Let’s make Malaysia Boleh a reality

By
Lim Mun Fah | The Malaysian Insider

 I was away from the country when the 10th Malaysia Plan (10MP) was unveiled. On my return, I took some time to study the document.

At the first look, the 10MP seems like an excellently packaged master plan with an ambitious magnificent vision for the nation.

An in-depth study of the documents, however, uncovered some fundamental flaws, the most glaring, perhaps, is the conspicuous retention and reiteration of certain racially exclusive policies and programmes.

Another unfortunate weakness is surely the lack of a determined and expeditious practical attempt to liberalise and promote a more open education environment, particularly for Chinese education.

The proposed move to gradually end the overseas scholarship scheme is a regrettable myopic policy, lacking foresight and pragmatic insight.

The failure to accept and accord formal recognition to the Chinese school system’s Unified Examination Certificate (UEC) is certainly unfortunate and regrettable. And, graduates of Chinese independent high schools who wish to join the Chinese teachers training will only be considered if they hold the Sijil Pelajaran Malaysia (SPM).

It has been reported that Deputy Prime Minister and Education Minister Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin had promised to “consider” allowing UEC holders to apply for the Chinese teachers training programme if they have a pass in the SPM Bahasa Malaysia paper.

As a father of three UEC holders, I am extremely disappointed with the government’s lack of firm commitment on the matter. It could only pledge to “consider”, not give an absolute validity, meaning that any application for the Chinese teacher training scheme is dependent on the whim, bias or prejudice of whoever process it.

The federal government has publicly declared that having a multiple-lingual society is an asset in the increasingly competitive and borderless world, but it has not matched such an acknowledgement with affirmative concrete measures.

For decades, Chinese independent school-leavers have been marginalised and left on the periphery of the nation-building process, the conspicuous lack of Chinese in the civil service being a very glaring example.

However, the majority of these Chinese independent school leavers have been unfazed by the adverse situation and are able to overcome the unfavourable circumstance that hinders their progress and advancement, becoming shining examples of skilful, productive citizens in their various professional fields. All on their own efforts, too.

The UEC is recognised and accepted as an admission qualification by the top universities in China, Japan, Taiwan, Hong Kong and Singapore, and many leading universities of the world, including those ranked among the top 100 and even top 10 in Europe, the United States, Australia and New Zealand.

Yet, the sad irony is that our own motherland, Malaysia, does not grant recognition to the UEC whose standard is comparable to or even better than most high school qualifications in most of the top schools in the world.

The Chinese community is deeply disappointed and disheartened with such an unreasonable and unjust national education policy, which alienates those who study at the Chinese independent schools.

Hundreds of thousands of Chinese independent school-leavers are asking the same lamentable sorrowful question: “I love my motherland, but does my motherland love me?”

It is certainly unpleasant for the federal government to hear this, but as long as the status of Chinese independent schools and the UEC are not accepted and recognised, as long as matters like the development, teachers and relocation of Chinese schools are not resolved, the issue of Chinese education will forever be the grindstone hanging from the neck of the Barisan Nasional (BN).

If the 10MP is an opportunity for Malaysia to take its first step towards the reform and regeneration of the nation, then all discriminatory and unjust policies must be removed, with the disambiguation of the government agenda undertaken to define and make clear the meaning, purpose and actions of the government.

The fundamental objective must be the elimination of racial exclusivity from the administration and operation of the governing process, with the recognition, acceptance, and promotion of the pluralistic lifestyle and the democratic ideals in our multi-racial, multi-religious, multi-cultural and multi-lingual nation being made the norm.

Let us think and strive with a broad, open heart to make Malaysia a great nation where everyone, irrespective of colour, creed, culture or class, will find a comfortable personal niche and enjoy to the fullest the resources and benefits of the motherland.

Malaysia Boleh? — mysinchew.com

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 22 July 2010, 10:48 am and is filed under
Education
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Malaysia in the Era of Globalization #24

By
M. Bakri Musa

Chapter 4: Modern Model States

The Asian Miracle – South Korea (Con’td)

The Koreans were diligent learners; they bested the Japanese. The hard-working Japanese looked lazy in comparison to the maniacal Koreans, so complete and successful the emulation.

The headlong rush towards industrialization carried a heavy social toll. With resources diverted towards heavy industries and the military, precious little was left for social development. Housing prices hit the roof and prices of common consumer goods spiraled up. These social problems were compounded by Parks’ increasingly authoritarian rule and the menacing activities of his Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) that seemed to have learned only too well from the excesses of its American counterpart. Legitimate students’ and workers’ protests were brutally suppressed, turning their victims into martyrs.

These fissures in Korean society were exacerbated with the inevitable economic slowdown. In the end Park’s own CIA chief assassinated him in 1979. Park’s social policies offended many civil libertarians but the results of his economic strategies were impressive. And with the tangible successes, the Koreans acquired the confidence to proceed to the next stage of development.

Following another period of political crisis, General Chun Doo Hwan seized power. Aware of his limitations on economic matters, Chun proved to be a diligent and fast learner. He was smart enough to choose seasoned economists trained at prestigious American universities as his advisors. These economists, stooped in the tradition of America’s free enterprise, steered Chun to make major adjustments more in line with modern economic realities. Some of Park’s more ambitious projects that simply did not make much economic sense were either shelved or scrapped, and the Korean economy was gradually liberalized.

Unfortunately Chun suffered a severe setback when North Korean agents assassinated many of his senior advisors in Rangoon in 1983. And like his predecessor Park, Chun’s administration was also mired with repeated scandals of corruption, often involving his immediate family. In the end he too was forced out.

Having liberalized its financial institutions, Korea began to attract foreign money. But these new foreign funds began shifting from direct investments in factories and plants to short-term capital inflows that merely fueled the stock market. Buoyed by Korea’s economic successes and buoyant equity market, foreign lenders were eager to lend and the Koreans equally willing to borrow. The government implicitly encouraged this by lowering interest rates and fixing its currency to the dollar.

Alas, success brought with it its own excesses and evil. With the inevitable overcapacity and the developing Asian economic contagion that began in Thailand in June 1997, Korea too was caught in the maelstrom. These “hot money” fled as fast as they came, leaving Korea and its heavily indebted industries and chaebol in deep financial crisis.

With International Monetary Fund’s (IMF) help, the 12th largest economy was saved from default; so too was the world’s economic system. But that help came with some very stiff terms. Korea had to raise its interest rates to usurious levels, shut down excess capacity, and further liberalize its system. The effects of the remedy are such that to Koreans the acronym IMF stands for “I Am Fired!” Today South Korea has substantially recovered from those dark days of 1997, aided no doubt by the painful structural adjustments imposed by the IMF and the sheer grit and determination of its leaders.

Korea’s recent economic turmoil was often described in apocalyptic terms. A reality check is in order. It was never in any danger of collapsing, but its overeager lenders at Wall Street were, as they were so vulnerably overexposed. Besides, even if the country were to default and its economy collapse, Korea would still have its highly educated and entrepreneurial workforce, the discipline of its people, and all those wonderful infrastructures. And to top it, the political will of its leaders.

The recent setbacks notwithstanding, Korea’s achievements are truly remarkable. Here was a country with no natural resources, been colonized, and then occupied by a foreign army, becoming a top economic power in just one generation.

Volumes have been written on the South Korean phenomenon. Many attribute it to the mysterious and of course superior “Asian values” and Confusion ethics. Alas these pat explanations have ready debunkers. North Koreans too had similar values and ethics, but that did not land them far. In North Korea that same Confucionism gives rise to paranoid xenophobia. Nor can the champions of free markets claim much credit because the government was heavily involved in central planning and in the economy. These are anathema to free market advocates. Indeed the Soviets too would be pleased with Korea’s own series of Five Year Plans.

The Koreans do have something going for them – their respect for learning and value for education. Korea rightly emphasized education, not just any type of education for that could have easily ended up producing highly educated taxi drivers and petition writers as in India, but one that emphasizes the sciences, mathematics, technology, and English. Eager bright Korean students inundate the graduate schools of leading American universities. They are keen on learning from the best. While many countries are content merely with sending their students out, one of the Korean chaebols hired the entire Johnson Business School at Cornell to train its executives!

This heavy emphasis on education is remarkable considering that the nation was also spending heavily on defense. The Korean obsession with education mimics the Japanese, complete with their own version of “cram schools.” The whole country was consumed with education and learning. It is said that during the annual final examination season, the flight path at Seoul’s old Kimpo airport had to be diverted lest the noise would disturb the students! So intent were the Koreans with their cramming that the government had to ban extra-hour tuition so as to give everyone a fair shake. It turns out that the rich were spending inordinate sums on private tuition for their children, putting those from poor families at a distinct disadvantage.

Such obsession with rote learning and passing tests has its breaking point. Today many Koreans are sending their young children abroad for high school simply to escape the meat grinder that is the Korean system. Families had to sacrifice much to do this. Many a Korean father is leading a lonely life back home while their wives are abroad accompanying the children – all to spare their children the torture of attending a Korean school!

A more recent and dramatic phenomenon has pregnant Koreans flying to America to give birth so their babies will have automatic American citizenship. This of course will come in handy when these babies are ready for high school and college. Talk about long term planning!

While the world may sing praises for the Korean educational system, the Koreans themselves are not impressed with it.

