleh Said Keruak that fielding more Malay candidates in the next general elections does not make DAP a multiracial party is the latest proof of the narrow-minded and  petty mentality of the  present UMNO leadership, which is completely bogged down by  the politics of race and the failure of Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak’s 1Malaysia Policy.

Malaysia is a plural society and the racial, religious, linguistic and cultural diversity of the country is a national asset and not a liability.

Malaysians will continue to be Malays, Chinese, Indians, Dayaks, Kadazan-Dusun-Muruts, Orang Asli  or Muslims, Buddhists, Christians, Hindus, Taoists, Sikhs but the success of Malaysian nation-building will be measured by our ability  to create an overarching common national identity where we are Malaysians first and race, religion, region and socio-economic status second – in othe words, where despite our racial, religious, linguisticm,  cultural and socio-economic  differences, we accept each other as Malaysians first above all else.

In this context, UMNO Ministers and leaders like Salleh Said Keruak should welcome DAP reaching out to get more Malay, Dayak, Kadazan-Dusun-Murut and Orang Asli support and emulate the DAP example to graduate from Malay to become Malaysian leaders instead of decrying such a development.

Is UMNO prepared to emulate the DAP’s example and reach out to all non-Malays and non-Muslims by welcoming them into UMNO ranks?

Is Salleh a Minister for Malays only or a Minister for all Malaysians?

Are UMNO Ministers  and leaders prepared, 66 years after  founder UMNO President Datuk Onn  Jaffar suggested it,  consider opening UMNO doors to non-Malays to become an inclusive Malaysian political party?

When will UMNO become an inclusive Malaysian political party and open its membership not just to Malays and Muslims but to all Malaysians or  will it forever remain an exclusive party for Malays and Muslims only and Datuk Onn’s vision of 1950 will  remain forever  a pipe-dream?

If UMNO takes tentative steps to be an inclusive Malaysian political party opening its doors to all Malaysians, I will publicly welcome and laud such a landmark development and  not throw stones and gripe like Salleh Keruak  that just opening its doors to non-Malays  would not make UMNO an inclusive multi-racial Malaysian party.

The Salleh Keruaks must learn  to be Malaysian leaders and not bogged down by exclusive communal dynamics which prevent them from  transcending communal barriers to rise to an inclusive and larger Malaysian consciousness and identity.

Salleh is Najib’s new czar for information and multimedia communications.

Two days ago, he said he would chair a special team comprising representatives of the Attorney-General’s Chambers and the police to deal with the misuse of social media spreading hatred and religious extremism in the country.

DAP leaders and I  have long been victims of UMNO-Barisan Nasional cybertroopers misusing the social media to disseminate lies and falsehoods about the DAP, like the lies that I had led illegal and anti-Malay anti-Islam street processions in Kuala Lumpur causing the May 13 riots in Kuala Lumpur in 1969, when I was never in Kuala Lumpur during  the relevant period, or that the Israelis had offered RM1.2 billion to the DAP in the last general election in exchange for a Israeli naval base in Port Dickson when it was a downright lie unlike the fact and scandal of  RM2.6 billion “donation” in Najib’s personal bank accounts before the 13th General Election.

Yesterday, we read about the new lies on the social media that Parti Amanah Negara was backing DAP Secretary-General and Penang Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng as Pakatan Harapan’s candidate for prime minister.”

As Amanah communications director Khalid Samad said yesterday, only “crazy people” will believe in such “crazy lies”.

Will Salleh’s special team investigate who are the UMNO/BN cybertroopers responsible for such lies which are calculated to spread hatred and foment conflict and tension in our nation?

In his speech at the launch of Wisma Hua Zhong in Seri Kembangan, Selangor yesterday, Najib gave an undertaking to “fight tooth and nail” against any form of terrorism and any form of extremism, whether it is religious or racial extremism.

While Najib’s vow is most timely with the Islamic State (IS) outrageous attacks in Jakarta, Istanbul and Paris, and reports of police success in the arrest of a Malaysian citizen who is an Islamic State (IS) operative at Setiawangsa LRT in the midst of carrying out a suicide attack in the country, it is a matter of concern that the Global Movement of Moderates (GMM) initiated by Najib is now headed by a person not highly regarded by Malaysians as an epitome of moderation.

In this connection, Najib and the Cabinet should give serious study to a recent report entitled “Indonesian and Malaysian Support for The Islamc State”, that a “genuinely” moderate Islamic agenda is the proper counter to thwart the Islamic State (IS) militant group.

The report, produced by the United States Agency for International Development, said Malaysia’s counter-terrorism efforts had achieved some success but was curtailed by government support for conservative Islamic interests.

It said Putrajaya’s right-wing bent, borne out of the need to arrest Umno’s declining support, alienated an important Muslim population that could have helped in combating the militants’ influence.

It said that  Malaysia’s “moderate Islamic image”  projected internationally is not reflected in domestic policy that is increasingly sectarian and hostile, not only to minority religious rights but also to progressive Muslim views.

What is Salleh’s response, and that of Najib and the Cabinet, to this report which cast doubts about the political will of the Malaysian government to combat terrorism and extremism, whether religious or racial?

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 17 January 2016, 8:23 am and is filed under
1Malaysia
,
Islam
,
Islamic state
,
Najib Razak
,
nation building
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Indonesia Attack Brings Islamic State to Southeast Asia’s Door

Chris Brummitt and Rieka Rahadiana

Bloomberg

January 15, 2016

A deadly gun-and-suicide bomb attack claimed by Islamic State in central Jakarta shows the growing reach of the jihadi network from outside its base in the Middle East.

The assault on a Starbucks cafe and a police post in the Indonesian capital, while unsophisticated, was the first in Southeast Asia to be directed or inspired by IS, and follows months of warnings by security officials that its members posed a threat to the region.

“Paris in November, Istanbul this week and Jakarta today,” Hugo Brennan, Asia analyst at Verisk Maplecroft, said on Thursday. “This latest attack can be seen as further evidence of Islamic State’s increasing ability to inspire deadly attacks in cities around the globe.”

For Indonesia, which has more Muslims than any other nation, it was a grim reminder of the resilience of a radical fringe that has existed since independence. In the 2000s, militants linked up with al-Qaeda to carry out a string of attacks, the last in Jakarta in 2009 on luxury hotels, but have been under pressure from a concerted crackdown by security forces.

Southeast Asian leaders have for some time warned of the risk from Islamic State — either from locals going to the Middle East to fight and then looking to use their deadly skills at home — or from radicalization from afar. The region, home to about 15 percent of the world’s 1.57 billion Muslims, has also seen local militant groups carry out insurgencies in southern Thailand and southern Philippines, seeking either autonomy or independence.

The attack was planned by an Indonesian militant called Bahrun Na’im, who is believed to be in Syria where he commands an Indonesian militant brigade, Jakarta Police Chief Tito Karnavian said Thursday. Islamic State claimed the attack, saying it targeted foreign nationals and security forces, jihadist monitoring group SITE Intel said on Twitter, citing an IS-affiliated news agency.

“The people who carried out this attack have links with an IS group in Raqqa in Syria,” Karnavian told reporters. “We know who this group is and we are currently tracking them.”

Three people were arrested near Jakarta on Friday, including a bomb maker, though there was no indication of involvement in Thursday’s attack, Metro TV reported, citing police. Another alleged terrorist was shot in Poso, Sulawesi, after a three-hour gun battle on Friday, state news agency Antara reported. A militant called Santoso, who has sworn an oath to Islamic State, is believed to be hiding near Poso.

Indonesian ‘Ambitions’

Australian Attorney-General George Brandis said last month that Islamic State had identified Indonesia as a location for a “distant caliphate.” The group “has ambitions to elevate its presence and level of activity in Indonesia, either directly or through surrogates,” he was quoted as saying in The Australian newspaper.

Indonesian authorities received a threat from Islamic State in December that it would shine an international spotlight on Jakarta, Metro TV reported.

Investigators will be looking at the nature of the linkages between the attackers and Islamic State, said Judith Jacob, a terrorism researcher working on a Ph.D on the evolution of international jihadism in Indonesia.

“It’s important to look at the substance of the responsibility claim, what does it entail,” she said. “Is it providing funding and weapons, or did the attackers actually go to Syria and train and return? If it is the case that they have simply borrowed the style of recent attacks, it shows the group has the ability to inspire attacks without having to invest in them themselves.”

A suicide bomber first hit the Starbucks cafe in a busy commercial area before others opened fire and bombed a nearby police post, killing two people and wounding 20 others. Five assailants were also killed.

President Joko Widodo said after taking office in 2014 that there needed to be a global effort to combat Islamic State, which he saw as a threat to national and international security. After the Paris attacks in November he called for countries to “wage war against terrorism.” Yet in his first year in power he has focused more on infrastructure to revitalize the economy than on security.

The attack was the first so-called “swarm” assault in Indonesia, long a hallmark of extremists in Pakistan and Afghanistan as well as Islamic State. While it was audacious and grabbed global headlines, the death toll was low, reflecting a lack of competency or perhaps a rushed job. Security authorities have arrested several extremists over the last four weeks, and the guns carried by the militants were rudimentary, police said.

‘New Generation’

“The new generation of terrorists in Indonesia is still not organized or skilled enough to match their predecessors,” said Achmad Sukarsono, Indonesia analyst at Eurasia Group in London. “I think we should also credit the security forces that can weaken the capacity of these extremists.”

Most attacks in Indonesia since 2009 have been small and directed at police in retaliation for their crackdown on extremism. Thursday’s strike marked a return to a Western target. One of those killed was a foreigner, and at least two of the wounded were Westerners drinking at Starbucks.

“Starbucks is a symbol of the West,” said Kumar Ramakrishna, head of policy studies at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies in Singapore. “So this is an indicator that there may be an ISIS signature here.”

