Berapa nilai Melayu dalam DAP?

– Izmil Amri Ismail

The Malaysian Insider/Roketkini.com

September 20, 2013

Ya, berapa nilai Melayu dalam DAP? Lebih spesifik, berapa nilai politisi Melayu dalam DAP? Sekupang, dua kupang, atau lima kupang? Atau adakah lebih daripada itu? Siapa yang menentukan nilai; dan kalau pun nilai itu boleh ditentukan, bagaimana caranya?

Untung sebenarnya DAP ditakdirkan untuk mengadakan pemilihan semula. Dengan kemenangan besar DAP sebagai sebahagian daripada koalisi Pakatan Rakyat pada PRU-13, 5 Mei lalu, pasti ramai personaliti yang ingin menyendeng dan bermesra dengan parti ini. Parti yang sebelum PRU-13 dilihat sebagai sebuah parti Cina dan tidak begitu mesra Melayu.

Dengan kemenangan tiga wakil rakyat Melayu pada PRU agak susah untuk musuh politik DAP menggunakan hujah ‘parti Cina’. Arakian maka semakin galaklah sekalian Melayu untuk kian mampir dan mengikut serta dalam perjuangan DAP.

Ini adalah perkembangan yang amat sihat dan membanggakan. Jenuh sungguh parti itu berusaha bagi menarik minat Melayu menyertai parti serta menjenamakan DAP sebagai sebuah parti berbilang kaum. Penyertaan kian ramai orang Melayu ke dalam DAP kini sudah bukan lagi bahan berita. Sudah jadi perkara biasa.

Namun asas pergelutan politik adalah perlumbaan untuk mendapatkan kuasa. Ini benda yang mesti kita faham dan mengerti. Maka realpolitik dalam nyata politik struktur adalah keadaan wujudnya pertembungan yang mendesak perlawanan dan penilaian; siapa yang lebih layak serta siapa korbannya lebih.

Sekali lagi, ini asas mudah. Seperti mana anda juga tahu bahawa kalau mahu jadi calon pilihan raya; syaratnya mesti punya kelayakan dan punya kemampuan material sedikit sebanyak. Kalau tidak ada, harus cari. Kalau tidak mahu cari, jangan bertanding.

Pemimpin politik, tidak kira apa pun pembawakannya secara sekali pandang; harus punya kemampuan menjadi pemimpin. Kemampuan inilah yang memberi nilai kepada individu.

Untuk mendaki tangga politik struktur, harus ada nilai tambah. Ini juga asas. Kerana politik struktur ertinya bergelut mendaki tingkatan kuasa dan pengaruh. Kalau anda tidak ada nilai tambah, apa yang membezakan anda dengan orang lain yang juga seperti anda – mempunyai cita-cita politik.

Asas ini adalah terlalu fundamental untuk disyarahkan panjang lebar. Murid sekolah rendah juga tahu bahawa kalau dia tidak punya sifat kepemimpinan mahupun kemampuan intelek yang tinggi; dia tidak mungkin jadi ketua darjah misalnya. Mahu jadi pengawas sekolah atau ketua pelajar apatah lagi. Maka perlu ada muhasabah diri dan tentukan apa yang hebatnya kita ini sebelum mahu terjun sama bergulat dalam gelanggang perebutan kuasa dalam parti politik.

Berapa nilai pemimpin Melayu dalam DAP?

Soalan ini saya ulang kerana sebenarnya soalan ini bodoh.

Parti Tindakan Demokratik secara nyatanya adalah parti yang buta warna. Itu maksudnya ia tidak peduli anda kaum apa. Borang keahlian parti juga tidak bertanya anda kaum apa.

Untuk mempersoalkan nilai individu dalam sebuah parti buta warna dengan berasaskan penilaian kaum adalah kerja yang bukan sahaja bodoh, malah jahat. Persoalan sedemikian adalah strategi politik nakal untuk menimbulkan anasir politik perkauman dalam sebuah parti yang tidak peduli kaum.

Biarlah apa pun yang dipropagandakan kepada anda melalui media tradisional; kita semua tahu bahawa DAP bukan parti satu kaum, dan ia tidak memandang soal kaum. DAP menilai pemimpin dan anggotanya berdasarkan apa kerja yang dilakukan untuk parti. Seperti juga parti politik lain.

United Malays National Organisation sebagai contoh, tidak peduli pun latar belakang kaum anda asalkan anda buat kerja untuk partinya. Mamak, Melayu, Cina-Muslim; semua Melayu belaka bila berpayung di bawah Umno.

Kalau pun anda Melayu berdarah bangsawan yang masuk Umno tapi tidak ada nilai tambahan atau kemampuan menyumbang serta tidak buat kerja; Umno si parti Melayu itu pun tidak akan memandang anda dengan nilai tinggi.

Kalau anda punya cita-cita politik tetapi strategi dan operasi politik anda gagal serta nampak sangat macam anda tidak buat kerja, masuklah parti mana pun anda tetap bernilai ‘lima kupang’. Malah barangkali lebih rendah daripada itu.