Many Koreans, especially those with highly desirable qualifications in the sciences and engineering from elite Western universities, stay abroad to work. After they have scaled the corporate ladder they would be enticed back home to start their own ventures, with generous funding from the state. The initial attempts at attracting expatriate Koreans were clumsy and unsuccessful. Besides, they were busy enjoying their freedom and newfound affluence. To make matters worse, to most Koreans abroad, their memory and image of their homeland were colored by the notorious activities of their CIA in harassing their countrymen.

To their credit, the Korean leaders persisted and eventually overcame the suspicions of young Koreans abroad. Indeed when these leaders visited America they never failed to meet and entice these young Koreans to return home. To many Koreans who were incognito in America, the chance to be wined and dined by their head of state and the promise to be somebody back home was indeed giddying. Many took the offer and successfully contributed to their homeland.

I remember seeing how flattered my Korean colleagues were with the attention they received from visiting Korean dignitaries. The South Korean success spawned many imitators; other Asian nations including Malaysia are now belatedly trying to attract their own nationals to come home. Unlike the Koreans however, Malaysia has yet to learn the fine art of friendly persuasion.

My first experience with this new economic clout of modern Korea was in the early 1980’s. IBM had just released its wildly successful personal computer. Assembled from off-the-shelf parts, the PC was not only a hit with consumers but also carried an obscenely high profit margin for its maker. I was about to buy one when our neighbor showed us his new machine made by an obscure Korean company and at a fraction of IBM’s price. I rushed to the store only to find that the entire stock had been sold with only the floor model left.

That company, Leading Edge, was started by one of those returning Koreans. For a while it humbled mighty IBM. Like South Korea, Malaysia too sent thousands of young students abroad. Unlike the Koreans, Malaysians were doing mainly undergraduate studies, often in the arts rather than science and engineering. Further, while the Koreans gravitated towards top rank universities; Malaysians chose the least competitive institutions. And unlike the Koreans, Malaysians rushed home as soon as they received their degree, to establish seniority in the bureaucracy! Malaysian students did not value American work experience.

Mark Clifford in his book, Troubled Tiger, attributed Korea’s success to its government having its fundamentals right. Korea has a high level of literacy especially for science and mathematics; high savings and investments; discipline and hard working citizens; and a strict program that helps curb its population growth. Clifford’s observations deserve scrutiny because he was among the first to raise the issue of the vulnerabilities of the Korean success story. His book was published in 1994 while the world was fast running out of superlatives to describe South Korea.

Clifford rightly zeroed in on Korea’s weakness: corruption being the way of life from Rhee’s time till today. Corruption is inevitable whenever the state is very powerful and heavily involved in the private sector. We could only marvel how far the Koreans would have been today if only their system were less corrupt.

On a more general note, the American economist Paul Krugman also voiced his skepticism on the sustainability of the Asian economic miracle. In a particularly prescient article in 1994, he predicted that the spectacular economic achievements of many Asian countries were essentially a one-shot affair. Krugman was proven right not long after that. The Asian economic contagion swept through the continent in 1997.

Next: The Celtic Tiger

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 22 July 2010, 11:36 am and is filed under
Bakri Musa
,
globalisation
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Bad FDI news for Malaysia: Down by 81 percent in 2009

By
Aidila Razak
 | Malaysiakini

A nosedive in foreign direct investments in Malaysia in 2009 follows a continued downward trend in FDI, increasingly overshadowed by regional players, noted a United Nations report.

According to the World Investment Report 2010 unveiled today, FDI plunged 81 percent from US$7.32 billion (RM23.47 billion*) in 2008 to just US$1.38 billion (RM4.43 billion) last year.

(*Calculated based on exchange rate of US$1 = RM3.20650)

The 2009 FDI is less than half of the annual average FDI inflow between 1995 to 2005, which encompasses the long recovery period following the 1997 economic crisis.

Malaysia’s performance also pales in comparison with neighbouring economies like Thailand and Indonesia whose FDI figures did not contract as severely, despite the global financial crisis.

Thailand suffered a decline of US$4.44 billion (RM14.24 billion) while Indonesia saw a more modest drop of US$2.60 billion (RM8.32 billion) in foreign investments in 2009.

The severe dip also places Malaysia in the red for the first time in the last 15 years, with figures for cumulative FDI (see chart right) surpassing incoming investments by about US$1 billion (RM3.21 billion).

Doubts over high income target

Speaking at the UN Headquarters in Kuala Lumpur today, Universiti Malaya economist Rajah Rasiah (at podium in photo) said that Malaysia’s poor performance casts doubts over whether it can achieve the targets set to achieve high income status.

“Malaysia is fortunate to be in a good neighbourhood, located among growing countries. The three largest recipients of FDI are located in Asia (but) Malaysia does not even make the top 10 list of recipients,” he said.

He added that this is remarkable for a country with a specific FDI policy, unlike Taiwan which is placed 10th in the list.

Conversely, Malaysia is “doing well in FDI outflows”, ranking fifth in the list of South, East and Southeast Asian countries investing abroad.

“Speaking to fund managers, I get the impression that we have the resources to invest locally but not many viable options to do so. Even local investors find us less attractive,” he said.

Human capital a barrier

The main stumbling block, he said, remains our narrow human capital pool which leaves industries stagnating in low-end production.

He added that while foreign investor laud the ease of doing business in Malaysia, a lack of skilled labour, research and development and technological capabilities is placing the country on the losing end of the increasingly competitive FDI battle.

Malaysia has 300 to 400 science and technology workers for every 100,000 persons, as opposed to 3,000 in countries which made the transition from middle to high income status, he said.

Similarly, the country is under-investing in research and development at only 0.64 percent of GDP, while others like Taiwan and South Korea are investing about 3 percent of theirs.

It should also look at mirroring such nations in developing a “vetting mechanism” for FDI to ensure that the investments can be a catalyst for human capital and technology development.

This will include screening FDI by choosing those with technologies that could be upgraded along the value chain and monitoring to ensure a transfer of expertise takes place.

“We allow foreign firms in by giving grants and tax incentives, so we must ensure that spillovers (in terms of technology transfers) occur,” he said.

The bottom 40 percent of the population should also be assisted insofar as developing their skills to meet the shortage in industry.

“In assisting the lower income population, we should look at developing skills like precision engineering and die casting, which are sought after by foreign investors,” he said.

                This entry was posted on Friday, 23 July 2010, 10:56 pm and is filed under
Economics
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Efforts to de-stabilise & sabotage Penang intensified – video

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 24 July 2010, 10:15 am and is filed under
Lim Guan Eng
,
Penang Government
,
UMNO
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


FDI crashing because investors lost faith, says DAP

By
Boo Su-Lyn | The Malaysian Insider

KUALA LUMPUR, July 25 — A lack of confidence in Malaysia’s economy has driven foreign direct investment (FDI) to our neighbours, leaving the once-roaring “Asian tiger” to compete with Indochina countries, the DAP said today.

The World Foreign Investment Report (WIR) 2010 released by the United Nations showed that FDI in Malaysia plunged 81 per cent last year, trailing behind countries like the Philippines, Vietnam, Thailand, Indonesia and Singapore.

“For the first time ever in history, Malaysia attracted less investment than the Philippines,” DAP national publicity secretary Tony Pua said in a statement today.

The Philippines attracted US$1.95 billion (RM6.24 billion) in FDI compared to Malaysia’s US$1.38 billion, while Singapore raked in the most — more than US$16 billion.

“Among Southeast Asian nations, we are now only attracting more FDI than Cambodia, Myanmar, Brunei, Laos and Timor-Leste,” added Pua.

“What was previously unimaginable, that we may one day be compared to countries such as Cambodia and Myanmar, is now a real possibility,” said the Petaling Jaya Utara MP, pointing out that those countries had also attracted less than US$2 billion in FDIs last year.

Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak has been trying to lift Malaysia’s profile as a destination for foreign investment to help the country achieve an average gross domestic product (GDP) growth of at least six per cent per annum over the next five years.

But Malaysia’s FDI rates have fallen faster than other regional players like Singapore and China, and at the same time capital outflows have dampened private domestic investments.

The Najib administration has also warned that the economy may slow down in the second half of the year due to external factors but have insisted that a six per cent growth was still achievable.

Today, Pua also said that Malaysia had suffered the biggest decline of FDI in Southeast Asia from 2008 till 2009.

“The government cannot use the excuse of the (global financial) crisis as the reason for the precipitous drop in FDI as we have performed the worst compared to all other countries big and small in the region,” said Pua.

Data revealed that Malaysia suffered a large 81.1 per cent drop in FDIs compared to far healthier figures in Thailand (30.4 per cent), Vietnam (44.1 per cent) and Indonesia (44.7 per cent).

However, Singapore, Brunei, Philippines and Myanmar still managed to register positive growth, said Pua.

Pua, also DAP’s chief economist, pointed out that Malaysia was the sole Southeast Asian nation to have registered a net negative FDI flow last year.

“Malaysia was the only country where our outflow of FDI amounting to US$8.04 billion is substantially greater than the FDI of US$1.38 billion received,” said Pua.

“Not only are foreign investors unwilling to invest in Malaysia, our own local investors as well as foreign investors who are already in the country have a total lack of confidence in the ability of our economy to generate an attractive return to their investments,” added Pua.

He pointed out that Malaysia’s net FDI flows have declined from US$2.56 billion in 2004 and US$1.09 billion (2005), to a net negative US$0.02 billion (2006), negative US$2.7 billion (2007) and negative US$7.67 billion in 2008.