                This entry was posted on Monday, 18 January 2016, 6:28 am and is filed under
Islam
,
Islamic state
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Former ISA guard: LKS is not anti-malay

By Martin Jalleh

                This entry was posted on Monday, 18 January 2016, 1:48 pm and is filed under
ISA
,
Martin Jalleh
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Iran Kicks Off Plan to Boost Oil Exports as Sanctions Lifted

Anthony Dipaola and Hashem Kalantari

Bloomberg

January 17, 2016

Iran is beginning efforts to boost oil production and exports amid a global supply glut after the removal of sanctions that shackled its economy and capped crude sales.

The Persian Gulf country is targeting an immediate increase in shipments of 500,000 barrels a day, Amir Hossein Zamaninia, deputy oil minister for commerce and international affairs, said Sunday in an interview in Tehran. Iran plans to add another half million barrels within months. The additional crude will push prices lower when it enters markets that are already oversupplied, said Robin Mills of Dubai-based oil consultant Qamar Energy.

“The oil ministry, by ordering companies to boost production and oil terminals to be ready, kicked off today the plan to increase Iran’s crude exports by 500,000 barrels,” the official Islamic Republic News Agency reported. Zamaninia said the plan is “still valid” and will be done in a “managed way to minimize the negative impact” on prices.

Buyers of Iranian crude are free to import as much of its oil as they want after the International Atomic Energy Agency determined that the country had curbed its ability to develop a nuclear weapon. As holder of the world’s fourth-largest reserves of crude and biggest deposits of natural gas, Iran gains immediate access to about $50 billion in frozen accounts overseas, funds the government says it will use to rebuild industries. The end of sanctions also opens the door to foreign investors such as Total SA and Eni SpA.

Benchmark Brent crude has dropped 22 percent this year, closing last week at less than $29 a barrel amid oversupply and the looming surge in Iranian output. Gordon Kwan, a Hong Kong-based analyst at Nomura Holdings Inc., said by e-mail that prices may drop as low as $25 a barrel on Monday.

’Knee-Jerk’ Reaction

Prices will probably show a “knee-jerk” reaction, falling on Monday before recovering to more than $30 a barrel later in the week, Eugen Weinberg, Commerzbank AG’s head of commodities research in Frankfurt, said by telephone. “There is a real oversupply in the market, but I think that’s already reflected correctly in the price.”

Once the second-biggest producer in the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, Iran is now fifth-biggest in the 13-member group. It produced 2.7 million barrels a day in December, data compiled by Bloomberg show. Oil exports fell to an average of 1.4 million barrels a day in 2014 from 2.6 million barrels daily in 2011, the year before the U.S. and European Union intensified sanctions, the U.S. Energy Information Administration said in June.

Volumes Uncertain

“There’s still the cloud of uncertainty around how much Iranian crude will come to market and when,” said Mills, Qamar Energy’s chief executive officer. The impact more Iranian barrels will have on prices will depend on how aggressive the country is in offering discounts and how quickly it ramps up sales, he said. Mills expects Iran can raise output by 600,000 a barrels a day over the next six months and add as much as 800,000 barrels of daily output this year.

Iran will probably start increasing exports by selling barrels it stockpiled on tankers in the Persian Gulf in anticipation of the deal. About 18 Iranian tankers are holding 12 million barrels of crude and 24 million barrels of condensates, according to the International Energy Agency.

The country’s longer-term challenge will be to restore oil production, and it hopes to attract more than $100 billion of investment to revitalize ageing fields. Iran plans to raise output capacity to 5.7 million barrels a day by the end of 2020, helped by new production contributed by potential foreign partners, Roknoddin Javadi, managing director of state-run National Iranian Oil Co., said in an interview in Tehran in November.

                This entry was posted on Monday, 18 January 2016, 6:14 am and is filed under
Oil
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Malaysia’s hollow economy, flaws of high income nation ambition

– Anas Alam Faizli

The Malaysian Insider

18 January 2016

Allow me to share with you a blindspot moment here; not many took note that in 2014, 29.1% of our total imports were from electrical and electronic (E&E) products. The same year, 35.7% of our total exports were also E&E products.

What is actually going on here?

Well, simply put, our economy is kind of hollow.

We import cheap components from China, assemble it locally and export the finished products.

Sadly, the finished products that we export are mostly of the original equipment manufacturer (OEMs) type; assembled using cheap labour for foreign companies. We hardly manufacture nor do we export our own brands. As a result, on average, the value-added in the E&E products’ production chain is approximately only 15%.

We do the same for our textiles, as sweat shops for foreign companies.

The attraction for foreign companies to locate their E&E manufacturing in Malaysia is largely to benefit from cheap labour, cheap subsidised energy, tax holidays; and as a haven to carry out transfer pricing for the purposes of tax evasions.

However, we are not as attractive as we once used to be. This concept of mere assembling will not work in our favour for long if we do not keep up with technology as other emerging economies offer more competitive production lines.

Additionally, the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA) via the rules of origin will upset this hegemony.

A post TPPA formalisation would see us importing from partner countries to enjoy the reduction in tariff (no longer importing from China) – but that is a story for another day.

Furthermore, since 2009 our nett foreign direct investment has been downright negative until today. Meaning, we invested more in total overseas versus investment coming into Malaysia.

TPPA proponents might take a shot here to promote the Investor State to State Dispute (ISDS) clause under TPPA saying that as we invest more overseas we would require the protection.

However, such arguments fall flat in the face of the facts – we are not investing overseas in expanding our businesses but more in acquiring properties. Think Mara!

So why is this hollow economy unhealthy?

Why is mere assembling not going to work for the long term? I am going to explain using the case of iPhones.  How much money goes to respective countries for every sale of an iPhone?

iPhone is an American product which is assembled in China. One would take a guess that a sizeable chunk of profits will go to China and America. One might also think that Malaysia is making huge profits by assembling numerous E&E products.

Well, such assumptions are wrong.

The money from an iPhone sale (source: The Wall Street Journal) goes to the following countries – 34% to Japan, 17% to Germany, 13% to South Korea, 6% to United States and only 3.6% goes to China.

Why is that so? Because the money will go to paying the high spec and high tech components which are imported from Japan, Germany and South Korea to make up the iPhone. Assembly line is cheap and does not contribute much added value.

Thus, in order to compete we need to continuously upgrade our technology and knowledge in order to survive in this fast paced world.

Instead, we are currently trapped in the middle – we are neither here nor there. We are not cheap and we are not sophisticated enough. We are not able to compete with Vietnam or Indonesia in term of cost, and Singapore in term of technology.

High income nation? A meaningless number game of average

Back in 2010, the Economic Transformation Programme (ETP) was launched as part of achieving this ambition of elevating Malaysia from the crutch of the Middle Income Nation trap which we have been party of since 1996. The goal is to spur the country’s growth to achieve the High Income Nation status by 2020 through targeting GNI per capita of US$15,000.

Two years later, indeed, Performance Management & Delivery Unit (Pemandu) did announce a huge growth rate in 2012, showing how they’re on-track.

But there is a major flaw here, Ringgit to USD at the time of ETP’s announcement was at an average of RM3.52/dollar whilst in 2012 it was averaging at RM3.10/dollar. There was a forex gain here.

However, it is a double-edged sword, the same forex will come to haunt Pemandu as the forex is currently hovering at RM4.30/dollar.

Looking at the current condition, in order to achieve US$15,000 (RM64,500) by 2020, considering that our GNI/capita is ~RM35,000 in 2014 we need 10.7% yearly GNI growth consistently every year until 2020. That’s mission impossible.

High Income Nation is no longer achievable. We are out of luck. The best we did was when we averaged a 9% yearly growth between 1988 to 1997 prior to the Asian Financial Crisis.

Regardless, the GNI per capita is just a number game of average. It doesn’t mean anything to the ordinary Malaysian now facing difficulties embracing the fast paced increase in the cost of living. It doesn’t mean anything to a country plagued with one of the highest inequality in the region.

To explain further, let’s do a simple mathematic calculation:

Our GNI per capita (2014):                ~ RM 35,000/capita/year

Average person per Household:         4.2

Therefore,

GNI/ household / year:                       RM 147,000

GNI/ household / month:                    RM 12,250

These numbers are so lopsided and don’t mean much.

By average, every household is earning RM12,250 a month. However, since we have a wide disparity between the rich and poor the majority of our population is very far from this average. 75% of our household are earning below RM5,000 a month.

Sarawak is a clear example how a high income nation doesn’t mean anything. Sarawak in 2008 crossed World Bank’s threshold of a high income state by definition but look at the situation of the people in Sarawak. There is no real meaning to the fixation of achieving a high income nation status.

Export led-based economy/development is no longer viable

Back in 2010, The United Nations via UN conference on trade and development (UNCTAD) called for a re-think of the export-led growth economic model foisted onto developing countries in recent decades. UNCTAD said that higher wages and stronger domestic demand were the necessary ingredients for sustained growth.

Three years after that, UNCTAD again reiterated that policy makers will need to reconsider development strategies that have been overly dependent on exports.

UNCTAD also said that development strategies should place a greater emphasis on the role of wages and the public sector in the development process. Export-led development is no longer viable, economies will perform better with more balanced strategies.

What does an export led-based economy/development mean anyway? It means that export is our number one priority and we strategise everything economically according to this strategy.

Education, innovation, research and development as a way out

According to Unesco, the number of researchers in Malaysia for each 1 million population is only 365 behind Japan’s 5,416, Denmark’s 5,300, the United States 4,721, South Korea’s 4,231 and even South America at 384. Our PhD holders slightly passed the 15,000 marks from our 30 million population.

A study released by the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM) categorises Malaysia as an efficiency-driven economy, behind innovation-driven economies. We focus on improving existing processes, but we are not out there inventing new things where the big money is.