Biar apa pun keturunan anda, apabila masuk sahaja DAP, anda seorang yang berbangsa Malaysia. Kalau sekadar dengan menjadi Melayu maka rasa nilai anda tinggi dan punya hak berbeza dalam parti (hanya kerana ke’Melayu’an itu) maka lebih baiklah balik rumah, tarik selimut dan tidur.

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 21 September 2013, 8:39 pm and is filed under
DAP
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Chin Peng Deserves a Place in His Country

By Kee Thuan Chye

Yahoo! News

21.9.2013

The pettiness of the Government has not been so clearly exposed as it is now over the issue of whether the former Communist leader Chin Peng’s ashes should be allowed into Malaysia to be buried in the land he loved and fought for. Even the police – who should have better things to look out for like the increasing incidences of crime – are putting out alerts to prevent the ashes from being brought back from Thailand, where he died. As if these ashes were lethal and could, by some preternatural means, maim the Malaysian populace.

Imagine this. Police personnel stationed at every entry point into Malaysia from Thailand, including at airports, going through the bags of everyone coming in. As if they have nothing better to do. But then, for all we know, the ashes might have been sent to someone in, say, Indonesia instead, and this person comes into Malaysia with it, unchecked. How stupid can it get?

Meanwhile, the authorities still quibble over the trivia that Chin Peng was not Malaysian because he could not produce the necessary documents to prove he was so, but it seems more likely that they did not want to let him return, full stop.

He first applied, under the guarantees of the peace agreement, to resettle in Malaysia in 1990, but his application was rejected the following year. In 2004, he wrote to then prime minister Abdullah Badawi, but got no reply. That year, he received instead a letter from the Home Ministry’s secretary-general saying that his request to enter Malaysia had been rejected. No explanation was given.

He took the matter to the courts. But in 2005, the High Court rejected his application to enter Malaysia on the grounds that he had to show identification papers to prove his citizenship. Chin Peng, however, said he could not do so because his birth certificate was seized by the police in 1948. In 2008, the Court of Appeal upheld the ruling.

Just a few days ago, Inspector-General of Police (IGP) Khalid Abu Bakar reiterated that Chin Peng was never a Malaysian citizen and, as such, the question of his being buried in Malaysia should not arise.

But documents are only stuff on paper. They are no match for what a person feels for his country and the things he does in respect of that feeling. Whatever you call that feeling – patriotism if you like – it is far and above more meaningful than a piece of paper.

The fact is, Chin Peng fought against the Japanese when they invaded Malaya and the British retreated. If this alone does not automatically qualify him to be Malaysian, what will? Entering the country illegally and agreeing to vote for Barisan Nasional, like the immigrants in Sabah who have been given identity cards for doing just that? In the latter case, in fact, having documents doesn’t mean diddly squat.

More tangible than this, the Malaysian Government signed a peace treaty in 1989 with the Communist Party of Malaya (CPM), of which Chin Peng was its head. And in that agreement, the CPM agreed to disband and cease all armed activities while the Government agreed to allow the CPM’s members to settle down in Malaysia. Since then, many have been allowed home, including leaders like Rashid Maidin and Shamsiah Fakeh. But why not Chin Peng? Why was he discriminated against?

The other favourite argument of the Government’s against Chin Peng’s return to Malaysia is that he was a terrorist and the head of a terrorist organisation that had caused the deaths of thousands. But when you hold this up against the terms of the agreement, you can straight away see that the argument is unfair. The man and his comrades had given up the fight, they would no longer “terrorise”. It was time for both sides to put the past aside and move on. For the sake of peace. That’s what an agreement is about. So how could the Government sign an agreement and still call the other signatory a villain? Might as well not sign the agreement in the first place!

Why does the Government want to behave in such bad form over this? Because it thinks maintaining Chin Peng as a bogeyman is worth its tarnishing its honour?

But even on the issue of Chin Peng being a terrorist, the lines are not clear-cut. To some, he was one, but to others, he was a freedom fighter. When he served the British cause in fighting against the Japanese, he was awarded the OBE (Order of the British Empire), but when he consequently fought against the British to gain independence for Malaya, he was a terrorist.

True, his Communist ideology was not everyone’s cup of tea and the CPM did kill many people to fulfil its mission, for which it should be condemned, but Chin Peng has also taken responsibility for the CPM’s taking of thousands of lives. In an interview with history professor Cheah Boon Kheng in 1998, he said, “This was inevitable. It was a war for national independence.”

That this was so is affirmed by our first prime minister, Tunku Abdul Rahman, in his book Lest We Forget: “Just as Indonesia was fighting a bloody battle, so were the Communists of Malaya, who, too, fought for independence.”

The Japanese, on the other hand, were invaders, and they tortured and killed thousands more of our countrymen during their invasion, and yet we have forgiven them their atrocities. In fact, the Japanese are now our friends, and they are a people we look up to, thanks to ex-premiere Mahathir Mohamad’s Look East policy. So why is it that we cut them more slack?

Is the Government hard on Chin Peng because it feels embarrassed that Umno, the party that it has heaped so much credit on for winning independence, did not fight any bloody battles for it, like Chin Peng and the CPM did? And that, also, one of Umno’s revered leaders of the past, Abdul Razak Hussein, actually worked for the Japanese?