“Despite Datuk Seri Najib repeatedly insisting that the era where ‘the government knows best’ is over, his administration continues to crowd out private investments by directly awarding mega-projects to government-linked entities, such as the Sungai Buloh land to an Employee Provident Fund joint venture with the government, or the Sungai Besi airport redevelopment, to the 1 Malaysia Development Fund,” said Pua.

“Without these necessary and critical changes to the government’s economic policies, the Malaysian economy will only continue to drift away from the radar of both local and foreign investors,” he added.

Pua went on to criticise Najib for not moving ahead with his New Economic Model, pointing out the prime minister had been forced to call it a “trial balloon” after a sour reaction from some Malay groups.

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 25 July 2010, 10:09 pm and is filed under
Economics
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


M’sia’s increasing unattractiveness is ‘karma’

By
Joe Fernandez
 | Malaysiakini

Without getting into the kind of superstition and quackery that many Malaysians swear by most times, it’s safe to conclude that the chickens are coming home to roost.

The 10 percent economic growth rate envisaged this year for the country, if it’s not a flash-in-the-pan, reminds us of the phrase that there are lies, damn lies and statistics. Again, this is indeed the unpalatable fact that we have to deal with in the run-up to 2020 and its aftermath.

The federal government needs to start thinking from now how they are going to explain in ten years time why we have failed to reach developed nation status and a high income economy.

?Prime Minister Najib Razak (left) claims that Malaysia has to grow at just 6 percent per annum over the next ten years to become a high income economy and emerge as a developed nation by 2020.

It was announced by the Economic Planning Unit in 1990 that the nation had been growing at 6.7 percent per annum since independence in 1957. As an economy grows and matures, it’s more than likely that the annual economic growth rate would taper off, not accelerate even further. This is only to be expected. The bigger the base, the smaller the annual economic growth rate and vice versa. Developed nation status arrives somewhere along the way and taking into account the shifting parameters.

However, former prime minister Mahathir Mohamad reckoned that Malaysia would achieve developed nation status under his Vision 2020 in thirty years if the economy grew at 7 percent per annum i.e. just 0.3 percent more.

He even admitted that would be no mean task. This would see the emergence of an economy eight times larger by 2020. Malaysia would be the first Muslim nation in the world to be developed, thundered Mahathir as he cast his eyes darkly at the west.

It was not for any reason that former finance minister Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah subsequently dismissed Vision 2020 cynically as just a gimmick by Mahathir who, he pointed out, “did not know anything about economics”.

View through rose-tinted glasses

Of course, the 1997/98 Asian Currency Crisis intervened and sent the ringgit, share prices, property prices and other values into a nose-dive and the economic growth rates into negative territory for a couple of years. This was followed by the global financial tsunami and the global economic crisis and soon perhaps a double-dip in the developed world as deflation stalks the United States and elsewhere.

?And now we are expected to believe that Najib with his 6 percent per annum over ten years will achieve what Mahathir had estimated would take 7 percent per annum over 30 years.

Also, not to be discounted is the fact that Malaysia has not been posting an average annual economic growth rate of 7 percent during the 1990 to 2009 period.

Now, the Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) figures put a further damper on the economic picture in Malaysia.

FDI is the only measurable vote of the world’s confidence in our economy and our future as a people and nation. That’s bench marking that we need. That crucial element is missing because of the absence of security in our institutions, politics – read Sodomy 11 – and democracy, our diplomacy, in the currency, in prices and values, the cost of doing business and the lack of nation-building policies.

?So, the crucial element of the world’s confidence in us is unlikely to return, like the wild birds which have been scared away from the grains being tossed to them, unless and until bitter memories fade.

Nepotism, cronyism, collusion and corruption must be brought to an end. Already, the Danish government has announced in Parliament that Malaysia would no longer qualify as an aid recipient nation “because of its government’s profligate spending habits”.

The special privileges, openly touted self-servingly by Umno for over 50 years, do not exist in the federal constitution. In short, respect and honour the constitution, in particular Articles 153, 152, 14, 10, 8 and 3 which have been observed more often in the breach.

Haunted by the past

There must also be compelling reasons to invite a positive rethink by investors on the country.

?To put it even more bluntly, there must be transparency, public accountability and checks-and-balances. The doctrine of the separation of powers must be restored and the country must move away from the trend towards emerging as a unitary state. This calls for decentralisation and a return to the three-tier power-sharing structure of a federation, the drastic downsizing of the Prime Minister’s Department which has emerged as a hyper ministry, the restoration of state rights and respect for the autonomy of Sabah and Sarawak.

Our past, in other words, has caught up with us in the present to haunt our future.

Christians, without flogging this writer’s unpractising faith, believe that “as you sow, so shall you reap”. This is neither being positive nor negative. It’s neutral just as karma – the “scientific” law of cause and effect – is neutral.

Isn’t there something to be said about looking for the silver lining in the clouds, looking at everything that happens as a blessing in disguise and counting one’s blessings?

This is easier said than done especially when there are two sides to this story i.e. at the people’s level and at the government level. Even if the people have not been found wanting, there’s no doubt that the government leaves a lot to be desired.

?Patently there’s still no sure codified approach, as in the past, for us to venture into the future despite the tons of press releases emanating from Putrajaya on the Government Transformation Programme (GTP), National Key Result Areas (NKRA), Key Performance Indices (KPI) to drive the Najib administration’s 1Malaysia theme. This is not to say that there’s little merit in these approaches but no is taking them seriously enough amidst the flip-flops.

We can be forgiven for concluding, if still not in denial syndrome mode, that there’s a lot of hype going around these days in the country, especially in Putrajaya, amidst a general living on hope and wishful thinking.

Only those who suffer from the three monkeys syndrome – see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil – will be blind, deaf and dumb enough not to see that this country is not going anywhere in any great hurry soon in the near future.

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 25 July 2010, 8:05 am and is filed under
Economics
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Chief Secretary Sidek’s “Mother Hen” Folly

By
M. Bakri Musa

Chief Secretary Sidek Hassan did not acquit himself honorably in so quickly defending federal civil servant Nik Ali Yunus in his very public and ugly squabble with Penang’s Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng.

            Sidek’s swift reaction reflects more of a “mother hen” instinct of protecting its brood rather than the cool considered judgment of the head of an organization of professionals, as our civil servants would like us to believe them to be.

            A state development officer (Nik Ali’s designation) is pretty far down in the federal civil service scheme of things, yet Sidek felt compelled to intervene.  He did, in a rash and clumsy manner.  At the very least he should have sought the views of both sides before rendering judgment.  That would have been the mark of a true professional; it would also the decent thing to do.

            Sidek’s quick reaction to this personnel crisis stands in sharp contrast to his lack of one to another far-from-exemplary behavior of a very senior civil servant.  I refer to the utterance of Solicitor General II Yusof Zainal Abidin to the allegation that one of his lawyers was romantically involved with the key prosecution witness in Anwar Ibrahim’s “Sodomy II” trial.

            While not categorically denying the allegation, Yusof simply dismissed it, adding this astounding assertion, “What my team does in their own personal time is not my business.  Usually, I don’t check on their personal lives.”

             A Solicitor General is high up on the totem pole of the civil service; you have to be very senior and capable to reach that lofty position.  Yet we have this character failing to recognize the potential implications of a member of his team being romantically involved with a witness, especially a key one.  To think that we have as Solicitor General a lawyer who is unaware of the essence of professional ethics and conflict of interest!  This reflects poorly on the caliber of persons we appoint to senior positions in our civil service.

             Yusof’s inept attempt at minimizing that lawyer’s role in his prosecuting team was equally unprofessional.  Yusof conveniently forgot that he was dealing with a lawyer, a professional, in his department, not the office clerk.  It does not matter whether that lawyer “was only brought in to help with taking notes, compiling data, evidence.”  A lawyer involved in such unethical activities ought to be disbarred regardless of where she works or what she does.

Lack of Professionalism at the Highest Levels

 So we have two disturbing displays of less than exemplary behaviors if not outright lack of professionalism at the highest levels of our civil service.  One is the Chief Secretary not hearing both sides to the Lim Eng Guan and Nik Ali squabble before rendering judgment, and the other, the Solicitor General failing to recognize a breach of professional ethics.

             Contrary to Solicitor General Yusof’s assertion, what civil servants do in private can and do have a major impact on the effectiveness of their official duties.  If our top civil servants do not know this, as clearly demonstrated by Yusof’s remarks, then Sidek has a monumental task ahead of him.

             Back to the squabble in Penang; in defending the federal officer, Sidek chided Lim for being extreme in resorting to public criticisms of the officer.  Sidek also asserted that there was nothing unprofessional for Nik Ali to retaliate openly by condemning the Chief Minister at an UMNO gathering.

             Nik Ali was obviously ignorant of the internal channels available to him to express his dissatisfaction; hence his enlisting the help of a political party.  With Sidek’s rousing endorsement of Nik Ali’s action, this could well prove to be the new and accepted way.  I shudder to contemplate the consequences to the nation generally and the civil service specifically should that be the norm.  Perhaps I am being naïve here for this may already be the set pattern; hence the sorry shape we are in.

             For his part, Lim claimed that he had sought a private meeting with Sidek as far back as May to discuss the matter, but he (Sidek) cancelled it at the last minute.  Had Sidek acted professionally, he would have realized that the request came not from an opposition politician but the chief executive of a major state.  If Lim’s assertion were true, then Sidek owes the public an explanation for spurning Lim.  Sidek should have been more respectful of federal-state relationships.