Focusing on the latter is extremely important now more than ever for Malaysia, because we can no longer offer very cheap labour, land and factories to produce mass generic products competitively.

Malaysia is neither here nor there, and education opportunity is a major contributing factor. Robert Reich, former US secretary of labour and professor at UC Berkeley, made a compelling argument that is very applicable to Malaysia.

To attract jobs and capital, nations and states face two choices; one is to build a low-tax but low-wage “warehouse economy” competing on price, another is to compete on quality, by increasing taxes and regulation to invest in human capital for a highly productive workforce.

In Malaysia, wage growth caught up with productivity growth only up until the late 1990’s. Since 1996, we have been living in the “middle income trap”, stunted at the World Bank’s definition of upper middle income; neither high nor low income. In fact, for the past 10 years real wage growth has been negative.

Having 77% of the Malaysian workforce with only SPM and below qualification is a structural barrier to us crossing over to the higher income group. The labour force is largely unskilled and unable to move their labour services up the value chain where higher salaries are paid.

We are in dire need for more trained professionals and innovators, and we could have harvested them from talents that did not pursue tertiary education due to the lack of opportunities.

As a developing nation, Malaysia is approaching the last but toughest hurdle in achieving wealth and prosperity; that is a knowledge-based society, driven by intellectuals and thinkers.

Trickle down economy and an export-led based growth or development have been proven not to work. We need the right economic policy and approach to solve fundamental economic problems and issues.

We also need to strictly reduce the number of foreign workers through industry limits and quota and we need to start now.

The only forward is for Malaysia to provide to its citizens with good job opportunities, decent wages and salaries and also an ecosystem that promotes innovation and entrepreneurship in high value products and businesses. We need to start building machine tools and our own equipment.

Let’s not get stuck with the myth of a high income nation status that doesn’t mean much to ordinary Malaysians. Let’s start thinking how the country can provide opportunities, access and rewards – equally to all its citizenry. A fundamental correction is severely required. – January 18, 2016.

                This entry was posted on Monday, 18 January 2016, 5:18 pm and is filed under
Economics
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Time for UMNO leadership to consider Onn Jaafar’s proposal 66 years ago for UMNO to open its membership to non-Malays so that UMNO leaders can also be leaders of all Malaysians

The Minister for Communications and Multimedia, Datuk Seri Salleh Said Keruak asked why UMNO must open its membership to non-Malays, describing this as a non-issue because UMNO has never claimed to be a multi-racial party.

It is sad and pathetic that present-day UMNO Ministers and leaders are quite proud about their national blindspot and their inability to see or understand what the founding UMNO President Datuk Onn Jaafar saw very clearly and vividly 66 years ago in 1950, which was why he proposed that UMNO open its doors to non-Malays in order to lead in  the building of a united nation.

How can the nation have a Prime Minister from UMNO who could also  be  Prime Minister for all Malaysians when the very ration d’etre of his  political existence is to be the champion of one race against the other races?

This anomalous situation may be understandable and acceptable in the early years of the communal  politics of plural Malaysia, but it should become increasingly anachronistic with passing decades of Malaysian nation building, especially based on the Rukunegara principles proclaimed in 1970 – which should see the old mould of the politics of race give way to the new  mould of the politics of national  issues of justice, freedom, good  governance, integrity,  progress and prosperity for all.

Onn Jaafar have the foresight and vision that we cannot build a united nation out of our diversity of races, religions, languages and cultures unless we go beyond the colonial tactics of  “divide and rule” and create a common national identity where there is an overarching common national identity and consciousness, and  where what is close to one ethnic community is not only articulated and championed by that ethnic group only  but also by  other ethnic groups transcending ethnic barriers.

In other words, Malays will not just champion Malays, Chinese champion Chinese, Indians champion Indians, but where Malaysians regardless of whether Malays, Chinese or Indians champion the rights and interest of Malaysians of other ethnicities not because they are  from  the same ethnic group, but because of their common accord of what should be protected and cherished by all Malaysian citizens, regardless of race.

DAP Secretary-General and Chief Minister of Penang, Lim Guan Eng, is so far the only example of a political leader who  went to jail, sacrificed not only his Parliamentary position but his civic rights to  stand for elections and even to cast his vote for five years after release from prison, in defence of the honour, dignity and human rights of an underaged Malay girl.

Why is it so difficult to find another example in the 58 years since Merdeka and 53 years since the formation of Malaysia to find another example of a political leader who is prepared to pay  the highest price for another Malaysian of a different ethnicity?

The time has come for the UMNO leadership to consider Onn Jaafar’s proposal 66 years ago for UMNO to open its membership to non-Malays so that UMNO leaders can  also be  leaders of all Malaysians.

I recently read with interest the proposal of the MCA President, Datuk Seri Liow Tiong Lai suggesting the MCA open its membership to all races, but which was  spoiled when he indicated that he would have to get approval from UMNO “Big Brother” for such an initiative!

We must make a clean break from the colonial tactics of “divide and rule”, which must mean the replacing of the old mould of race-based politics by the  new mould of issues-based politics.

Malaysians regardless ethnicity must champion the rights and interests of other Malaysians, regardless of ethnicity, on common national issues of justice, freedom, good governance, integrity, progress and prosperity for all.

This has been the practice, commitment and vision of the DAP right from the beginning of our formation 50 years ago.

We shall continue our practice as in the five decades, to be a party by and for all Malaysians, regardless of race, religion, region or socio-economic status.

Just as had been our practice since the first general election contested by the DAP in 1969 general elections, and in the subsequent general elections, DAP will continue to field candidates from all race, religions and regions in parliamentary and state assembly seats.

The old-mould politics of  delegating or sub-contracting the interests and rights of different  ethnic groups to different ethnically-based political parties cannot long continue if we are seriously to build a united, peaceful and harmonious plural nation.

If UMNO in 2016 is not prepared to give serious consideration to Onn Jaafar’s challenge 66 years ago to open its membership to non-Malays, UMNO may have to face the fate of becoming a political dinosaur in the 14th General Election in 2018.

                This entry was posted on Monday, 18 January 2016, 3:34 pm and is filed under
1Malaysia
,
DAP
,
nation building
,
UMNO
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Did MACC submit any recommendation for any charge against Prime Minister Najib in relation to the SRC International investigation, and if so, how many?

The Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) has denied recommending 37 charges against Prime Minister Najib  Razak in relation to the SRC International investigation.

It said that the article by Sarawak Report yesterday which said MACC had recommended 37 separate charges against Najib involving the SRC International case is untrue.

What Malaysians want to know is whether the MACC had submitted any recommendation to the Attorney-General, Tan Sri Mohamed Apandi  Ali for any charge against Najib in relation to the SRC International investigation, and if so, how many.

Furthermore, on a question which MACC should no equivocate, is whether  it is true that the total sums of money deposited into Najib’s personal bank accounts meant for the  last general election were not just RM2.6 billion but RM4 billion.

These latest developments have debunked Najib’s self-confident 2016 New Year Message on 31st December 2015 that his twin mega scandals – the RM2.6 billion “donation” and the RM55 billion 1MDB – have ceased to be issues as they had been resolved.

In fact, the twin mega scandals have become even greater issues in the new year – and there can be no excuse for Najib to remain silent on whether the deposits into his personal banking accounts totalled some RM4 billion and not just RM2.6 billion, purportedly for UMNO’s 13th General Election campaign.

Najib should speak up and answer these questions or he should step down as Prime Minister.

Malaysians are still waiting for the basic questions on the RM2.6 billion (or is it RM4 billion) “donation” scandal to be answered, viz:

1.	What are the total amounts of these donations deposited into Najib’s personal banking accounts – RM2.6 billion, RM4 billion or more?

2.	Who were the donors, one or more, and which foreign country or countries involved;

3.	What were the motives for such donations – to fight Israel, ISIS, Shiites, “liberal” Muslims,  DAP or who?

4.	Where have the donations gone to? Who were the beneficiaries, whether Ministers or MPs, how much each had received, how they had spent them; and

5.	What is left of these astronomical figures and where are the monies now.

Malaysia suffered the infamy of being placed third in the world’s “worst corruption scandals in 2015” because of Najib’s twin mega scandals, with the Prime Minister even becoming the subject of US Federal Bureau of Investigsations probe under the US Kleptocracy Assets Recovery Initiative 2010 but Najib had been extraordinarily mute on these scandals.

He did not turn up in Parliament on the last day of the 25-day budget session although Ministers had promised that all questions about the Prime Minister’s RM2.6 billion “donation” scandal would be answered on Dec. 3, 2015 – but all the questions were left unanswered.

But what is most intriguing of all, is the failure by Najib to initiate legal and court  proceedings against the Wall Street Journal which first made the expose of his RM2.6 billion donation scandal  in its report in early July.  Why the failure by Najib to initiate legal proceedings to clear his name for the WSJ Report?

Malaysians expect an answer from Najib.

Is he prepared to furnish it before the Special Parliament on January 26 and 27 on the TPPA?

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 19 January 2016, 3:44 pm and is filed under
Corruption
,
Najib Razak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Enough of this nonsense! Malaysia was created as a secular nation

— Clive Kessler

Malay Mail Online

January 19, 2016

JANUARY 19 — Enough of this nonsense! Enough already!

Malaya and then Malaysia was created as a secular nation.

Denial of this basic fact has become commonplace in recent times.

The pioneers in promoting the revisionist myth that there was or is nothing secular in the nation’s origins or about its Constitution have been the creative legal innovators and myth-makers of the PPMM: Persatuan Peguam Muslim Malaysia (Malaysian Muslim Lawyers Association) –- notably Datuk Zainul Rijal Abu Bakar — and their like-minded associates in CENTHRA, the Putrajaya-based and Saudi-friendly Centre for Human Rights and Advocacy, headed by on Azril Mohd Amin.