Well, in the book Tun Abdul Razak: Potret dalam Kenangan, a collection of reminiscences by people who knew the country’s second prime minister, there is a mention of his having been an administrative officer for the Japanese. It is in the chapter entitled ‘Saya Mendayung, Dia Mengemudi’ (I Rowed, He Held the Helm), written by former Cabinet minister Ghazali Shafie.

And in a study called
‘Sejarah Penubuhan Universiti Teknologi Mara UITM’
, there is a photograph of Razak with three others dressed in Japanese uniform with the rising sun insignia pinned on their shirt pockets. This apparently depicts the time he was being trained by the Japanese.

To be sure, Ghazali also mentions in his chapter that he and Razak were actually nationalists. “We felt that since we had known the British much longer … it was easier to stand up to them than the Japanese, whom we had not got a full measure of yet … Therefore, we felt we had to master [the] Japanese [language] and at the same time, we had to look for channels to contact the British … so as to obtain their assistance in fighting the Japanese.”

From his account, it looks like the strategy adopted by him and Razak was a pragmatic play-both-sides one that is different from the direct warfare approach opted for by Chin Peng.

In view of this, do we still say that Chin Peng doesn’t deserve to even have his ashes brought home to the country he wanted to return to and die in?

Well, I would say that he has more right to be buried in Malaysia than many people I could name. For example, those who have been behind the giving of illegal identity cards to illegal immigrants in Sabah are certainly not as worthy as Chin Peng in claiming this country as their home. He never sold out his country; in fact, he wanted it to be free. His problem was, his ideology was not accepted. And he was on the wrong side of history.

I think it’s time to set the history right.

* Kee Thuan Chye is the author of the new book The Elections Bullshit, now available in bookstores.

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 21 September 2013, 10:40 am and is filed under
Kee Thuan Chye
,
Police
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Insurgency war from 1948 to 1989 a war between ideologies not race

by Dr. Chen Man Hin

21.9.2013

The Malaysian   government’s   continued refusal to allow the remains of deceased Chin Peng  to be buried in his home town in Malaysia is a blot on the humanity of Umno leaders.

The reason for their stubborn refusal was that Chin Peng caused the death of thousands of  Malay police personnel in the guerrilla war from 1948 to 1989.

It is not true that Chin Ping killed them in cold blood.  There was a guerrilla war going on at that time.

Chin Peng was the leader of the Malayan Liberation Front, which was part of the world communist movement.

It is relevant to point out that there was another guerrilla war going on in Vietnam from 1955 to 1975,  between the Vietnam National Liberation Front and the American army in Vietnam, with war casualties running into tens of thousands for the Americans and hundreds of thousands for the Vietnamese.

Do America and Vietnam  still bear a grudge against each other?

Umno leaders must open their eyes and follow the example of the Vietnamese and American governments and people.

In the guerrilla war in Malaya,  Malayan security officers and Chin Peng’s fighters were killed between Malayan and British forces on one side and Chin Peng’s guerrillas on the other.

The Malayan government was angry because many Malay officers were killed.    They have refused to grant citizenship to Chin Peng although the guerrilla war had ended in 1989. Now  that he has died, the grudge and vengeance still grips UMNO leaders, who refuse to allow Chin Peng’s ashes to be buried in his home country, Malaysia.

The Malaysian government leaders should stop their senseless boycott of the rights of Chin Peng  to be a citizen of our country and to be buried here.

It is valid to point out that the British troops were killed by the thousands in the guerrilla war with the Malayan communists but  the British acknowledged that they were killed in a war.

This is a lesson for UMNO to learn and accept.

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 21 September 2013, 11:47 am and is filed under
Dr. Chen Man Hin
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Pak Samad – always the people’s artist

By Jose Mario Dolor De Vega

Free Malaysia Today

September 21, 2013

A democratic society seeks to unleash the creativity of all its citizens and to celebrate the extraordinary achievements of its most gifted and dedicated, not otherwise.

COMMENT

I refer to the utterly insightful and undeniably powerful essay of Jeswan Kaur, ‘Pak Samad isn’t the problem here’, published in FMT on Sept 8.

I beg the indulgence of the reader and may I be allowed to add a few words of concurrence and to explicate my own take on the whole matter.

According to the National Cultural Policy of the Australian government, the role of the artist is as follows:

“A democratic society seeks to unleash the creativity of all its citizens and to celebrate the extraordinary achievements of its most gifted and dedicated. The value of creativity is something that is increasingly recognised and valued. Creativity is an essential attribute in an increasing number of occupations.

“The most gifted artists, however, take the ability to imagine, adapt, empathise and collaborate to another level through training, practice, discipline and courage. The extraordinary achievements that come when the most gifted individuals combine capacity and skill is something we recognise.”

From this description, we can deduce that artists are creative people and that their creativity is necessary for the development of one’s society. Further said, creativity is something that must be recognized and valued by the said society that produced the artist.