             Incredibly, Sidek also did not find anything unusual or a breach of the civil service code for a federal officer to be addressing partisan party gatherings.  Sidek’s excuse was that he as Chief Secretary had to be present when Najib gave his speeches.

             Sidek obviously failed to grasp the essential difference between Najib the Prime Minister and Najib the party president.  Yes, Sidek should be by Prime Minister Najib on official functions, but Sidek should not be seen or be in any way officially or unofficially associated with the President of UMNO.  Sidek is a career civil servant, supposedly politically neutral and a professional.  If he were a political appointee, that would be a different matter.

            Sidek’s incredulous assertion and crudely inappropriate behavior did not end there.  As Chief Secretary, he manages matters to be discussed at cabinet meetings.  That he saw fit to bring this to the highest level revealed Sidek’s warped sense of priorities.  I would have thought that the cabinet had other more pressing matters.  It was pathetic to see both the Prime Minister and his deputy putting in their dua-sen comments on this lowly personnel matter.

            As leader, a major part of Sidek’s responsibility is to solve problems, not create them.  He should also be able to anticipate them, and thus try to avoid or at least be ready.  With the Penang issue, Sidek not only fails to solve it but he also aggravates it.

             More deplorable, Sidek fails to anticipate the potential ugly racial undercurrent to this conflict.  This is Malaysia and any conflict quickly acquires a racial hue unless intelligently and sensitively handled.  Sidek’s management of this crisis fails on both counts.

             The outcome would have been far more favorable, and the nation spared a potentially destructive racial crisis, had Sidek been wise, restrained and professional.  In failing to have the earlier scheduled meeting with Lim, and not hearing both sides to the dispute between Lim and Nik Ali, Sidek flunked the most elementary test of leadership – nipping a problem in the bud.

             Now that the different parties can be the governing as well as the opposition simultaneously at the federal and state levels, it behooves Sidek to provide guidelines on the proper relationship between civil servants and their political superiors.

             Sidek must do this now, well before the next general elections.  Failure to do so would risk our nation having to endure again the ugly spectacle that we witnessed at Shah Alam immediately following the last general elections.  The next time however, it would be far more revolting.  Then Chief Minister Khir Toyo in cahoots with the state’s senior civil servants acted like a bunch of yahoos in destroying state documents and properties, anticipating the change in political leadership.  That was criminal.  That they were not prosecuted again reflected the lack of professionalism in our civil service.

             While he is at it, Sidek should also draw up guidelines on how our diplomats abroad should handle visiting Malaysians, specifically lawmakers from other than the ruling party.  These Malaysians should not be ignored, as is the current practice.  They are our lawmakers regardless of their party affiliations.  Our diplomats should learn from their British and American counterparts in Malaysia and see how they treat visiting Labor MPs and Republican members of Congress.

             As an aside, there was another unpleasant dimension to the Shah Alam spectacle of 2004.  Selangor was not the only state that saw a change in political leadership; there was also Penang.  Unlike Selangor, the transition in Penang was smooth and civilized.  Again this being Malaysia, one cannot escape from drawing a racial conclusion to this difference.  I am embarrassed to state this, but it is obvious though not talked openly in polite social discourse.

             Sidek also needs to scrutinize more closely the performance of his top officers.  He should not tolerate such inept and unprofessional conduct as displayed by the Solicitor General.  That would be more productive than intervening in the personnel problems of junior officers.

             Like his political superior Prime Minister Najib, Sidek talks endlessly of “transforming” the government.  He would have a much greater chance of success if he were to first transform himself.  He can begin by quitting being the “mother hen” and start being more professional.

                This entry was posted on Monday, 26 July 2010, 7:35 am and is filed under
Bakri Musa
,
public service
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Discipline the Little Napoleans

By
Thomas Lee

MySinchew

26.7.10

It is indeed a relief that Deputy Prime Minister cum Education Minister Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin has given an assurance that non-Mulsim religious clubs or societies are not banned in schools.

Muhyiddin has pledged that school clubs and societies related to non-Muslim activities that have been in operation for decades need not be disbanded.

He said the Education Ministry has not issued any directive for such clubs or societies to close.

If such is the case, then disciplinary action must be taken against the officials of the Selangor Education Department and certain school heads who have been flexing their muscles to curb religious activities by the non-Muslim students in the schools.

The recent case of the Klang High School being ordered to close its non-Muslim religious clubs is not an isolate case.

Take the case of the Christian Fellowship (CF) of SMK SS17 Subang Jaya, which has been in existence for more than 10 years before it was banned. It existed even before the 16 December 2000 Surat Pekeliling, compelling any such new non-Muslim religious clubs and societies to obtain approval from the Selangor Education Department before being allowed to operate.

The CF of SMK SS17 Subang Jaya had complied with and met all the conditions as per the 16 December 2000 Surat Pekeliling, but was not officially registered with the Selangor Education Department. In fact, since it was an existing club, there was no requirement for it to be registered. It was a de facto legal entity.

However, in a letter dated 10 March 2009 (ref. JPNS/SPS/PPN/A25080/06/06 Jld. 3), the Pengarah Pelajaran Negeri Selangor, Dr Haji Zahri Aziz, told the SMK SS17 Subang Jaya that the CF and the Buddhist Society were not allowed to be registered (tidak dibenarkan) with the state education department. The new headmistress Puan Zuariah Yusof then ordered the CF and Buddhist Society to cease operation and banned their student members from meeting.

The unilateral decision of the Selangor Education Department to ban the CF and the Buddhist Society is certainly unwarranted and unjustified, a gross violation of the human and consititution rights of the non-Muslim students.

Article 11 of the Federal Constitution on the Freedom of Religion specifically states that:

Every person has the right to profess and practise his religion and, subject to Clause 4, to propagate it.

No person shall be compelled to pay any tax the proceeds of which are specially allocated in whole or in pairs, part for the purpose of a religion other than his own.

Every religious group has the right to manage its own religious affairs, to establish and maintain institutions for religious or charitable purposes, and to aquire and own property and hold and administer it in accordance with the law.

The high-handed manner in which the Selangor Education Department ordered the closure of non-Muslim religious societies in SMK SS17 Subang Jaya, and perhaps other schools in the state, is a direct contradiction of the statement of Deputy Prime Minister cum Education Minister Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin that no directive has been issued by the ministry to ban the non-Muslim clubs and societies.

That means that the top officials of the Selangor Education Departments had issued the discriminative directive on their own whims and fancies, in violation of Article 11 of the Federal Constitution, without authorisation, and in insubordination and recalcitrance against the federal government policies.

If such is the case, it will certainly be appalling, outrageous and scandalous if no disciplinary action is taken against such irresponsible and ignominious public officers who give the government of the day a bad image.

As Rev Dr Thomas Philips, president of the Malaysian Consultative Council of Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Sikhism & Taoism (MCCBCHST), said in the Klang High School case, such a unilateral decision should be opposed with the strongest possible vehemence.

In the SMK SS17 Subang Jaya case, there is no need for its CF to be registered as it has already been existence before 16 December 2000, the date of the Surat Pekeliling.

The school has the log books of the CF meetings during that time. Clause 2 states that CF can be formed after the registrar (Pengarah Pendidikan Negeri) has considered and is satisfied with an application for a school CF. This clause applies only to schools whose CFs have yet to come into existence before 16 December 2000. Clause 3 states that where the school already has a CF, the society can continue to carry on its functions.

Nevertheless, to ensure that all legal requirements are met, the CF of the SMK SS17 Subang Jaya applied to the Selangor Education Department to be registered.

The school then received a letter from the Selangor Education Department that the application to register its CF was rejected.

This case brings to the fore the very significant question of why non-Muslim religious clubs and societies in schools must be approved and registered with the Education Department. Are the other clubs and societies in schools, such as the Art Club, the Speech and Debating Society, the Music and Drama Society, the School Band, etc, required to seek the approval of the Education Department before they are allowed to be formed?

If not, why must the non-Muslim religious clubs and societies in schools be the exception and be forced to apply for approval?

In the SMK SS17 Subang Jaya case, the CF applied for approval but the Selangor Education Department rejected its application. On what ground?

In connection with the directive to get approval for setting up non-Muslim religious clubs in school, I am shocked with the dumbest explanation on this issue made by Deputy Education Minister Datuk Wee Ka Siong.

Wee was quoted by The Star as saying that “schools could not reject such applications”, and “a circular signed by the ministry’s director-general Datuk Shukor Abdullah in December 2000 did not mention that applications to register such organisations could be rejected”.

It is simply flabbergasting that such preposterous and nonsensical explanation could be given by a deputy minister of education. If such application cannot be rejected, why on earth does a non-Muslim religious club has to apply for registration with the state education department?

Deputy Prime Minister cum Education Minister Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin’s assurance that the federal government does not ban non-Muslim religious clubs and societies in schools is not the end of the story.

What Muhyiddin should do is to issue a directive lifting all restrictions for the formation of the non-Muslim religious clubs and societies in schools. In other words, make sure the instruction is properly understood and applied by those smart-alec civil servants who should be curbed for flexing their muscles and using bullying tactics.

The freedom to believe, practise and teach one’s religious beliefs and faith is a universal God-given right, enshrined in our Federal Constitution and in the international human rights instruments of the United Nations, and no Little Napoleon in the Malaysian civil service should be allowed to violate it.