Their lead is followed, and their disruptive views are echoed, by a horde of Utusan Malaysia scribes and ideologues and, in their wake, a claque of well-connected writers and publicists and ambitious politicos.

In the absence of any clear refutation, their increasingly unchallenged view now threatens to become “the default position”, the received and undeniable truth.

But are they right?

In short, no. And for three main reasons.

1.  The explicit and the implicit.

A key and basic tenet of their position is that the word “secular” can nowhere be found in the Constitution. Therefore, they hold, the Constitution and nation cannot be secular. It is in no way tainted in even the slightest way by any suggestion of secularist principles or ideas.

And since it — the word — cannot be found there, and since Article 3 affirms that, in its public international personality, Islam is the emblematic religion of the state, then (so they argue) Malaysia must be, on core constitutional and historical grounds, an Islamic state — or, at the very least, one that has been authoritatively launched from birth on an irrevocable path towards becoming an Islamic state based upon Shariah law.

 Some now even go further. They now argue that, since Article 3 is allegedly “the best known” article of the Constitution in public consciousness (on what grounds or empirical evidence they claim this they do not say), it follows that Article 3 is the key or central article of the Constitution as a whole and that, in resolving all contested matters, Article 3 (in their own strong, revisionist sense of its meaning) takes precedence over and must “trump” all other legal arguments and considerations and constitutional niceties.

Is this supposed primacy of Article 3 explicit?

No. Just implicit, implied, inferred.

These authors are in fact very familiar with the idea of the explicit and the implicit, of what is tersurat and what is also tersirat, what is in the words and what is behind them, “between the lines.”

These same authors and creative doctrinal and Constitutional myth-makers are elsewhere quite happy to argue that the controversial idea of Ketuanan Melayu — which did not exist when the basis and terms of the Constitution were negotiated between 1955 and 1957, and which only achieved currency after it was coined by Tan Sri Abdullah Ahmad in 1986 — is a foundational principle of the Constitution.

How do they argue this?

They say that, while the term itself is not used and does not appear explicitly in the Constitution, the idea is there, implicit and immanent, in Article 153 (the “Malay special rights” provision) and in the web of meanings linking that Article to other related articles of the Constitution.

The idea, they insist, is there behind the words and between the lines.

They cannot find it there explicitly. They impute its presence, and in that way “build back” this post-1986 idea into the foundational meaning and conceptual texture of the Constitution. Even though the word itself cannot be found there!

On these inferred or imputed grounds they insist that Ketuanan Melayu is a key constitutional principle, that it is, and always has been, a part of the “social contract” that enabled the Constitution to be adopted and promulgated — and that people are now obliged in perpetuity to uphold that constitutionally “retrofitted” principle or doctrine as part of the nation’s founding “social contract”: as a key principle of the nation’s core official character and identity.

The stark contrast of approach here in these two related matters (their anti-secularist, pro-Islamic state reading of Article 3 and the imputing or inferring of Ketuanan Melayu as constitutionally based and embedded) proves one thing: that their ways of arguing are not consistent and principled but arbitrary and opportunistic.

That is no basis for solemn and serious Constitutional reasoning.

2.  History

Article 3 does not say that Malaysia is a secular nation, but it does say that Islam is its official emblematic religion: therefore Malaysia is in no way secular. On far stronger and clearer Constitutional grounds, it can be said to be Islamic: even an Islamic state, or one in the making.

That is the revisionist position.

It is one that is ignorant of history.

It is one that is even based upon a wilful refusal to acknowledge the history of the Constitution and its origins in the so-called “Merdeka Process” and “Merdeka Agreements.”

To serious scholars the facts are clear and well-known.

That the ideologues and revisionists do not care to accept them is another matter. But not one that adds any credence to their position or authority to their arguments.

The entire “Merdeka Process” was quite explicitly about creating Malaya as a modern, progressive, democratic and secular nation.

For a while it was thought that the word secular might be used explicitly in its Constitution. But, to allow for certain Malay sensibilities (including the fairly widespread Malay misunderstanding of the term “secular” as meaning or entailing “atheistic”), it was decided that the idea would be left unsaid — largely because it did not need to be spelled out.

But the secular idea was basic to the emerging Constitution and pervasive within it. The proposed basis of nationhood could not be seen or understood as anything but a modern secular Constitution: one that sought and was designed to create a progressive nation prospectively grounded in the popular sovereignty of its people, all of its people.

Nor, equally, in a balanced way, was there to be any formal mention of Islam as a key principle in the Constitution. This, it was felt, would add further weight to the Constitution’s and the nation’s secular, plural, inclusive and democratic character.

This was how things stood until the final evening of the long drafting deliberations of the Reid Commission. That was what the members of the Commonwealth-based Commission had thrashed out and agreed upon.

Suddenly, at the last moment, something happened.

Some say that he had been lobbied heavily. Others say that a personally bitter argument erupted over Kashmir between the Indian member of the Commission, Judge B. Malik, and the Pakistani member, Judge Halim Abdul Hamid.

At all events, on the last evening the Pakistani member broke ranks. He would no longer be bound by the agreements already reached.  The Constitution might remain implicitly secular, he conceded, but there should be some mention of Islam as the formally emblematic religion of the new state, as part of its international identity and personality in the world family of nations.

Held over a barrel, and with their bags already packed, the other members of the Commission agreed to accommodate Judge Halim Abdul Hamid’s last-minute requirement — on the understanding that the added affirmation was to be purely nominal or symbolic: that it would have no flow-on effects upon any other Constitutional matters, and that it would not compromise or diminish (as had been agreed in extended discussions) the modern, democratic and secular character of the Constitution as a whole and of the nation to be founded upon it.

On that basis, and with little choice in the matter in the face of one man’s sudden intractability, the other members of the Commission agreed to Judge Abdul Hamid’s extraordinary last-minute requirement.

But what is significant now is not the dramatic personal ins-and-outs of the Reid Commission and its workings.

It is what followed from that last minute accommodation of Judge Abdul Hamid’s exercise of a shock, peremptory veto.

Many, especially the negotiators for Umno’s partner parties, were deeply disquieted by this last-minute development. So they sought and received formal assurances — which, on the grounds that they were sincerely meant and offered and so would remain binding, they accepted.

This assurance was approved and issued by Tun Abdul Razak, on behalf of Umno and his successors who would later lead it, in the form of a document (now a key part of the official collection of British government published documents recording the decolonization process in Malaya) that was intended as a codicil, or accompanying explanatory document, to the Constitution itself — and specifying the terms of the agreement of all parties to it.

As is well-known, the Alliance Memorandum stated that “although the religion of Malaysia would be Islam, the observance of this principle shall not impose any disability on non-Muslim nationals professing and practising their own religion, and shall not imply that the State is not a secular State.”

If there is any such thing as a Malayan and Malaysian “social contract” by which people remain bound, this is surely a key part of it.

“Pacta servanda sunt” is a key principle of law: solemn agreements are to be solemnly observed and punctiliously upheld.

Those who these days loudly shout that “the social contract” must be respected and that it entails, and has always entailed, general acceptance by all Malaysians (and especially non-Malays), in perpetuity, of the doctrine of Ketuanan Melayu would do well to recall and abide by that obligation here in this matter.

They owe it not only to others, especially their non-Malay and non-Muslim fellow citizens.

They owe it to themselves, if they are to live honourably and honestly and decently with their own recent political past — with themselves.

3.  Context.

To assess accurately whether or not Malaysia is foundationally a secular or an Islamic state, it helps to consider its Constitution.

Not just legally, in lawyer-like manner, clause by clause but more broadly. Historically.

In the light of comparative political and Constitutional and social and intellectual history.

There is no need to try to hunt down, as the decisive and tell-tale indicator, whether the word “secular” appears in its political or conceptual lexicon.

And there is no need to get too fancy or philosophical about this matter.

All one has to ask is:

What kind of a Constitution is Malaysia’s?

Is it culturally and doctrinally and conceptually a Buddhist Constitution?

Is it a Hindu Constitution?

Is it an Islamic Constitution?

The answer is no, three times no.

What is it then?

It is a modern, liberal-democratic Constitution.

A modern Constitution, born of a modern and progressive and largely secular age, one that is couched in secular terms, and formed upon secularist assumptions.

There is no other way to understand or classify or to typify it.

It was drafted and promulgated and enacted as the modern Constitution of, and for the continuing growth and development of, a modern, progressive, inclusive, pluralistic but cohesive, and secular society and nation.

A Constitution that — while it acknowledges and finds an honoured place for the ancient royal mystique and semi-sacred aura of its traditional Malay rulers, for their world-focusing daulat — was nevertheless founded upon the consent of its many and diverse subjects; meaning, on the principle of “popular sovereignty” (here the modern Malay word, often confusingly, is kedaulatan).

But remember, as one always must, that daulat and kedaulatan, despite their being linguistically and etymologically cognate terms, are two entirely different things.

They are born of, stem from, and are anchored within two entirely distinct, different and mutually incommensurate universes of political meaning.

The rulers have daulat, the nation is built upon and (like all modern nations) is an expression of the sovereignty of its people.

That is where modern political legitimacy comes from.

The Federal Constitution is the supreme law of the land. It is a Constitution that rests upon and which affirms the principle of popular sovereignty.

That is what modern Constitutions and nations are. That is their “ontology”.

And, yes, Malaysia’s Federal Constitution is — or was by initial intention and design — a secular Constitution. One for a society that was, or was to become, an increasingly secular nation.

One that would not be hostile to religion but hospitable and equitably hospitable to religious and human diversity.

Malaysia and its Constitution were incontrovertibly established as secular, on secular foundations and principles and assumptions.

The struggle these days — and it is now no easy struggle — is to keep it that way.

4.  In conclusion

So what can one say about the claim that Malaysia is not, and never was and was never intended to be, a secular state?