The description extends to define the characteristics of an artist; namely:

1. The ability to imagine;

2. The ability to adapt;

3. The ability to empathise;

4. The ability to collaborate to another level through, training, practice, discipline and courage.

What is an artist then?

According to Wikipedia, an artist is a person engaged in one or more of any of a broad spectrum of activities related to creating art, practicing the arts, and/or demonstrating an art.

While, Wiktionary defines the noun ‘artist’ (singular: artist; plural: artists) as follows:

1. a person who creates art

2. a person who creates art as an occupation

3. a person who is skilled at some activity

The Oxford English dictionary defines the older broad meanings of the term “artist” as a learned person or Master of Arts; one who pursues a practical science, traditional medicine, astrology, alchemy, chemistry; a follower of a pursuit in which skill comes by study or practice; a follower of a manual art such as a mechanic; one who makes their craft a fine art; and, one who cultivates fine arts.

Princeton.edu defines artist as: creative person (a person whose creative work shows sensitivity and imagination).

Given the different definitions, there appears a common characteristic for artists; namely as imaginative, independent and courageous.

It is my firm view that the artist is practically the eyes and ears of one’s community and society. Along the revolutionaries, philosophers, poets and humanists, they are the social critic.

A critic is someone who not merely criticises just for the sake of doing so. Their criticism has sense and value provided the society ponders upon it closely. They will undeniably see, understand and consequently realise the significance and importance of a said criticism by an artist.

Hence, artists and their kind are not destructive people, but on the contrary to the general ‘popular’ belief are rather creative, productive and builders. The bulk of their natural creativity and works is shown though their occupation. One could also see their intellectual creativity through their works.

Artists are freethinkers

Artists build their paradigms and visions though ideas and thoughts.

Nonetheless, I admit that these ideas and thoughts are unpopular. History has shown us over time that it was always the artists and their kinds who more often than not will be the prime targets of the government (especially a corrupt, perverse and evil one), because they are not afraid to speak their minds, to think independently for themselves, to expose the truth and if need be, to die for their art, beliefs and principles.

Visit an authoritarian government’s prison and you will find artists imprisoned.

Why? It is because artists are dangerous people.

Why? It is because artists do know how to think for themselves and cannot be easily persuaded or convinced by any powers that be. A true artist cannot be brainwashed, duped, fooled and can never ever be bought. Needless to state, a genuine artist will never compromise, even to the end, to the death!

There is no shadow of doubt that artists are freethinkers.

Leo Tolstoy describes freethinkers as those “who are willing to use their minds without prejudice and without fearing to understand things that clash with their own customs, privileges, or beliefs. This state of mind is not common, but it is essential for right thinking…”

Muhyiddin lacks wisdom

Hence on this note, I condemn the harassment and the smear campaign being waged by the government to besmirch the reputation and honor of Pak Samad.

The preposterous act of the government, principally of its Deputy Prime Minister, in unjustly attacking Pak Samad’s integrity and personality has clearly shown that this government does not mirror the will and voices of the people.

Pak Samad is a national artist, not simply because the government bestowed that honor upon him, but primarily because the people of Malaysia themselves recognized this firm, yet courageous old man as such!

To the government, you can take away that title from the old man, but you can never ever take away the love, respect and trust of the people that they have for him.

As the time honored adage aptly reminds us; respect is something that one must earn; it can never be imposed and it can never be enforced.

To the government, you can throw everything to the old man, lies and slanders, yet the ultimate question is: do you think the people of this country will believe your charges and accusation?

To the DPM, may I remind you of the saying that, “you can never ever put a good man down”!

You can do whatever you want to the old man, such as strip him of his title, charge him and even send him to jail; yet I greatly doubt if you can ever silence this noble soul, break him and make him compromised.

There is no doubt whatsoever on my mind that, wherever this great old man finds himself, whether on the streets, courts or even in jail; he will remain an artist who will keep on writing, educating the people, standing up for their rights and fighting tirelessly for freedom, justice and equality.

You can never stop an idea whose time has come, in the same vein that you cannot prevent an artist from professing and fighting for his rights and his craft.

History has proven that endlessly!

One day you will go down the garbage bin of history while Pak Samad will always be on its beautiful pages reserved for warrior-poets and artists cum activists; who fought and struggled for the good, the benefit and welfare of the rakyat.

Whatever happens, Pak Samad will always be a National Artist of Malaysia, because the people themselves say so!

The ultimate voice and the will of the people are the true wishes of the nation.

Jose Mario Dolor De Vega is philosophy lecturer at College of Arts and Letters, Polytechnic University of the Philippines

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 21 September 2013, 10:16 am and is filed under
civil society/NGOs
,
Human Rights
,
Media
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


10 ways to really help bumis

P Gunasegaram

Malaysiakini

Sep 20, 2013

QUESTION TIME
 The recent RM30 billion package (although I am not sure how it works out to that) for bumiputera economic empowerment is certainly not something that will help or have any kind of impact on the vast majority of bumiputeras who form 67 percent of the population.

Just think of that figure for a moment. Nearly seven out of ten people in the country are bumiputeras. Help everyone in the country who needs it and you help the bumiputera community the most. More on that later.

Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak’s plans to economically empower bumiputeras will not help the ordinary bumiputera because he is not the one who owns shares, or will become a major entrepreneur, or live off government contracts. That affects only the rich bumiputeras.

Realistically, the economic empowerment programme is a thinly disguised ruse to help those who continue to live off the government through patronage and corruption. And in this case this is the Umno elite and many of them are likely to be among the 150,000 delegates who will vote in Umno’s forthcoming general assembly.

It’s another form of vote buying.

So what will help ALL bumiputeras and especially those who are in the poor and middle classes and thereby help bridge the income gap between bumiputeras on the one side and Chinese and Indians on the other?

For that, you simply go back to the basics.  Here are are 10 things we can identify immediately. If the government had been doing this without respite and full sincerity for the last 56 years from independence we would long ago have become a developed a country, even far surpassing that of our southern neighbour Singapore which has no natural resources to speak of.

1. Raise school education levels

In the haste to increase Malay usage and hire more Malay teachers into the education system after 1970, educational quality dropped in national schools. Until today this is a major problem because of poor quality of teachers (entry standards were foolishly dropped) and lowering examination standards to favour bumiputera students.

It will require much more than the national education blueprint, a document laced with political considerations. Education has to be de-politicised, secularised and its syllabus reoriented to modern needs.

And this has to be done by true educationists, not nationalists who tend to be blinkered because of their political overzealousness and who think of education as brainwashing instead of a development process. Education needs to be taken out of the hands of politicians.

This is crucial for bumiputera development. If they don’t get good education right from the start – and that includes preschool – then they are going to be handicapped relative to the rest because most bumiputeras go to national schools. National schools must be at least as good as vernacular schools. That would also mean that non-Malays will start coming back to national schools.

Education is such an important thing to improve incomes that it covers several of our other points. No country has managed to improve and equalise incomes without a superb education system. Putting as much resources as possible into this is vital.

2. Revamp higher education

The entire education system must be revamped to put meritocracy and higher educational standards in place. If bumiputera students lack minimum standards, you must enable them to reach those standards through tuition and other means and not drop minimum standards. Only then will bumiputera students take the trouble to be on par.

Genetic studies have shown beyond doubt that no race is superior in terms of intelligence which implies that attitude and environment is all important.

There is really no point in government universities churning out graduates in the thousands if they don’t have the basic skills to be employable.

3. Don’t compromise on education quality and standards

In education as in life, one cannot aim for equalisation of outcomes – you can only hope to equalise opportunities. Then it is up to those given the opportunity to make use of it. If results are adjusted to sort of equalise the eventual outcome, inefficiency and incompetence will be the result.

If our programme of eradicating poverty and eliminating the identification of race with economic function – the original and oft-forgotten twin pillars of the New Economic Policy of 1971 – was premised on these methods, we would most likely have been able to bring about the change in attitude necessary to produce better outcomes. Instead spoon-feeding has needlessly lengthened dependence.

4. Empower bumiputeras with English

Sometime back, I witnessed the unhappy spectacle of a young, suave, urbane, Malay Oxford graduate defending the move by the government to revert to teaching of science and maths in English who swore blue that evidence is that teaching these subjects in the mother tongue made it easier for them to understand them. I told him that in his case – he was the son of a diplomat, I believe, and educated all over the world – it did not seem to have done him much harm.

That young man is Khairy Jamaluddin, son-in-law of former prime minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, and current Umno Youth chief. I just cannot understand the attitude of people who have benefited so much from the English language and yet who are so keen to deny this benefit to millions of others from their own race. Does being a politician blind them to what is good for their own race? Or is it something else that motivates them?

5. Cut corruption

If the government wants to reduce income gaps, then it must cut corruption, bring it down to virtually zero. Look where it got Singapore to. Just one illustration will be sufficient for this. Let’s say our chief ministers were corrupt. Then this land proposal comes up – one of them de-gazettes forest reserves, allocates the land to a developer and then approves the conversion for mixed development.

The chief minister, who may be bumiputera, will get, oh, let’s say anywhere between RM1 million and RM10 million. And the developer, most likely non-bumiputera, will make anywhere between a RM100 million and RM1 billion from the deal. A precious state resource is sold way below its value and the income gap between the bumiputera and non-bumiputera is considerably widened – because of corruption.

And to make it worse, this bumiputera chief minister may well go out on his political rounds and talk self righteously to rallies and such and rail against the wide gap between bumiputera and non-bumiputera incomes!

This is just by way of illustration of course, the point being corruption when analysed and tracked almost always increases income gaps..

6. Cut subsidies and import taxes

One of the myths is that the poor are helped considerably by subsidies on say fuel and electricity. That’s wrong because the poor don’t use much of this. The rich and industries use much more of this than the poor. The clear implication is that subsidies while helping the poor, help the rich much more.

What should be done in tandem with subsidy cuts is to cut or remove import taxes altogether so that the prices of goods come down and local industries (such as cars for instance) are not protected by tariffs which make their product prices higher. This is a policy which will help the poor but since probably more than 70 percent of them are likely to be bumiputera, they will be the prime beneficiaries.