The federal government needs to show that it is fair and just to all Malaysians, irrespective of colour, creed, culture, or class, by ensuring that those civil servants that thwart, frustrate, and sabotage the multi-racial, multi-religious, multi-cultural, and multi-lingual nation-building process should be brought to book and disciplined.

                This entry was posted on Monday, 26 July 2010, 11:50 pm and is filed under
Education
,
nation building
,
Religion
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Scrap the 10-yr-old Education Ministry circular restricting formation of non-Muslim religious societies in schools –  against 1Malaysia and NEM to educate a critical and creative generation of Malaysians

The 10-year-old Education Ministry circular restricting the formation of non-Muslim religious societies in schools is the best example of Little Napoleons running riot in the civil service working against the national interests of educating a critical and creative generation of Malaysians and harnessing the multi-racial, multi-religious and multi-cultural assets of plural Malaysia.

What is the use of boasting about Malaysia as a model of ethnic, cultural, religious and biological diversity and Malaysia’s rich and unique cultural heritage when restrictions continue to be in place affecting the formation of non-Muslim societies in schools?

The Cabinet on Wednesday should scrap the 10-year-old Education Ministry circular restricting the formation of non-Muslim religious societies in schools as it is against Prime Minister’s 1Malaysia slogan and policy and the New Economic Model objective to educate a critical,  creative and innovative  generation of Malaysians.

The Education Ministry circular dated 16th December 2000 stated that non-Muslim religious societies formed before 2000 need not have to be registered but remain as status quo. Those set up from 2000 onwards need approval by the registrar, which is the state education department director.

For ten years, the circular was used by Biro Tatanegara-trained Little Napoleons in the Education Ministry to discourage, hamper or downright disallow the formation of non-Muslim religious societies.

Why should there be a distinction between non-Muslim religious societies formed before 2000  and after – when it should be a positive factor to allow and encourage the formation of non-Muslim religious societies in schools under proper guidance and supervision?

The Cabinet should not only scrap the 10-year-old Education Ministry circular restricting the formation of non-Muslim religious societies in schools, but should call for up for review all government regulations and circulars which run contrary to the 1Malaysia policy enunciated by Najib as well as the other pillars of Najib’s National Transformation programme to transform Malaysia into a inclusive, sustainable high-income developed nation.

                This entry was posted on Monday, 26 July 2010, 10:30 am and is filed under
1Malaysia
,
Education
,
nation building
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Civility in the US, vitriol in Penang

Making Sens

By
Tan Siok Choo

26th July 2010

A CIVIL servant makes a speech. Heavily edited and later publicised, the speech makes the speaker appear racially biased. Journalists and politicians suggest the civil servant should be sacked. After the civil servant resigns, the full speech is published showing its theme of racial reconciliation had been turned into a racist rant.

This incident happened not in Penang but in the US. Nevertheless, last week’s fiasco involving Shirley Sherrod, state director of rural development in Georgia, provides a useful counterpoint to the spat between Penang Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng and State Development Officer (SDO) Nik Ali Mat Yunus.

In the US, Sherrod’s speech was edited by a conservative group to suggest she had discriminated against a white farmer. Last Monday, Fox News Channel aired the edited excerpt and host Bill O’Reilly called for Sherrod’s resignation. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack obliged and asked Sherrod to leave.

However, the unedited version of Sherrod’s speech showed the black civil servant had helped the white farmer and was recounting the experience to illustrate that race should never be considered in dealings with others.

Thereafter, President Barack Obama telephoned the US Agriculture Department employee to express his regret over her forced resignation while Vilsack offered Sherrod his apologies and a unique new position in the department.

In contrast to the furore in Penang, one aspect of the Sherrod imbroglio stands out. Although the exchanges in the US were heated, they were civilised. Apart from labelling Sherrod a racist, name calling was notably absent. This contrasts with the volleys of verbal vitriol in Penang between Nik Ali and Guan Eng.

This prompts several questions: Is civility now an endangered trait in Malaysia? Why isn’t it possible for two persons to disagree without being disgustingly disagreeable?

Instead of being an intellectual exchange of views, why has public discourse in this country become increasingly foul mouthed? In Parliament, for example, name-calling seldom prompts any serious censure.

One printable epithet used is “monkey”. But if news reports are to be believed, one member of Parliament has used the f-word in proceedings and demonstrated his familiarity with lewd gestures.

Admittedly, Nik Ali was provoked by Guan Eng who described him as “incompetent, useless, unprofessional and a coward and should be sacked”. Why wasn’t it possible for Nik Ali to respond calmly, forcefully and politely?

Instead, Nik Ali ratcheted up the bile by lambasting the chief minister as biadab (disrespectful) and dayus (coward).

Again, Sherrod’s forced ouster is instructive. By agreeing to resign instead of challenging her political masters over an unjust decision or indulging in invective, Sherrod has proven herself the quintessential civil servant.

What the vituperation in Penang obscures is a major issue of interest to investors, whether local or foreign – the delineation of authority between a state government and the federal government as represented by the SDO.

Guan Eng has criticised Nik Ali’s role in three projects – the arches in the Botanical Gardens that had to be demolished, the Penang Hill funicular train service and the alleged sand mining in Balik Pulau.

While Nik Ali and his defenders claim these issues are not within the SDO’s jurisdiction, no information has been given on which entity is the proper authority.

Furthermore, the timing of the Penang spat is inopportune. Released last Thursday, the World Investment Report 2010 (WIR 2010) showed foreign direct investment (FDI) in Malaysia tumbled by 81.1% to just US$1.38 billion last year, the biggest fall among the Asean nine countries. Brunei’s FDI was not included in WIR 2010.

So precipitate was the slide in US dollar terms, Malaysia’s FDI last year was the third lowest among the Asean nine – surpassing only Laos and Cambodia.

That Thailand, Indonesia and Vietnam managed to secure US$4.5 billion to US$6 billion in FDI in a financially challenging global environment underscores their increasing attractiveness to foreign investors. Even the Philippines, despite its multiple problems, managed to secure marginally more FDI than Malaysia.

Furthermore, any attempt by the ruling Barisan Nasional (BN) to undermine Pakatan Rakyat (PR) in Selangor and Penang – the two most industrialised states in this country – could be counter-productive, economically and politically.

A fractious relationship between BN and PR in Selangor and Penang could prompt foreign investors to opt for other countries rather than run the risk of being the beefburger in any tussle between Putrajaya and the state government.

Politically, in the next general election, obstruction by the federal government – whether perceived or real – will provide an excellent excuse for PR’s shortcomings in governing Penang and

Selangor.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 27 July 2010, 1:06 am and is filed under
DAP
,
Lim Guan Eng
,
public service
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Guan Eng-SDO spat a test of civil service impartiality

Malaysian Insider

By
Yoges Palaniappan

July 26, 2010

GEORGE TOWN, July 26 – Lim Guan Eng and state development officer (SDO) Nik Ali Nik Yunus’s running feud highlights widespread misunderstanding over the different roles of the civil service and political parties, political analysts said today.

Universiti Malaya Law Faculty associate professor Azmi Sharom and political analyst Wong Chin Huat backed the Penang chief minister’s criticism against Nik Ali, despite the stout defence of the federal employee put up by Chief Secretary Tan Sri Mohd Sidek Hassan.

They were of the opinion that the civil service needed to understand the distinction between political parties and government.

Azmi and Wong were commenting on the ongoing clash between Lim (pic) and Nik Ali which had escalated following a recent outburst by the federal civil servant, who said Lim had lowered his own status of a chief minister by criticising a SDO.

The chief secretary and Barisan Nasional (BN) politicians had taken Nik Ali’s side and took Lim to task for castigating the SDO.

The DAP, had in return, called Nik Ali an “Umno tool” employed by the federal government to oust the Pakatan Rakyat (PR) state government.

UM’s Azmi pointed out that the duty of  the civil service was to serve the government.

“The civil service should not have any loyalty to the party,” he told The Malaysian Insider.

However, he observed that the civil service lacked the culture of distinguishing party and government.

“We now have four new state governments, and perhaps the civil service does not understand the choice of the people,” he said.

“Barisan [Nasional] ministers talk as if [the] civil service must be loyal to them;  the executive does not seem to understand the system and politicise the issue for their own political mileage” he said.

Political analyst Wong said “the civil service must serve the government of the day”.

“It’s called administration neutrality,” he said, adding that ultimately the public were the bosses of the civil service.

Wong also agreed with Lim’s open criticism against Nik Ali. He said that it was Lim’s duty to let people know the truth and that he has done his part.

 “Look at Nik Ali’s response. He would have been sacked a long time back if he had been in the private sector,” he added.

Wong said that if Nik Ali was going to stay on as SDO, BN “can forget about winning Penang in the coming general election”.

“If I am [Prime Minister Datuk Seri] Najib [Razak], I would do damage control immediately,” he said.

“You can talk about bureaucratic reforms but when someone (from the civil service) shouts at an elected government, the reform is gone,” he added.

Professor Shamsul Amri Baharuddin, a political analyst with Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, said the clash between Lim and Nik Ali was just “tension between federal and state government”.

“Delays in getting federal funding are common. Guan Eng has run out tricks to get to the federal government,” he said.