That its Constitution is not secular and makes no provision or space for secular principles?

That Article 3 establishes Malaya and Malaysia as, at least prospectively but irrevocably, an Islamic state operating on the basis of Shariah law?

That the doctrine of Ketuanan Melayu, of Malay ascendancy and primacy and domination, is a key principle of the Constitution, one that is deeply and pervasively embedded throughout its many clauses and pages?

Simply, that this claim is a crude “try-on.”

An outrageous, and outrageously over-reaching, “ambit claim.”

A third-rate “con job.”

One that could persuade only the ignorant.

And that is precisely to whom it is these days addressed and targeted.

Clive Kessler is Emeritus Professor of Sociology and Anthropology at the University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 19 January 2016, 10:30 pm and is filed under
Constitution
,
Islam
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Our politics created Malaysian Isis

– Saefullah Norhaidi

The Malaysian Insider

19 January 2016

I was recently in Kuala Lumpur when Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (Isis) carried out its attack in Jakarta, marking the entrance of a new terrorist movement, in the Southeast Asian region.

It is clear now, Isis wants its voice to be heard, its presence felt. I have no idea whether this has any connection to it, but that very evening, I saw police forces walking in the miscellaneous places we were walking around in Kuala Lumpur.

Now is definitely the time when governments in this region will start to become intensely vigilant and more vehement in deterring the harmful growth of Islamic radical movements in their respective countries.

In Malaysia, police reports have verified a substantial amount of jejune radical Islamic militant activities.

Datuk Seri Tengku Adnan Tengku Mansor announced (on Sunday) that the governmental intel is already in the know that the terror groups will target locations like Bangsar, Solaris and Bukit Bintang and that the military forces will work together with the city’s police in preventing any potential terrorist attack from being executed in the vicinity.

In the midst of all this chaos, a question comes to mind. Has there ever been an official statement even, in Malaysia, addressing the rise of these radical Islamic movements?

You can easily access Jakim’s e-fatwa website and read the Islamic council’s stand on Isis and terrorism in general. In fact, the word “Isis” is used quite abundantly as the insignia of religious extremism by the majority of the population.

That is to say, despite few inane incidents that have made the official stand on Isis wishy-washy like (Datuk Seri) Najib Razak’s (the prime minister at that) flagrant and unabashed euphemism of the word Isis by attributing gallantry to its members to bolster unintelligent and self-demeaning cheers from his daft supporters at the Umno annual general assembly, the general public is antagonistic or unsympathetic towards the radical group.

But the problem lies within the Muslim community which is fed with the inclination of their ustaz (dilettante scholars) that has blurred the lines of religious extremism to the extent of resulting in the increase of the rate of sympathizers for the terrorist group.

I, for one, have actually sat in a public lecture of a fairly popular ustaz whose name bears quite a significant weight in Malaysia who publicly advocated and endorsed the actions of the “mujahideen” of al-Qaeda, saying that their actions are verily justified and it was actually the Western media that has corrupted their image by creating a fallacious portrayal of the group.

Such problematic view, imposed by an unforgiving and perennial prejudice of the West that judges it as a monolithic erection, and the usual victim-playing have ensued a mentality which traps its followers in a dualistic us-or-them thinking, which then occasioned the validation of the existence of these radical and extreme movements.

In conclusion, it results in the recent poll which shows that 11% of Malaysians (mind you 11% of 30 million, that is around 330,000 people) are Isis sympathisers.

MCA president and Transport Minister Datuk Seri Liow Tiong Lai released a statement saying that the authorities estimated a figure of around 50,000 Isis supporters in Malaysia, and considering the government’s wont of sugar-coating actual figures to palliate unfavourable repercussions against them, it could only be said that the actual figure is larger than that, which is to say the situation is distressing.

Other than that, the fervent use of Islam as the ultimate and supreme political tool has materialised a mentality among the general Muslim public which employs a dogma of a kind of ferocious and obdurate political Islam as the only legitimate voice of reason.

This type of political manoeuvre is majorly conspicuous in PAS. We can see that every decision that its leaders make will be authenticated with verses and samples from the Quran and the Hadith. Even if a newer decision conflicts with an older one, Quranic verses and Islamic terms will expediently come to play, and the new decision will conveniently be appropriated and contextualised and thus, simply legitimised.

The religion Islam has become the magic wand which one can use to swish and flick away his sins, his misconducts and political malpractices in literally any situation, just by way of contextualising them in esoteric Islamic terms, encapsulated within seemingly Islamic envelopes.

A paramount example of this is how Umno politicians and their supporters stupidly (no better word for it) whitewash the prime minister’s corruption scandal by saying that the “donation” is to fund the fight against the liberals, the LGBT movement and Shiaism, DAP, the Yahudi (Jews) and Isis.

This desacralisation of a holy religion and its reduction to a mere political tool to fool the public has ultimately fuelled a counterblast of an anti-secular, anti-reason and dogmatic worldview.

Only religion can then become the sole legally binding force in the community, and the situation can only plummet down and worsen from here as it becomes circular and tautological in nature. Politicians use Islam as political tool, the people consume it and only agrees with religious views, thus only legitimising discourse in “Islamic” terms.

Comparing the increase in terrorist activities and the blitz that have shaken up the people of Europe, the onslaughts in the Middle East and the ones that have occurred or the possible, budding threats alike in Indonesia and Malaysia, it must be said that the terrorist movements in our region are expanding under this idiosyncratic circumstantial climate (mentioned above).

Here in Malaysia, the majority of the population are Muslims who have never been in or seen a major scale war in their region, in their lives.

In comparison, the radicalisation of Muslims and non-Muslims alike in Europe could likely be caused by a marginalisation phenomenon and  their exclusion from the community and the absence of the transmission of a religion that is culturally integrated in their revolt, and the radicalisation of Muslims in the Middle East might be a consequence of an epic post-colonial suffering.

The radicalisation of Muslims in Malaysia, however, could likely be caused by an almost systematic Arabic fanaticism, an ardent Islamisation process (in which we see only Islamic terminologies can become the leverage in authenticating political works and operations) as has been specified above, and a zealous Islamic sectarianism which marginalises Shias as one of the schools of the Islamic faith. As Julien Gradot accurately puts it:

“Shiasm, adhered to by a minority of Muslims worldwide, is prohibited in Malaysia.

Various Shia scholars have been jailed and their places of worship shut down. To understand why an increasing number of Malaysians have displayed an affinity toward the Isis movement, it may also be important to note that the current rebel-led conflict in Syria opposes the government of Bashar al-Assad who belongs to the Alawites – a branch of Shia Islam representing only a minority of the country’s population.

“The Malaysian government in no way condones the actions of the foreign fighters. However, anti-Shiite rhetoric disseminated through official media channels, such as newspapers and television, combined with sermons by some scholars claiming it is acceptable for Sunni Muslims to join ‘holy war’ against a repressive Bashar al-Assad, has led to the perception that this is acceptable.”

In the end, it must be stated that merely addressing terrorism as a cancerous problem in our speeches is indubitably negligent.

Terrorism must be demolished from its roots, and that is by way of inhibiting radicalisation to even take place in our community.

The only way we can survive and attenuate the radicalisation of our youths and elders alike is by speaking of a more compassionate Islam, like what they do in Europe when the image of Islam is backlashed by the acts of terrorism.

And the only way we can put a stop to radicalisation is by projecting a unitary condemnation against terrorism through popular voices in the Islamic community, every time any terrorist attack happens. Our ustaz should stop beating around the bush and dragging their feet and start voicing out an absolute and enthusiastic, predominant rejection towards the acts of terrorism and these radical Islamic movements.

Sectarianism barriers should be once and for all lifted and tolerance and mutual respect promoted. But lastly and most importantly, we as the rakyat should start to renounce religious and racial rhetoric in our political atmosphere and move away from these fundamentally simplistic mentalities, so the nation can begin to initiate real significant discourses, improve and advance. – January 19, 2016.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 19 January 2016, 2:27 pm and is filed under
Islam
,
Islamic state
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Shahbudin: No need for PAS to drag in God

Joe Fernandez | January 19, 2016

Free Malaysia Today

PAS Information Chief Nasharudin Tantawi urged to re-confirm whether God really indicated to him that he need not apologize to Guan Eng at the end of a defamation case.

KUALA LUMPUR: A political analyst, taking to his blog on a reported out-of-court settlement on a defamation suit between Lim Guan Eng the plaintiff and Nasharudin Tantawi, wonders whether it was really necessary to drag God into the case. “What’s important is proof based on the facts of the case.”

The case between Guan Eng and PAS Information Chief Nasharuddin was not one between Islam and non-Islam, pointed out Shahbudin Husin the analyst, but involves character values and the behaviour of human beings, something that can happen to anyone irrespective of religious leanings and race. “So, why invoke God by name as a factor, why sell the almighty’s name in a defamation suit?”

“Such an attitude will only serve to further blacken the image of Islam.”

Shahbudin wants Nasharudin to re-confirm whether God really indicated to him by a sign that he need not apologize to Guan Eng at the end of the defamation case.

If it was really true that God told Nasharudin not to apologise to Guan Eng, also DAP Secretary-General and Penang Chief Minister, the analyst wonders whether the Almighty also advised him to withdraw part of his allegations and pay compensation to the plaintiff, the victim. “Does that mean that God doesn’t like the idea of apologising?”

“Did God really tell Nasharudin not to tender an apology and go on to advise the PAS Information Chief on other aspects of the defamation suit?”

Again, wonders the analyst, why didn’t God advise Nasharudin to fight Guan Eng to the bitter end in the defamation suit.

In fact, said Shahbudin, Nasharudin cannot escape being questioned by the people on the defamation suit by dragging in God’s name to cover himself, to excuse his “shameful” behaviour towards the plaintiff and his character failings. “The people are bound to ask why God is like this and not like that and so on and so forth.”