7. Have open tenders

Contrary to popular belief negotiated tenders are not likely to benefit bumiputeras – instead they are likely to benefit connected bumiputeras through patronage. Best to have an open tender. If it is deemed necessary to give bumiputeras an advantage, then this can be done via a price differential, say 5 percent.

That does two things – one, bumiputera pricing is not way out of line with the others, and two it still does give a preference to bumiputeras but a quantified one.

8. Use all resources available

Any wise country will use all the resources available to it and not restrict it to a particular race. It is important to staff government departments on merit to ensure proper performance and  to cast the net for recruitment as far and as wide as possible.

The rush and needless urgency to put more Malays into the education system ahead of time resulted in a huge and rapid decline in the quality of education as entry standards for teachers were lowered. This directly affected most the quality of national schools which most bumiputeras attended.

9. Raise government efficiency

There is one imperative for raising efficiency – those who are not efficient must be made efficient or removed altogether. Government departments cannot be made refuge for idlers and shirkers. They must earn their income and to do their part for the betterment of the nation – we can’t afford a subsidy mentality in government.

Once that is established, we must put in all effort needed to make our government services really top class and one that facilitates rather than hinders all legitimate private efforts to initiate economic and other activity.

10. Give loans, not grants

Najib’s bumiputera empowerment programme even envisages grants for entrepreneurs. That’s absolutely the wrong move which is sure to encourage abuse and breach of trust. Instead grant loans instead. That way only those confident of their projects will seek them. And the repayment of these loans will ensure that financing is available for future generations.

The same should be the case for scholarships. Limited number of merit scholarships are fine but it is pointless extending scholarships in the thousands indiscriminately. What is given free is seldom appreciated. Instead, these can be loans which will have to be repaid and which will then enable others to take advantage of opportunities in future.

These measures are not anywhere near rocket science and I trust most Malaysians will agree with them. But unless politicians eschew race politics and become really and genuinely interested in helping their communities, things are not likely to change.

I wish these politicians had the “scrotal gumption” (to borrow the words of retired judge Mahadev Shankar) to put aside politics and do the best for their own race. In the process, they can’t help but do well for all Malaysians too as all these 10 measures will help all of them no matter their race, religion, creed or social status.

With seven out of 10 people in the country being bumiputeras and perhaps more in the lower income category, Isn’t it about time we moved to a Malaysian agenda? Even if it is 56 years too late?

——————————————————————————–

P GUNASEGARAM is the founding editor of KiniBiz.

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 22 September 2013, 11:27 am and is filed under
Najib Razak
,
NEM
,
NEP
,
UMNO
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


A “grouse” about TMI’s “woeful” usage

– Clive Kessler

The Malaysian Insider

September 22, 2013

“In a public tribunal, many air grouses over Election 2013,” your recent TMI headline trumpets.

Malaysian journalistic usage, with its verbal idiosyncrasies, is sometimes strange.

Even stranger is the fact that those who seek to offer an alternative approach, or speak in a different voice, often (and unthinkingly, so it seems) adopt the language of the dominant press.

They, and here now including The Malaysian Insider, do so without recognizing the hidden assumptions and attitudes, the insidious implications, that are built into those all too familiar “mainstream” usages.

Malaysians love to speak of “woes”.

A woe is a disaster that descends without discernible cause, mysteriously, and without anyone being responsible. Since they exclude human agency, the word’s connotations are exculpatory.

To call some systemic failure (of public utilities or services) a “woe” is to imply that it is a mysterious affliction, a metaphysical conundrum, for which nobody is, or may be held, accountable.

Whose interests does this implication, neatly smuggled unawares by the word “woe” into a reader’s response to the reported facts, serve?

In the face of “woes”, Malaysian citizens are often said to have “grouses”, even grouses that the powerful may from time to time graciously acknowledge and perhaps, however ineptly, attempt to assuage.

But what is a grouse?

It is a querulous and ungrounded complaint, a petty and ungrateful expression of unwarranted resentment, an irritating and pestering expression of dissatisfaction.

To call a complaint a grouse is to imply that those who voice it are simply indulging in immature, churlish and gratuitous denunciation, not that they may have a legitimate cause of dissatisfaction and complaint.

The “woes” and the ensuing “grouses” that people are driven to express —  so this unfortunate choice of words wrongly suggests — are malign visitations of unfathomable fate, unlike the “problems” and “failures” that arise from human action and the workings or otherwise of humanly created systems.

Again, whose interests does recourse to the preferred mainstream usage serve? It’s not hard to see.

So, even if the politicians and mainstream press keep using these favourite terms (as well they may, since the hidden connotations suit their purposes), why should others with different views, as well as their own distinctive professional approaches and obligations, follow their ways?

Why would TMI want to reinforce the semantic “anti-accountability shield” that — by choosing these two misleading words — those entrusted with public office happily wear to protect them from public opinion, even legitimate public dissatisfaction?

Words like “woes” and “grouse”, as they are routinely used in Malaysian political language, are just that: semantic shields, “cop-out” devices. They are instruments of evasion: for evading moral and public accountability.