“He cannot accuse politicians. But accusing a civil servant is seen as nothing,” he added.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 27 July 2010, 9:16 am and is filed under
Lim Guan Eng
,
public service
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


The world has spoke “yes to economic freedom, liberal market, no to NEP and corruption”

By
Dr Chen Man Hin, DAP life advisor

UNCTAD, a UN body has issued its World Investment Report (WIR) 2010 on Foreign Direct Inflows (FDIs) of world countries.

The report on the 2009 FDIs into the Asean region are as follows

Singapore

US$16.1 billion

Malaysia

1.38 billion

Philippines

1.95

Thailand

5.95

Indonesia

4.88

Vietnam

4.56

The FDI for Malaysia in 2008 was US$7.2 billion, which meant that there was a 81% precipitous drop for the year 2009.

The DAP had warned many times over the past few years that there should be a change in strategy to attract foreign investment into the country.  The steady fall of FDI into Malaysia was a clear indication that the policies of the government were unattractive to investors, both foreign and local. but our warnings fell on deaf ears.

Now the day of reckoning has come. The WRI of 2010 has clearly indicated that FDIs to Malaysia has fallen by 81%, largely because foreign investors do not find the investment climate friendly.

LOSS OF INVESTMENT CONFIDENCE.

There were early warning signs. The European Union sent a delegation to Malaysia and they commented that there were restrictions on free trade and were not happy about the New Economic Policy restriction of 30% bumiputra equity.  America too have reservations about procurement which favoured bumiputras with the 30% bumiputra equity, as a result of which, America would not sign a free trade agreement with Malaysia.

POOR PERFORMANCE OF KLCI

Compared with other stock markets in Asia, the Kuala Lumpur Composite Index (KLCI) performed badly showing severe loss of investor confidence

HANG SENG INDEX

STRAITS TIMES INDEX

INDONESIA STOCK INDEX

KOSPI (KORES

KLCI  (MALAYSIA)

1990

2750

1500

1200

 2000

15000

2000

680

1000

974

 2010

20500

 2950

3000

1800

1337

The stock indices show that after twenty years,  Hong Kong index increased 8 times, Singapore 2 times, S Korea up by 80%. As for the KLCI, it hardly increased at all.  It has remained almost static since 1990.

This is a sad reflection of the utter lack of confidence in the KL market, meaning that local investors have no confidence in the economy.

There is a complete loss of investor confidence by both foreign and local investors.

CAUSES  this is a grave situation and the Prime Minister should review his political and economic policies of  the country, in the eyes of the world, Malaysia  has fallen our of the ranks of the Asian tigers, and even below Indonesia, Thailand and Vietnam.  The Prime Minister must change to a LIBERAL, FREE ECONOMY with no more rent seeking, no more closed tenders, and definitely no more NEP.  If he cannot change, then it is a matter of time when Malaysia will join the ranks of banana republics like Zimbabwe.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 27 July 2010, 12:52 pm and is filed under
Dr. Chen Man Hin
,
Economics
,
Najib Razak
,
NEP
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Anwar insists PAS-Umno talks will never take place

Malaysian Insider

July 28, 2010

KUALA LUMPUR, July 28 — Opposition Leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim has nixed the chance of unity talks ever taking place between his Pakatan Rakyat (PR) ally PAS and the ruling coalition’s Umno, even without being stonewalled by the Islamist party’s Spiritual Adviser, Datuk Nik Aziz Nik Mat.

The Barisan Nasional (BN) Malay party has long viewed Nik Aziz as the main stumbling block towards achieving bi-party unity and political cooperation, an idea that has repeatedly cropped up post Election 2008.

“PAS maintains its stand it will not cooperate with Umno based on its past experiences and without being backed by principles.

“PAS leaders also reject this cooperation,” Anwar was reported saying during a visit to Kumpulan Media Karangkraf yesterday.

The PKR de facto chief added that Umno did not understand PAS; noting the grand old Malay party thought “if they can capture Nik Aziz, they would be able to control PAS.”

Anwar stressed that among the three PR parties – PAS, DAP and PKR – there could be no talks with Umno so long as conditions were imposed.

He claimed that any party looking for unity must begin on the “right premise”.

“[It] must be sincere in upholding justice and stop this oppression first. If not, any unity will be seen as Malays trying to dominate the other [racial] groups,” Anwar said, adding that no one was against Malay-Muslim unity.

“I also say it’s good,” he quipped, “but united for what [purpose]?”

“To be united is so it can uphold something better, not just because there is a threat,” he continued.

Yesterday, Umno information chief, Datuk Ahmad Maslan said his party would not stop its efforts to have unity talks with PAS despite opposition from Nik Aziz, who is also Kelantan Mentri Besar.

Ahmad said it was because Umno was confident there were certain groups in PAS that support its efforts.

“Nik Aziz can say anything but in PAS, there are certain groups. As everybody knows, PAS does not revolve around Nik Aziz alone,” said the deputy minister in the Prime Minister’s Department.

Ahmad stressed that PAS was not dependent on Nik Aziz to lead the party as there were others who could do so, such as the president, the deputy president and the party’s supreme council.

However, he agreed with Nik Aziz’s statement that there was no need for a middleman nor any conditions to be set in order for a meeting to take place.

PAS leaders have repeatedly stressed that the party had closed the chapter on talks with Umno and now was focused only on strengthening ties within PR.

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 28 July 2010, 12:31 pm and is filed under
Anwar Ibrahim
,
Pakatan Rakyat
,
PAS
,
UMNO
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Call for reports of the PKFZ scandal “super taskforce” to be made public to account for actions taken by Najib administration in past year

The decision by the Transport Minister, Datuk Seri Kong Cho Ha to override the decision of the Port Klang Authority (PKA) and direct it to pay its Port Klang Free Zone (PKFZ) bond obligation of RM222.58 million to Freezone Capital Bhd (FZCB) is another proof that his topmost concern and those of the Najib Cabinet is to bail out the PKFZ turnkey contractor Kuala Dimensi Sdn. Bhd (KDSB) rather than to do justice to the 27 million Malaysian people in the RM12.5 billion PKFZ scandal.

The PKA Board had acted properly in expressing reservations on the payment of RM222.58 million to KDSB’s special purpose vehicle, FZCB, because of an RM1.4 billion ongoing suit and considering withholding payment because of its worry that it may not be able to recover funds from KDSB.

Kong’s decision is all the more deplorable as it has now been revealed that KDSB had given undertakings that it will cover any shortfall in bond repayments should PKA fail to do so, making it KDSB’s problem and not that of Malaysian taxpayers.

It has been a full year since the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak announced the formation of a 11-member PKFZ “super taskforce” headed by the Chief Secretary Tan Sri Mohd Sidek Hassan which, among other things, would determine the type of misconduct or criminal element on the part of individuals or entities involved in the project and recommend actions to be taken against them.

However, action on this front in the past year had been minimal, apart from the prosecution of four mid-level officials.

Not a single “big fish” had been arrested although there is hot buzz on the grapevine that “a big fish” would be hauled into court today.

The PKFZ “super task force” is also entrusted with recommending measures to improve governance as well as PKFZ’s management; assess PKA and PKFZ’s financial situation, prepare a restructuring plan for the PKFZ, formulate business models for the PKA and PKFZ, and recommend strategic plans to attract local and foreign investors.

Although the PKFZ “super taskforce” is required to submit  reports to the government within six months and from time to time, nothing is known about its activities and reports.

The time has come for all the reports of the PKFZ “super taskforce” to be made public to account for actions taken by Najib administration on the RM12.5 billion PKFZ scandal in the past year.

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 29 July 2010, 3:10 pm and is filed under
Corruption
,
Financial Scandals
,
PKFZ
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Malaysia in the Era of Globalization #25

By
M. Bakri Musa

Chapter 4:      Modern Model States

 The Celtic Tiger

 Ireland is synonymous with emigration.  Throughout the 19th and 20th Centuries Ireland’s biggest “export” was its people; they were desperate to escape the wretched conditions of their homeland.  Only recently was this trend reversed, with Irish émigrés returning to work in the republic’s burgeoning hi-tech and other industries.

             In absolute numbers, the Irish immigrants were not large; there were far more Chinese and Indians who emigrated.  But as a percentage of their home population, the number of Irish who left was truly staggering.  During the Great Famine of 1845-48, out of a population of eight million, two million left:  one in four!  Imagine what would have happened had a quarter of China’s population left!

             Today Ireland is recognized as the largest exporter of software.  Among aficionados of fine glassware, Ireland is the source of Waterford crystals.  To many Malaysians, Ireland is one of their destinations of choice for university education, especially for would-be doctors.

             This remarkable transformation occurred within a period of a generation or two, well within the memories of some currently living.  The transformation began in 1959 when Prime Minister Sean Lemass, replacing his ageing old-fashioned predecessor, began a process of economic development by welcoming foreign investments.  A common enough strategy for any newly independent country, but for Ireland it was a major change.  By 1973 Ireland had joined the European Community, the precursor of the European Union (EU).  With that Ireland changed from an inward-looking nation obsessed with nationalism into an equal member of the EU, confidently looking forward to the newly globalized world.

             For centuries Ireland was part of England.  It came into its own after the obligatory “war of independence” in 1921.  To be sure, only part of the island is independent, the mainly Catholic southern counties.  The northern six counties remain part of Britain and continue to be a source of much grief, both to the British as well as the residents of Northern Ireland, Protestants and Catholic alike.  This partitioning is hotly debated in Ireland even to this day, with one side accusing the other of treachery and selling out.  To put things in perspective, Ireland is only slightly larger than Sri Lanka. And the Sri Lankans too are thinking of partitioning their war-weary wretched little island between the Singhalese and Tamils.