“It would not be surprising if many ask Nasharudin why he didn’t hold solat sunat prayers in the beginning, before the suit could be initiated, for a sign from God on whether his allegations against Guan Eng were true or otherwise.”

Shahbudin agrees that if it was indeed quite easy to obtain a sign from God, Nasharudin should have considered this option and thereby saved all that time, energy and money in Court in fighting off the defamation suit by Guan Eng.

The analyst hastened to add that he was more interested in finding out from Nasharudin his understanding of Islam and how he wanted to help project the image of the religion given his statement on the defamation suit.

Shahbudin was taking his cue from a Malaysiakini report on the defamation suit where Nasharudin was quoted as explaining why he decided to withdraw the allegations, albeit in part, of the allegations against Guan Eng on the grounds that “they hurt the feelings of the Penang Chief Minister and besides were baseless”.

The analyst noted that PAS Youth Chief Nik Abduh Nik Aziz, in a spontaneous reaction, went to the extent of even congratulating Nasharudin for not apologising to Guan Eng while conceding that the reported out-of-court settlement has helped avoid the case from being further dragged out in Court. “It’s not the done thing for Nasharudin to be proud of his determination not to offer an apology after having slandered someone and hurt him.”

“It became even worse when Nik Abduh praised Nasharudin for his refusal to apologise.”

Isn’t it in Islam, asked Shahbudin, that apologising was a virtue praised in the religion.

Although Nasharudin was proud that he got away without apologising, said Shahbudin, the fact remains that he was humiliated by the out-of-court settlement.

Firstly, Nasharudin refused to apologise.

Secondly, he was forced to pull back part of the allegations.

Finally, the PAS Information Chief had to cough up RM10,000 as token compensation as part of the out-of-court settlement.

Nasharudin, reiterated the analyst, should feel humiliated by the out-of-court settlement. “It was more shameful not only not to apologise but the terms of the out-of-court settlement was even more humiliating and shameful.”

Indeed, worst of all, Nasharudin has painted a very negative image of Islam by dragging in God as a factor in his defamation suit with Guan Eng, summed up the analyst. “His stand was wrong from the Islamic viewpoint.”

Nasharudin, lamented Shahbudin, should not have dragged God into his defamation suit with Guan Eng.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 19 January 2016, 12:03 pm and is filed under
DAP
,
PAS
,
Penang
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


UMNO leadership should consider Onn’s 66-year proposal that UMNO open its membership to non-Malays to defend and save democracy in Malaysia

Yesterday, I gave as  the reason why the UMNO leadership should consider founding UMNO President, Datuk Onn Jaafar’s 66-year proposal that UMNO open its door to non-Malays  the simple and basic one as to whether UMNO is a loyal and patriotic Malaysian party or just a communal Malay party –   how the nation could have a Prime Minister from UMNO who could be a Prime Minister of all Malaysians when the ration d’etre of his political existence is to be the champion of one race against the other races.

I was responding to the Minister for Communications and Multimedia, Datuk Salleh Said Keruak, who had asked why UMNO must open its membership to non-Malays as  UMNO has never claimed to be a multi-racial party.

Datuk Shabery Cheek, who was shunted off from the Ministry of  Communications and Multimedia in the Cabinet “purge” reshuffle on July 28 last year, tried to come to his successor’s rescue, declaring that UMNO’s opening up its membership to non-Malays is not as simple as opening up a durian.

In a way, Shabery is very right.

If UMNO just opens up its membership to non-Malays, no non-Malay would want to be an UMNO member unless UMNO can change its political culture from a race-based party to a Malaysia-based national party.

But this is not adequate.

In fact, even as a Malay communal party, UMNO has already suffered unprecedented erosion of support, not only from the Malays in general but UMNO members in particular, if UMNO continues to be hijacked into a party which  who used the banner of uniting Malays to serve only the interests of Datuk Seri  Najib Razak and his cronies, to avoid accountability for Najib’s RM2.6 billion “donation” and RM55 billion 1MDB twin mega scandals, or outrages like RM56 billion worth of shares in public listed companies allocated for bumiputeras but only RM2 billion were left in bumiputera hands.

UMNO has over three million members and over 21,000 branches, and I have no doubt that the overwhelming majority of the UMNO members and branches do not agree with Najib’s prevarication and procrastination to avoid accountability for his  twin mega scandals or the “sapu” of bumiputera rights by UMNO-putras.

These are among the factors for  the  lowest popularity rating for Najib’s UMNO/BN government among Malay voters, which has fallen below 50 per cent for the first time, plunging to as low as 30%!

If UMNO is not prepared to undergo a twin  political transformation, firstly  to become a party for all Malaysians and not just Malays and secondly, to be a party which champions the cause of the ordinary rakyat and oppressed low-income Malays and Malaysians instead of the UMNO-puteras, UMNO will become increasingly irrelevant to the aspirations not only of Malaysians as a whole but to the Malays as well.

I am taken aback by the tenor of Shabery’s comments, which seems to approve  taking the line of least resistance, of avoiding embarking on a task because it is difficult and challenging. Where is the invincible spirit of “Malaysia Boleh”!

Will Shabery stop eat durians just because opening a durian can be difficult?

Of course not, and this is why a Minister who endorses the  culture of  avoiding a task because it is difficult and challenging is not only a grave disservice to Malays, but also to Malaysians, as well.

Nobody suggests that UMNO opening its doors to non-Malays is an easy task or there is a guarantee of sure success.

The important question is whether it is the right and patriotic thing to do – to make the transition from race-based to Malaysia-based politics in the sixth decade of our nationhood.

It has not been easy for DAP to persevere in our founding principles, commitment and vision to be a Malaysian party for and led by all Malaysians, regardless of race or religion, especially with UMNO propagandists working overtime right from the beginning of DAP’s formation to demonise  DAP as anti-Malay and anti-Islam.

Life will be very much easier if DAP had succumbed  and surrendered to UMNO propagandists and just confined the DAP as a political party for and by all non-Malays.

In fact, in the 1969 General Election, DAP had more Indian Members of Parliament than MIC!

But DAP would not be thwarted or browbeaten from our founding principles, commitment and vision to be a Malaysian political movement, as we never intended be  just a Chinese or non-Malay political party, or just confined to a few non-Malay states in Peninsular Malaysia.

This was why the three by-elections contested by the DAP in the sixties were UMNO-strongholds – Kampong Baru in Selangor in 1966 (where the UMNO candidate, Razali Ali  won  and went on to become Selangor Mentri Besar), Tampoi state seat  in Johor  in 1967 and Segamat Utara parliamentary seat in Johore (where the winning UMNO candidate, Musa Hitam, went on to become the Deputy Prime Minister in 1981).

This was also why the DAP presented a multi-racial slate of candidates since our first general election contest in 1969, which saw the election of two DAP Malay State Assemblymen,   one in Perak (Ibrahim Singgeh – Tapah Road) and the other in Negri Sembilan (Hassan Ahmad – Si Rusa).

In the past 11 general elections, DAP had elected Malay Members of Parliament (Ahmad Nor, Zairil Khir Johari, Arif Sabri Abdul Aziz and Senator Ariffin Omar) and State Assembly representatives in Peninsular Malaysia (Daing Ibrahim Othman, Mohd Salleh Nakhoda Hitam, Fadzlan Yahya and Tengku Zulpuri Shah Raja Puji).

Furthermore, DAP Secretary-General and Penang Chief Minister, Lim Guan Eng had paid the highest political price to protect the honour, dignity and human rights of an under-aged Malay girl, went to Kajang Prison, losing his parliamentary position and pension rights as well civic rights to stand for elective office and to cast his vote for five years on release from prison.

Can UMNO leadership furnish one such example in its seven decades of establishment?

Despite the ups and downs, trials and tribulations, suffered by DAP leaders in the past 50 years, we remain true to our founding principles, commitment and vision to be a Malaysian political party with multi-racial and multi-religious representation at all levels of party leadership and elected representatives.

UMNO leaders should be commending and even emulating the DAP example of staying true and loyal to Malaysian  principles, commitment and vision, instead intensifying the campaign of lies, fear and hatred to  demonise DAP as anti-Malay and anti-Islam.

Let me here give the Sallehs and Shaberys another  reason why UMNO should open its doors to non-Malays – to save democracy in Malaysia.

On Sunday, Taiwan elected Tsai Ing-wen of Democratic Progressive Party as President, which marked a third peaceful “turnover” of power through the ballot box – from Kuomintang (KMT) to DPP in 2000, DPP to KTM in 2008 and KTM back to DPP in 2016.

Malaysia has yet to become a normal democratic country, as we have yet to undergo one peaceful “turnover” of power through the ballot box when scholars say that a country cannot claim to be a normal democracy without two peaceful “turnovers” of power through the ballot box.

There are those who want to subvert even any peaceful “turnover” of power through the ballot box, by falsely claiming that Malays will lose political power if the  UMNO-led coalition is defeated in a general election, which appears most likely in the 14th General Election by 2018.

The 14GE is not battle between the Malays and Chinese for political power as Malays will not lose political power  even if Najib and UMNO lose the battle for Putrajaya.

The baseless campaign of lies, fear and hatred that Malays will lose political power if UMNO is defeated in the 14GE is a grave threat to democracy in Malaysia.

UMNO will be able to help defend democracy in Malaysia  if it opens it doors to non-Malays and become a Malaysian party dedicated to the upliftment of all Malaysians, regardless of race, religion or region and not just for any one single race or religion.

This will go a long way to debunk the lies and falsehoods that Malays will lose political power if Najib and UMNO are defeated in the 14GE.

Is the UMNO leadership prepared to consider Onn Jaafar’s 66-year proposal for UMNO to open its membership to non-Malays to be a patriotic Malaysian party and to defend democracy in Malaysia?