Or, otherwise put, they are “get out of jail cards” for politicians and public authorities who refuse to accept or who fail in the discharge of their responsibilities.

So, every time you feel tempted to talk of “woes” or “grouses”, please think twice. No, not twice. Just once should be enough.

As George Orwell taught us long ago, the offence here is a dual one. These words are not just clichés. They are the instruments, often cunningly deployed and then lazily accepted, of political befuddlement.

Political corruption, the corruption of public life, begins with the corruption of language and thought.

So the beginnings of an alternative politics must involve a critique of the dominant usages and the generation of a new language of public debate.

The imperative need of the moment, in Malaysia and worldwide, is a “semantically-led political recovery”.

It should begin here by people naming so-called “woes” as problems, which occur and persist because those in authority who have that responsibility have failed to fix them.

And by recognising that so-called “grouses” are generally expressions of legitimate grievance, protests against failures and injustices that people should not have to endure. That governments should not make them endure.

To call them “woes” and “grouses” is to join those in authority — shamefully eager to flee from accountability over how they carry out of their public responsibilities — in trivialising legitimate expressions of popular discontent.

Worse, in dismissing them with a nasty, contemptuous sneer.

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 22 September 2013, 9:13 am and is filed under
Media
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Chin Peng deserves his place of rest

M Kulasegaran

Malaysiakini

Sep 22, 2013

MP SPEAKS
 I had heard about the Communist Party of Malaya (CPM) secretary-general Chin Peng from a young age. For as long as I can remember, Chin Peng has been associated with the town of Sitiawan, but it was his career as a guerrilla fighter drew me to him.

I, too, hail from Sitiawan where I was born a good many years after Chin Peng emerged on the west coast of Perak in 1924. Marxists might disagree, but a sense of geographical solidarity may be just as strong as class solidarity.

I had wanted to meet with Chin Peng since the time I first heard about him. Being from a rubber tapping family, I was drawn to read quite a lot about him and his struggles.

Rubber was the mainstay of the Malayan economy but rubber tappers were poor and communist ideology was sympathetic to those at the bottom of the economic ladder. Hence I had an interest in the fighter who was from my hometown of Sitiawan and in how his career worked out in history.

My curiosity was gratified with the publication of Chin Peng’s memoirs, ‘My Side of History’, which was published in 2003. I devoured the book and remembered striking aspects of the story.

An Ipoh lawyer of my acquaintance, Chan Kok Keong, took up Chin Peng’s application to the Malaysian government to be allowed to return to Malaysia to visit his parents’ graves. Kok Keong arranged for a meet-up in Bangkok in 2009.

Through Kok Keong’s connections, the meeting took place in a famous hotel in the Thai capital in 2009. With episodes in Chin Peng’s memoirs fresh in my memory, the first thing I did when I encountered the man in the flesh as different to the vivid character in the pages of ‘My Side of History’ was to ask about intriguing episodes in the book.

How Chin Peng evaded capture

I asked how he evaded capture by the British and the Japanese while he traveled in Perak in the period between 1939 and during the Second World War (1942-45). He told me his base was in the high hills of Bidor, near Cameron Highlands.

Chin Peng told me that he cycled from his base in the hills of Bidor via rubber plantations to places where he could meet up with fellow guerillas and contacts. He told me almost all the time he was able to avoid detention. Till today, this narrative evokes wonder and awe in him.

I asked about how he had met the British military unit ferried by submarine to link up with officers of the Malayan People’s Anti-Japanese Army on the coast of Perak in 1943. He said the submarine landed in Lumut Kiri.

Even present days Perakians would be hard put to know where Lumut Kiri is. It is a very remote area which is only accessible on foot. Chin Peng said he had cycled to Pantai Remis via rubber plantations and then walked the last few miles to Lumut Kiri to meet with his British military contacts. This wasn’t an easy feat, even if attempted in these days – what more then!

In the Bangkok meeting with him, I sensed Chin Peng’s desire to come back to Malaysia, if only to pay his respects at his parents’ graves which are at the Chinese gravesite in the village of Pundut, in Lumut. Alas, that wish remains unfulfilled.

I have raised in Parliament the 1989 Peace Agreement between the Malaysian government and the CPM. I have argued that the government must be ashamed for not honouring their part of the agreement to allow Chin Peng to return as required by the terms of the peace accord.

Making good on agreements

Now the government’s decision to disallow the internment of his ashes in Pundut compounds the insensibility of the earlier decision to bar his return to the country of his birth.

How can we expect others to abide by the terms of agreement they may make with us if our government violates and refuses to adhere to agreements we have made with others, such as the one we made with the CPM in 1989?

I disagree with communist ideology and abhor the huge loss of life and destruction of property their militant struggle caused in Malaya between 1948 and 1960, and on a lesser scale from 1960 to the conclusion of a peace agreement in 1989.

But I contend that the CPM’s struggle against the Japanese during the latter’s occupation of Malaya was valiant and their resistance to the British colonials after the defeat of the Japanese hastened the grant of independence to Malaya in 1957.