             Ireland may be independent, but the colonized mentality and the consequent excessive nationalism it bred persisted long afterwards.  This uneasy relationship between colonizer and colonized is best captured by the movie Titanic, chronicling the maiden voyage of the luxury liner that was sunk by an iceberg on its way to New York.  The ship was carrying the English gentry on holidays, and hordes of Irish immigrants seeking a new life in the New World.

             The memorable and recurring scenes were of the rough and uncouth Irish hero confined below deck together with the rest of his countrymen, while the cultured heroine and her fellow English aristocrats were safely ensconced on the luxurious upper decks, separated physically and presumably upwind from the messy crowd below.  That such a negative portrayal of the Irish did not evoke much protest reveals how far the Irish have come.  I am sure had the movie been shown a generation earlier there would have been howling protests of unfair stereotyping.

             As a reflection of the time, the movie does indeed capture the mood and ambience accurately.  At the time of the Titanic, signs like “No Irish Need Apply” were prominently displayed in New York, London and elsewhere, perhaps even at the construction site of the Titanic itself.  Today, America has seen two presidents who claimed Irish ancestry (Kennedy and Reagan).  Mary Robinson, the former Irish President, is a top Human Rights honcho with the United Nations.

            When Ireland became independent it went through a period of stagnation and civil strife, a fate shared by many newly independent countries.  Having been released from under the less-than-benign English rule, the Irish did not have much desire to be associated with any foreigner.  They became inward looking and self preoccupied.  The ever dominant Catholic Church became even more entrenched in the lives of the Irish.  It is said that Ireland suffered from two forms of colonialism:  one from London, and the other, Rome.  When they got rid of the first, the second became even more powerful, as if to fill the vacuum left by London.

             A 1937 constitutional referendum reaffirmed the supremacy of the Church.  Among its provisions was making blasphemy a crime.  (Three quarters of a century later in Malaysia, PAS is considering a similar archaic legislation!)  The Catholic Church in Ireland may have become stronger and richer because of its “special” position, but the Irish continued with their worldly misery.

             The other effect of the ascendancy of the Church was that the few remaining Protestants felt increasingly out of place.  They too emigrated, taking with them their skills, capital, and enterprising spirit, the very key elements Ireland needed badly.  Today non-Catholic Irish remain an insignificant minority, whereas at one time they were as many as a fifth of the population.

             Ireland’s modernization began under Lemass.  It became outward looking, welcomed foreign investments, and adopted free trade and less protectionism.  It was ready to throw its lot with the emerging European Common Market.  The immediate effect of that membership was the bonanza Ireland received in equalization payments and enhanced price support for its farm products.  Instead of depending on the lousy prices the British were paying, Ireland was now getting higher European prices plus subsidies for its agriculture.

             Trade with Europe and elsewhere expanded.  Whereas in 1960 Britain took nearly 70 percent of Ireland’s exports with barely 7 percent going to Western Europe, by 1987 exports to Britain dropped to 34 percent and the European Union increased to 39.  Ireland was finally breaking its ties with, or more correctly its dependency on Britain.  Ireland may have been independent since 1921, but for the next half a century it remained essentially a client state of Britain, at least economically.

            Being bound to the world has its ups and downs.  Ireland is now no longer sheltered from global events.  Economic woes in Europe and America directly impact her exports and economy.  On the whole this outward turn brings immense prosperity.  Although Ireland’s per capita income still lags behind those of many EU states, its living standards are up there.  More significantly, its people are no longer emigrating, at least not in droves.

             The Irish are serious about attracting foreign investments.  In addition to excellent infrastructures, Ireland offers low corporate tax rate of only 10 percent, as well as capital grants of up to 60 percent.  It also has a highly educated English-speaking work force, a plus for American companies.

Next:   The Celtic Tiger (Cont’d)

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 29 July 2010, 10:54 am and is filed under
Bakri Musa
,
globalisation
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


PKFZ scandal: Ex-transport minister Ling charged

Malaysiakini

Former transport minister Ling Liong Sik was today charged at the Kajang Sessions Court over his involvement in the multi-billion ringgit Port Klang Free Zone (PKFZ) scandal.

Ling, 67, who is also former MCA president, is by far the most prominent politician to be nabbed in recent years.

He is charged under Section 418 of the Penal Code with misleading the cabinet between Sept 25 and Nov 6, 2002 into agreeing to purchase 999.5 acres of land on Pulau Indah for a project, that is now known as PKFZ, at a price of RM25psf on a deferred payment method for a 15-year period, at a 7.5 interest rate.

The cumulative interest paid would total at RM720 million at the end of the repayment period.

He was also ffered an alternative charge under Section 417 of the Penal Code for the same offence.

According to the charge sheet, the Finance Ministry had already valued the land at RM25psf – inclusive of compounded interest – and this fact was withheld by the accused from cabinet.

Ling pleaded not guilty to both charges and Sessions Court judge Suzana Hussin set bail at RM1 million. Mention has been fixed for Sept 3.

As Ling needed time to post bail, Ling is on personal bond for today, he was allowed time to do so at the sessions court tomorrow.

He was represented by counsel RR Sethu.

On leaving the courtroom, he told journalists that it was his first time to be in Putrajaya’s Palace of Justice, located next to the Kajang Sessions Court.

Asked whether he was confident about fighting the case, he said, “In the Palace of Justice, you must feel very confident.”

Ling appeared in court at 4.45pm accompanied by his wife Ena and two sons. He then proceeded to sit in the dock. Ling, who wore a purple striped shirt and a pair of sandals, was expressionless.

He is the second MCA president to be placed in the dock after Tan Koon Swan.

Earlier today, rumours of a very important personality (VIP) to be charged sent dozens of journalists, including those from foreign wire services, camping at the court complex this morning.

Most of them gathered at the lobby and main entrance of the courthouse. while a couple stationed themselves in and outside the courtroom.

After an eight-hour wait, at about 4pm, attorney-general Abdul Gani Patail and three DPPs, including head of prosecution Tun Abdul Majid Hamzah, arrived in court without speaking to the journalists. The other two were Manoj Kurup and Dzulkifli Ahmad.

More to come?

Last November, the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) had recommended in its report on the PKFZ controversy that former transport minister Chan Kong Choy and former Port Klang Authority (PKA) general manager OC Phang be probed for CBT (criminal breach of trust).

This was over the wrongful issuance of three letters of support by Chan and three letters of undertaking by Phang without Finance Ministry approval.

PAC said that it was informed by the attorney-general that the letters were implicitly a form of guarantee from the government to ensure that there would be allocations for PKA to enable it to meet its obligations under the development agreement.

PKFZ, a commercial and industrial project south of the capital, was conceived as a RM1.82 billion venture constructed over 1,000 acres.

However, costs are now expected to balloon to RM12.5 billion, making the affair one of the country’s biggest financial scandals and a major embarrassment for the government.

Probes into the project’s financial records since then have revealed instances of corruption, cases of conflict of interest as well as breach of trust.

Ling is one of the very rare top politicians in Malaysia to be charged with corruption.

In 2004, former land and cooperative development minister Kasitah Gaddam was charged in the Sessions Court with corrupt practice and cheating, the first cabinet member to be charged with such crimes. He was freed by the court without his defence being called last year.

Before Kasitah, former deputy prime minister Anwar Ibrahim, who is now opposition leader, was the other prominent politician charged with corruption. He was sentenced to a six-year jail term in 1999.

Another top politician who was charged with corruption was the late Harun Idris, the Selangor menteri besar from 1964 to 1976.

He was slapped with a six-year jail sentence but served three years behind bar before being pardoned by the king in 1981 on the advice of then new prime minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad.

————————–

Ling charged with cheating over PKFZ

By Asrul Hadi Abdullah Sani and Lee Wei Lian

PUTRAJAYA, July 29 – Tun Dr Ling Liong Sik was charged with cheating here today over the scandal hit Port Klang Free Zone (PKFZ) project.

The prosecution of Dr Ling comes as a huge shock and is expected to have repercussions for MCA as he is still considered a kingmaker in the party.

Dr Ling (picture) is believed to be the first Tun ever to be prosecuted.

The high powered prosecution team is led by the Attorney General Abdul Ghani Pattail, Deputy Public Prosector (dpp) Tun Majid Tun Hamzah and dpp Manoj Kurup.

Ling will be represented by Datuk R R Sethu.

Dr Ling led MCA from 1986 to 2003. The PKFZ project was mooted during his tenure as Transport Minister and the cost of the project, initially estimated at less than RM2 billion, more than doubled to RM4.6 billion by 2007.

The cost of the project has been further projected to swell to as much as RM12.5 billion due to interest costs from deferred payments if the trans-shipment hub fails to perform.

Though he left the post of MCA president in 2003, Ling is still influential in MCA and is perceived as a king maker and the charges will have repercussions on the party which is struggling to regain Chinese support.

The move to charge Ling however could help deflect criticisms that the Najib Administration lacks the will to go after the “real masterminds” behind the PKFZ project and boost its reform credentials.

The charges concern land evaluations under the penal code with the principle charge under section 418 with the alternative charge being 417.

Ling claimed trial to the charges and when the charges were read out to him Ling said he was “not guilty” to both charges.