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 19 January 2016, 11:27 am and is filed under
Elections
,
Najib Razak
,
UMNO
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Islamic State Eludes Southeast Asian Authorities With Telegram App

By NEWLEY PURNELL and  RESTY WORO YUNIAR

Wall Street Journal

Jan. 19, 2016

Terrorist group using encrypted messaging app to recruit members in Malaysia, Indonesia

Communications app Telegram Messenger is in the spotlight after the deadly terrorist attacks in Jakarta last week, with experts in Indonesia and Malaysia saying Islamic State radicals in Syria have used the platform to recruit members from Southeast Asia.

The revelations underscore both the apparent popularity of the Berlin-based app among members of the terror organization and the challenges it poses to authorities in tracking its private, encrypted chats.

Malaysian police on Saturday said its counterterrorism unit last week arrested four suspects, three of whom were recruited to join Islamic State in Syria by a Malaysian national via Telegram and Facebook Inc.’s social-networking platform.

Telegram, which in November said it blocked 78 of its public channels across 12 languages related to Islamic State, was one of the first apps to explicitly cater to privacy enthusiasts after reports in 2013 alleging widespread surveillance by U.S. intelligence.

Islamic State has used Telegram, a free platform that can be accessed via mobile devices and desktop computers, to disseminate public statements, such as its claim of responsibility for the November attacks in Paris.

Law-enforcement agencies have warned that encrypted platforms that may have originally been built for legitimate commercial and gaming purposes are being used by violent groups to stay hidden. Islamic State even has tutorials about the most secure and least expensive ways of communicating while avoiding surveillance.

“All reported public content by ISIS gets removed promptly,” Telegram spokesman Markus Ra told The Wall Street Journal, referring to another name for the terror group, adding that removal is usually done within 24 hours.

Pavel Durov, the app’s founder, said in a tweet Friday that more than 600 public Islamic State-related channels have been removed since November, and that between five and 10 are banned every day.

Mr. Ra declined to comment on Malaysian authorities’ statements about the alleged use of Telegram.

“There is no place for terrorists on Facebook,” said a Facebook spokeswoman. “We work aggressively to ensure that we do not have terrorists or terror groups using the site, and we also remove any content that praises or supports terrorism.”

Despite the November crackdown, Islamic State-related material on Telegram remains widespread, according to Steve Stalinsky, executive director of the Washington, D.C.-based Middle East Media Research Institute.

“We’ve been monitoring terrorists’ use of the Internet for 10 years,” he said, adding that terrorists first flocked to blogs and web forums, then Twitter, and are now taking to encrypted messaging apps—Telegram chief among them.

Mr. Stalinsky said he is aware of roughly 200 Telegram channels that are in operation, some attracting 500 or 1,000 individuals each.

In the wake of terror attacks in Paris and California, the Federal Bureau of Investigation has been pushing technology firms to allow investigators to decrypt private communications during terror probes.

Many in the tech industry, however, argue that strong encryption is needed to protect users’ privacy.

Indonesian police say a local man named Bahrun Naim, an Islamic State adherent now based in Syria, sent money to the terrorists who carried out bomb and gun attacks in Jakarta last week, leaving eight people dead, including the four attackers.

Police have said Mr. Naim communicated with the men via the Internet, but have declined to give specifics.

Mr. Naim used Telegram to communicate with pro-Islamic State supporters in Indonesia he was trying to rally as followers, said Sidney Jones, head of the Jakarta-based Institute for Policy Analysis of Conflict, based on her knowledge of interviews with militants whom police arrested in August and December on suspicions they were planning a series of attacks in Indonesia.

“One of the things it tells you is we have a real problem with the fact that this is an encrypted service that no one can intercept,” Ms. Jones said.

The difficulty of stopping the spread of Islamic State propaganda on the Internet was highlighted after a blog appearing to belong to the alleged mastermind of the attacks resurfaced five days after it was blocked by the government.

The domain name bahrunnaim.site was changed from .co to .site and had two fresh posts stamped Monday in Mr. Naim’s name.

“It’s easy to restore a website after it is blocked,” said Andika Triwidada, a cybersecurity expert with Indonesia’s Computer Emergency Response Team.

The author denounced Indonesia’s antiterror police and said the Jakarta attack was carried out in retaliation for aggression against Muslims in Indonesia and around the world.

The ministry couldn’t be reached for comment, but access to the blog appeared to have been blocked Tuesday afternoon.

Indonesia’s Ministry of Communication and Information Technology has in the past year blocked access to dozens of websites it said contained radical content, including 11 in the wake of Thursday’s attacks.

But Minister Rudiantara, who like many Indonesians goes by one name, said the country isn’t planning to ban access to messaging platforms and social networks.

“I don’t think we are in a situation that requires such a move,” Mr. Rudiantara said.

In Malaysia, the Ministry of Communications said in a written response to questions that the government “views seriously the abuse of such technologies…We shall take stern action in such instances and review the use of the application if it is proven to facilitate acts of terrorism in this country.”

—Celine Fernandez and Sara Schonhardt contributed to this article.

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 20 January 2016, 7:12 pm and is filed under
Islamic state
,
IT
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Now that I have made an outright denial of  the RM1.2 billion allegation against DAP, will MyKMU ask Najib to fully explain or make an outright denial of  the RM2.6 billion (or RM4 billion)  donation allegations?

Pro-UMNO portal MyKMU.net has challenged me to explain allegations that the party had received RM1.2 billion “donations” from an Israeli source to fund its 13th general election campaign.

In a posting late evening yesterday, the portal said it was putting the pressure on me as I had similarly pressured the BN government to explain RM2.6 billion “donation” scandal implicating Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak.

I would not go to the extent of calling the MyKMU bloggers “blank heads”, an epithet in one of the MyKMU comments, but this  post has only confirmed that people with high IQ and with a modicum of integrity will never condescend to become UMNO cybertroopers (or anyone’s cybertroopers) as to post such garbage like this posting on MyKMU.

My explanation of the RM1.2 billion allegation from an Israeli source  against the DAP is a flat and outright denial as this is the concoction of the fevered imagination of two persons, one Razali Abd Rahman, who had the temerity to describe himself as Penang Chief Minister, Lim Guan Eng’s “former special officer” when he was never in such or any other capacity connected to the Penang Chief Minister, and one Dr. Mohd Zuhdi Marzuki, purportedly PAS Research Center’s Chief Operating Officer,  raising questions as to how doctorates could be  indiscriminately given out in Malaysia that it could be conferred on  someone who could be so gullible and undiscerning as to fall prey, willingly or willingly, to a character like Razali.

I wonder whether  the MyKMU bloggers have the intellectual capacity to realise that by re-hashing Razali and Zuhdi’s allegations,  they are in fact questioning the competence, efficiency and professionalism of  important government agencies like Bank Negara, the Police in particular the Special Branch and even the Prime Minister himself as RM1.2 billion is not a small sum which could wrapped in old newspapers and hidden under the mat.

Is MyKMU questioning the competence, efficiency and professionalism of Bank Negara, the Inspector-General of Police and the Prime Minister as they do not seem to know anything about the serious allegation of  RM1.2 billion to DAP from an Israeli source to fund the 13th General Election campaign (made some four years ago), and if there even one iota of evidence in such allegations,  all of three should be sacked immediately for gross incompetence and inefficiency.

Now that I have given a flat and outright  denial of the allegation of RM1.2 billion to DAP from an Israeli source, will MyKMU publish a fulsome apology for retailing such baseless lies?

What I have done is in direct contrast to the RM2.6 billion donation allegations against the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak.

Najib had never denied in the  more than six months after the allegation of RM2.6 billion deposited in Najib’s personal bank accounts was first published  by  Wall Street Journal on July 2, 2015, and WSJ had reiterated the veracity of its report on the RM2.6 billion “donation” deposits – and which Najib had not dared to challenge by a court or legal action.

In fact, Najib and his cohorts have as good as admitted the allegations, making various contradictory explanations that they were for UMNO election campaign fund (although UMNO accounts had never received a single sen so far), that they were donations from an important Middle East potentate, that the donations were intended to fight ISIS, Israel, Shiites, “liberal Muslims”, DAP, etc.

And now, there is the latest mystery, were the total amounts  deposited into Najib’s personal accounts RM2.6 billion, RM4 billion or more?

Why is it so difficult for Najib to answer this question, after he had as good as confirmed  the veracity of the  allegations that billions of ringgit had been deposited into his personal bank accounts –  but were the total deposits amounted to  RM2.6 billion, RM4 billion or more?

Would MyKMU now train their guns on Najib to demand that he stop his prevarication and procrastination for over six months as the Prime Minister dared not issue a flat and outright denial of the RM2.6 billion “donation” in his personal banking accounts.

Would the MyKMU bloggers dare to demand that  Najib  should answer, clearly and explicitly, without equivocation or ambiguity, the five questions about the RM2.6 billion “donations” –  (i) the actual total of the donations, whether RM2.6 billion, RM4 billion or more; (ii) who were the donors and what were the foreign countries involved; (iii) the motives for such astronomical “donations”; (iv) who had benefited from the donations; and (v) what is left of the donations and where are the monies now.

More than three months have passed since the historic and unprecedented joint statement by the Malay Rulers on Oct. 6 last year expressing their worry that if the issues confronting the nation, especially Najib’s twin mega scandals,  are not handled wisely and allowed to drag on, not only Malaysia’s economy and the livelihood of the people could be jeopardized, public order and national security could also be threatened.

This sad state of affairs as predicted by the Malay Rulers last October is coming to pass, but UMNO cybertroopers in MyKMU are only interested in playing games, and very stupid games, while the country is faced by a multitude of political, economic, good governance and nation-building crises.