The AG has requested bail at RM1 million and the defence had no objections.

Punishment for offences under section 417 carries a jail term of not more than 5 years and not more than 7 years under section 418.

The case has been fixed for mention on September 3 and judge will be Sessions Court judge Suzana Hussin.

According to the penal code, section 418 concerns “Cheating with knowledge that wrongful loss may be thereby caused to a person whose interest the offender is bound to protect” while section 417 concerns “Punishment for cheating.”

Ling entered the court accompanied by five policemen and dressed in a striped blue and white shirt and black slacks.

His wife Toh Puan Ena Ling was spotted in the court gallery.

Ling is out on police bail and will post bail tomorrow as it is too late for him to do so today

When approached by reporters on his way out of the court, Ling said: “When you’re in the Palace of Justice, you must be very confident of justice.”

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 29 July 2010, 6:21 pm and is filed under
Corruption
,
Court
,
PKFZ
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Bolstering and Breeding Bigotry in Bolehland

By
Martin Jalleh

The light, lenient, ludicrous and laughable court sentences on the cow-head protestors lends credence to the growing belief that Umno lives and lasts on bigotry

On 28 August last year, more than 50 people, shortly after their Friday prayers, marched from the Selangor state mosque in Shah Alam to the Selangor State Secretariat to protest the relocation of a 150-year old Hindu temple to their neighbourhood.

Amidst strong chants of “Allahuakbar!” they dragged and paraded the severed and bloodied head of a cow. One of their leaders shouted “I guarantee bloodshed and racial tension (if the temple relocation takes place)”.

Some of them made fiery speeches, spat on the severed cow’s head, kicked it, stomped on it, dumped it in front of the gates of the State Secretariat and proudly posed for photos, as police stood stoically, silently and submissively by.

Malaysian Hindus (who consider the cow a sacred animal) protested vehemently and called it a “sacrilegious act”. Other non-Muslims described it as “sickening” and “scandalous”. Many Muslims in the country considered it “shameless” and “so un-Islamic”.

A Muslim wrote: “These hooligans don’t represent all of us”. Another added: “As a Muslim, I am ashamed at the behaviour of these hoodlums especially during the holy month of Ramadhan. I really wonder who the head honchos are behind this unscrupulous act.”

The world watched in shock at how such a provocative act, or as some would later call it “barbaric behaviour” could have taken place in Malaysia – a country which its government boasts of as being a supposed showcase of a multi-racial-religious society today!

Hishammuddin’s Hypocrisy

In spite of a nationwide outcry and the lodging of 98 police reports against the cow-head protestors, Home Minister Hishammuddin Hussein who often hypes about racial and religious harmony decided to hijack the role of the police, Attorney-General (AG) and even the judiciary.

He went out of the way to meet in his office with the protestors – the very people who had committed what was clearly a seditious and sacrilegious act. He even daftly declared them innocent, defended their actions and deemed legal action against them as unnecessary.

According to him, the protestors were the ones who were “victimised”. They had no intention to stir racial emotion! It was not the first time an animal head had been used in a protest! The police allowed them to proceed because the numbers of protestors were small. Hishammuddin humoured the whole nation!

So desperate was he to justify the heinous act that he would even declare: “In this day and age, protests should be accepted in this world, as people want their voices to be heard. If we don’t give them room to voice their opinions, they have no choice but to protest.”

Hishammuddin’s hypocrisy could not hold when, about a week after the cow-head protest, police arrested 16 Hindraf leaders who were in the midst of holding a peaceful candlelight vigil to voice their strong protest against the sacrilegious act in Shah Alam.

(According to Lim Kit Siang, Hishammuddin’s “obsession to defend the Umno role in the cow-head demonstration” was “to further the Umno/BN agenda to weaken and topple the Pakatan Rakyat Selangor State Government”.)

In comparison, the PM very dramatically said he was deeply disturbed by the despicable act, demanded that the issue be nipped in the bud and directed the IGP to act swiftly and sternly. It is 11 months since the incident and the Shah Alam Sessions Court delivered its judgment on the matter on 28 July 2010.

Pathetic Patail

The Court fined 12 cow-head protestors RM1,000 each after they pleaded guilty to an alternative charge of taking part in an illegal assembly. Two of the protestors were fined RM3,000 for sedition while one of the two was also ordered to serve a week in jail.

The actions of the cow-head protestors as so accurately described by Shah Alam MP Khalid Samad, were “extreme and provocative”. Very naturally the public had expected stiff, stern and severe court sentences that would stop the country from sliding further down the slippery slope of religious extremism.

Sadly the sentences defied all logic. They were glaringly light, lenient and ludicrous. They made the AG’s Chambers, the judiciary and the government laughable. Once again the loud and oft-dramatic resolve by the powers-that-be to check extremism by Muslim groups have proven to be only lip service.

A fine of a paltry sum of RM1,000 to RM3,000, a preposterous jail sentence of only a week for one of the protestors – such pathetic punishment for outright religious bigotry can only come from a predictable judiciary ready to please and pander to the wishes of its political masters.

“I hope in future the accused will all be more sensitive in their actions. It is also hoped that this sentence will serve as a deterrent to others in future,” the words of judge Hasbi Hasan rang hollow in the court as the guilty heaved a sigh of relief – devoid of any sense of remorse.

For taking part in such a diabolical act of desecration which could have triggered off serious racial and religious disturbances, four of the protestors who had maintained their innocence and were supposed to go through separate trials, were discharged – after AG Gani Patail decided not to press further charges!

The gravity of the offence warranted a stringent and not a farcical deterrent sentence. The implications of the offence to worsening race and religious relations were very grave. But the AG was not at all serious in sending out a clear message that such offences will not be tolerated. Neither was the Court!

It did not seem to matter to the AG that the public could see through the “big show” of toughness put up by his Chambers and the Court. Such a charade reduced the PM’s initial proclamations of swift and severe action to mere pious pronouncements and pretentious promises meant to placate public anger.

Further, one is prompted to ask would the Court sentences be the same if a group of Hindus were to spit and stomp on the Holy Quran and left it outside the gates of the Selangor State Secretariat? Would they be discharged due to their insistence of being innocent?

Ramon Navaratnam, chairman of the Centre for Public Policy Studies puts this succinctly: “I would say this warrants the maximum sentence, if not, much higher than that…Frankly, the public would be asking would the sentence commensurate with the crime if it was other ethnic groups involved.”

P. Uthayakumar, Human Rights party secretary-general was more blunt: “I urge the attorney-general to appeal against the Sessions Court’s sentence and further prosecute them (the four perpetrators) under Section 298(A) as I believe this clause would have been used if it were the Muslims who were offended instead.”

(Commenting on the ongoing hearing of three Muslim youth charged for fire-bombing a church, lawyer Annou Xavier wrote in an e-mail that little is to be expected of the outcome of the trail as the (ill-prepared and inexperienced) prosecution team has demonstrated little regard to the seriousness of the case). )

Breeding bigotry

The cow-head protest should come as no surprise. It is the logical consequence and culmination of years of the authorities closing an eye and sometimes both, to the provocative and extreme acts of Muslim groups, whilst putting up a facade of a thorough investigation and taking fair and firm action.

Five months later, in the aftermath of a landmark ruling by the Kuala Lumpur High Court which ordered the lifting of the Home Minister’s ban on the Catholic church publishing the word “Allah” in its weekly paper, Herald, arson attacks, vandalism and other incidents took place in 11 churches and a Sikh temple.

What gives extremist Muslim groups the audacity to insult other faiths, incite religious hatred, and be so intolerant and insensitive to non-Muslims? Perhaps it has to do with them being very confident that they can display their insolence with impunity. They are well-provided and protected and their fines may even be paid – by Umno.

Umno is in a desperate state. In spite of its many claims of having changed, it continues with its political culture of divide and rule and of a siege mentality by politicising religion and creating unfounded insecurities amongst Muslims and a distrust of other religions.

Very ironically and tragically it appears that Umno can only unite the Malays and Muslims by dividing the country! The party that harps on supremacy and superiority whether it is with regard to race or religion, at the same time claims that Muslims can be very easily confused, convinced and converted!

Umno thrives on bigotry. It survives on religious extremism, fanaticism and fanning fears and fantasising enemies! Its members and all Muslims in the country are made to believe that they must stamp their superiority over the rest, and this is made all the more easier by Executive Supremacy!

According to Umno’s brand of Islam, the Malay/Muslim majority in this country must dominate, dictate, decide and even define what the minority (non-Muslims) can and cannot do; discuss, deliberate and debate on in public; and display in print.

The saddest outcome of the cow-head protest is that we have accepted the distinction between “Muslim and non-Muslim dominated areas”. Yet, there was a time when Bolehland’s citisens of diverse races and religions so successfully and confidently co-existed and lived together side by side in mutual respect and admiration!

After being PM for 15 months, Najib has failed to fight the fires of religious fanaticism, aggressively fanned by his own party. He takes flight and hides behind his 1Malaysia slogan – a faltering façade and flop which makes him look so utterly foolish! 1 Malaysia has become one big joke!

The inadequate sentences of the cow-head protestors make it very clear that burgeoning bigotry will continue to rear its ugly head in Bolehland as long as the Umnoputras rule Putrajaya. May Allah (oops, did I convert anyone) help us!

                This entry was posted on Friday, 30 July 2010, 2:55 pm and is filed under
Court
,
Martin Jalleh
,
nation building
,
Religion
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.