Patriotic Malaysians, including the three million UMNO members, cry for an united, harmonious, self-confident, progressive and prosperous  Malaysia which can be a model of successful plural nation-building to the world instead degenerating into a sad example of a nation which once had such high promise of success, which should have become an economic tiger in the seventies or eighties, but now hurtling towards the direction of a rogue and failed state.

Now that I have made an outright denial of  the RM1.2 billion allegation against DAP, will MyKMU ask Najib to fully explain or make an outright denial of  the RM2.6 billion (or RM4 billion)  donation allegations?

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 20 January 2016, 9:47 am and is filed under
Corruption
,
Financial Scandals
,
Najib Razak
,
UMNO
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


What Indonesia Knows About Blocking the Islamic State

Joshua Kurlantzick

Bloomberg

January 20, 2016

Smart strategy has made the largest Muslim-majority nation a tough environment for the Islamic State.

In the wake of last week’s attacks in Jakarta, which killed seven people, fears are growing that the largest Muslim-majority nation in the world is going to be hit by a wave of Islamic State-linked bombings and shootings. The potential for mayhem seems obvious. Indonesia’s open society and high social media penetration make it easy for young Indonesians to access Islamist sites and Facebook pages, and the Sunni Muslim insurgency has released several videos in Indonesian in an apparent recruiting effort.

Indonesia is a country of thousands of islands, with porous borders and many soft targets: The militants launched bombs and opened fire in broad daylight in one of the busiest neighborhoods in Jakarta. And Indonesians have fought in Syria and Iraq and returned. The Soufan Group, a consulting security consulting group, believes that at least six hundred Southeast Asians have traveled to Syria to fight with the Islamic State and then come back to their home countries. Indeed, the alleged ringleader of last week’s Jakarta attacks, a militant named Bahru Naim, is currently living in Raqqa, Islamic State’s hub.

Fighting Islamic State

In reality, however, Indonesia has enjoyed far more success than most nations against Islamist militants, including those linked to the Islamic State. The country has witnessed numerous militant attacks over the past 15 years. Unlike some of its neighbors, however, Indonesia has not experienced increased public support for the Islamic State, and the government has not resorted to draconian measures to crush militant cells. Indonesia’s political leaders, security forces, and religious leaders offer varied lessons for combating the appeal of Islamic State.

For a time during the early 2000s, Indonesian government and religious authorities seemed paralyzed by the waves of militant attacks battering the archipelago. The country was in the early days of a political transition from authoritarian rule, when security forces harshly repressed many Islamic groups, frequently with brutal tactics. Government leaders such as former President Megawati Sukarnoputri, also seemed unsure how to combat terrorist cells without seeming to be doing the bidding of Western nations pressing the global war on terrorism.

As the 2000s continued and militants launched attacks all over the archipelago, Megawati’s successor, President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, oversaw a more aggressive, yet almost revolutionary approach to combating Islamist militants—both those linked to al-Qaeda and those linked to Islamic State. Joko Widodo, Indonesia’s current president, has continued many of these strategies.

With aid from the U.S. and other countries, Indonesia created a special unit of anti-terrorism police known as Detachment 88. In contrast to such countries as Pakistan, whose military handles counterterrorism efforts, often with minimal oversight, Indonesia made sure this was a police unit, not an army unit, because the army was still associated with past abuses. Detachment 88 soon developed a reputation for effective intelligence-gathering that allowed it to surprise members of militant cells in their homes, schools, and training facilities, sweeping up recruits and defusing plots.

The Indonesian government, hardly without blemishes on human rights issues, has seen its counterterrorism forces accused of fewer serious abuses than those of other governments in the region. By contrast, some Thai army units have been implicated in killings and disappearances in southern Thailand, where the military battles insurgents who are fighting for a separate, Muslim-majority state. Alleged abuses by Thai security forces have fostered extremism in southern Thailand, said Don Pathan, an expert on the conflict in Thailand.

At the same time, Indonesian presidents have aggressively utilized the bully pulpit to persuade their people that militants pose a threat to Indonesia, not just to Western nations. Presidents have used nationally televised speeches to highlight the militant threat and have supported government television programming that features interviews with survivors of militant attacks. The publicity campaigns are effective. In a poll taken in November by the Pew Research Center, nearly 80 percent of Indonesians held an unfavorable view of Islamic State, a much higher unfavorable figure than in Malaysia, Turkey, and Pakistan, among other countries.

While this bully pulpit strategy might seem obvious, many leaders in South Asia and Southeast Asia have been reluctant to aggressively rally populations against militants, perhaps out of fear that public denunciations will hurt their political parties’ popularity with religious (but not extremist) voters. For example, in Bangladesh, the government has mostly declined to aggressively condemn militants who have hacked to death five secular bloggers over the past year. (Instead, the Bangladeshi government has begun charging bloggers with crimes for defaming Islam.)

These national campaigns have helped Indonesia’s security forces, which rely on tips from the populace. Although militants were able to strike last week in Jakarta, that followed a month in which Indonesian security forces made a string of arrests in five cities of people allegedly linked to Islamic State and planning a larger attack. Over the past decade, Indonesian authorities have crippled Jemaah Islamiah, one of the largest militant networks in Southeast Asia.

It helps that the largest Indonesian religious organizations have added their weight to the campaign against the militants. Nahdlatul Ulama, an Indonesian religious movement with some 50 million members, has developed a sophisticated public campaign promoting a tolerant version of Islam. The campaign emphasizes to Indonesians that Islamic State’s Salafist jihadism is alien to Indonesia’s Islamic traditions.

Militants could undoubtedly pull off another attack against bars, cafes, hotels, and other unguarded targets in Indonesia. Over the past 15 years, there have been multiple bombings in Bali, Jakarta, and other major cities, despite successes in arresting terrorist cells and reducing the appeal of militancy among young Indonesians. The country has no immigration controls on many of its smaller and remote islands.

Even in the face of such pressing counter-terrorism challenges, Indonesia appears to have figured out how to limit the deep inroads made by the Islamic State and its allies in other countries.

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 20 January 2016, 7:40 pm and is filed under
Islam
,
Islamic state
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Who is to bell the cat?

While Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak will get the national thumbs down when he claimed in his 2016 New Year Message that his RM2.6 billion “donation” and RM55 billion 1MDB scandal had been resolved and were  no more issues for the new year, the Bank Negara Governor Tan Sri Zeti Akhtar Aziz received  unanimous national applause and  support for her statement that Malaysians wish to see the investigation into 1MDB concluded so that they can move on.

When can Malaysians shake off the adverse political, economic and good governance effects of Najib’s twin mega scandals?

This question had been posed again and again in the past six months since the Wall Street Journal revelation of RM2.6 billion deposits in Najib’s personal bank accounts on July 2, 2015, and Najib’s failure to sue Wall Street Journal despite the American newspaper’s  reiteration of the veracity of its allegation.

The Malay Rulers, in a historic and unprecedented joint statement on Oct. 6 last year, expressed  their worry that if the issues confronting the nation, especially Najib’s twin mega scandals,  were not handled wisely and allowed to drag on, not only Malaysia’s economy and the livelihood of the people could be jeopardized, public order and national security could also be threatened.

Will Malaysia be haunted and hounded by Najib’s twin mega scandals so long as Najib remains as Prime Minister of Malaysia?

If the answer is in the positive, then shouldn’t this be a major factor for the consideration for Najib to relinquish the post of Prime Minister, whether by his own volition, at the behest of his peers or the demand of the nation?

Is there any prospect that Najib can shake off both twin mega scandals so long as he is Prime Minister?

The prognosis are not good at all.

For instance, although Najib had made the forecast in his 2016 New Year Message that his twin mega scandals are no more issues in the new year as they had been resolved, the facts are the reverse as they remain the dominating news in the new year.

Yesterday alone, for instance, Malaysiakini carried nine items where Najib’s twin mega scandals featured prominently, viz:

1.	MyKMU: DAP must explain RM1.2b said to be from Israel

2.	Najib to table Syariah Index report on March 28

3.	Horror tunes on repeat, Rafidah plugs ears over state of nation

4.	RM2.6b or RM4b, Kit Siang asks MACC

5.	Act fast to save us from decline, royalty, politicians urged

6.	Rafizi to campaign against 1MDB’s Bandar M’sia sale to consortium

7.	Zeti: M’sians want probe on 1MDB concluded so can move on

8.	PAC yet to decide on calling ex-1MDB chairperson to testify

9.	Najib, you’re ridiculing rakyat with RM2.6b ‘donation’

Zeti’s plaintive cry that Malaysians wish to see the investigation into 1MDB concluded so that they can move on  was matched by former Cabinet Minister, Tan Sri Rafidah Aziz’ expression of horror that the country was unable to  move beyond the two big “political and national haze” in the country, clearly referring to Najib’s twin mega scandals – and describing the Malaysian situation like the “Mexican Shuffle” – “one step forward, two steps back, and things go back to square one!”

Meanwhile, veteran newsman A Kadir Jasin sounded the alarm of a national and economic decline unless UMNO politicians like Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin and Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah and the Malay rulers act quickly to save the country – and the negative factors included Najib’s twin mega scandals.

Najib should end his denial syndrone which is becoming world-class.

It is sad and tragic that there is not a single Minister who dare to remind  the Prime Minister at Cabinet meetings like the one held  today that there is no other option for  Najib but to make a full and satisfactory accounting of both the twin mega scandals, in particular, for Najib to answer the five questions about the RM2.6 billion “donation” scandal, viz: (i) the actual total of the donations, whether RM2.6 billion, RM4 billion or more; (ii) who were the donors and what were the foreign countries involved; (iii) the motives for such astronomical “donations”; (iv) who had benefited from the donations; and (v) what is left of the donations and where are the monies now.

Who is the bell the cat?

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 20 January 2016, 4:06 pm and is filed under
Corruption
,
Financial Scandals
,
Najib Razak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.