For that reason and also in deference to the terms of the 1989 peace accords, Chin Peng’s ashes should be allowed the courtesy of entry into the country and internment in the place of his wish.

——————————————————————————–

M KULASEGARAN is the DAP MP for Ipoh Barat.

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 22 September 2013, 12:24 pm and is filed under
DAP
,
Parliament
,
Police
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


“One bed, two constituencies” because Election Commission “separated” husband and wife, Tribunal told

by V. Anbalagan and Jennifer Gomez

The Malaysian Insider

September 21, 2013

A couple that lives in the same house in Johor has been “separated” by the Election Commission and told to vote in different constituencies, the Bersih People’s Tribunal was told today.

The couple, identified as Mr and Mrs Ong, was represented by a family member, G.S. Ong. He said that before the delineation exercise in 2003, they had lived in Kg Abdullah, Segamat, for over 40 years and came under the parliamentary constituency of Segamat (P125).

After 2003, however, Mr Ong was asked to vote in Segamat, which was reorganised to become P140, while Mrs Ong was designated to vote in a newly-created constituency named Sekijang (P141).

G.S.Ong said he felt sorry for the couple who could not vote together.

“What this shows is that the Election Commission is so powerful it can ‘divorce couples’ and this has happened to many couples and families in Kampung Abdullah,” G.S. Ong said.

To prove his point, he produced a map which showed neighbouring homes dotted blue and red intermittently, showing voters in the constituencies of Segamat in red and Sekijang in blue. They live in the same neighbourhood but had to vote in different constituencies.

In GE13, Health Minister Datuk Seri S.Subramaniam retained his Segamat seat beating PKR’s Datuk Chua Jui Meng by a 1,217-vote majority.

This is because the EC had moved pro-opposition supporters to Sekijang in the electoral roll, said G.S Ong.

He added that the aim was to dilute the opposition support in Segamat to ensure a Barisan Nasional win.

Chua subsequently lost an election petition he filed in court to challenge the result.

Panel chairman Professor Yash Pal Ghai asked conducting officer Professor Gurdial Singh if he had brought up this matter to the EC, to which Gurdial said, “This is why we asked EC to come here.”

Political analyst Dr Wong Chin Huat, who first revealed the Ong poser at the tribunal today in a slide titled “One bed, two constituencies”, said he noted it was impossible that the Ong home stood directly in the middle of P140 and P141.

“And you find these cases, where people from the same house are given different constituencies to vote in.

“This destroys the identity and unity of a community,” Wong added after he presented his views on electoral reform. – September 21, 2013.

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 22 September 2013, 7:40 am and is filed under
Elections
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


At tribunal’s end, Ambiga says NRD needs ‘shake-up’

by Ida Lim

Malay Mail Online

September 22, 2013

KUALA LUMPUR, Sept 22 — At the end of a five-day tribunal hearing on election irregularities, Bersih’s co-chair Datuk Ambiga Sreenevasan said the National Registration Department (NRD) needs to be shaken up as well as help clean up the voter registration roll.

When going through Bersih’s demands and recommendations during the hearing, Ambiga repeated the election watchdog’s long-standing complaint that the Election Commission (EC) had failed to take steps to clear the country’s electoral roll of discrepancies.

Ambiga acknowledged the EC’s stand that it was limited to only registering voters based on the identity cards issued by the NRD, even as electoral reform groups have voiced suspicion that foreigners had obtained citizenship through dubious means.

“That’s why it’s not just a question of electoral roll, it’s so intrinsically tied up – the identity card and the election commission.

“The JPN needs a shake-up as well,” she said when testifying as the last witness today, referring to the NRD by its Malay initials.

The EC has often borne the brunt of criticisms, especially for irregularities in the electoral roll, but the commission had in the past pointed out that it could not correct certain errors or changes unilaterally without being notified by voters.

The EC had also said that its role was to register voters according to the identity cards issued by the NRD, saying that the latter would be the one responsible for verifying details in the ICs.

But Ambiga rejected EC’s explanation, which the commission has used when faced with claims of errors such as the retaining of the names of dead voters on its roll and the registration of voters at addresses that they do not reside in.

“We don’t accept it as a reasonable excuse because the election commission is the sole custodian of the electoral roll,” Ambiga said.

Earlier, panel member Datuk Azzat Kamaludin raised concern over Bersih’s recommendation for automatic voter registration when citizens reach a certain age, saying that the proposal could worsen the problems with the electoral roll.

“We made this suggestion on the basis that we are dealing with people of integrity and JPN will actually act according to the law, we have to assume that,” Ambiga then replied, later insisting that the EC has to fulfill its duty to the public.

Another panellist, Dr Mavis Puthucheary, said the tribunal’s role was not to “bash” the EC, but to improve the system.

While noting the criticisms against the EC, Mavis said the public should look at it in light of developments over the years, observing that some of its powers have been reduced.

“As a result, it has decided to play a very narrow role and it dismisses a lot of things as being outside of its purview,” the academic said, referring to the EC’s limitations in removing names from its electoral roll.

“Maybe it would require expanding the role of the EC and increasing the staff of EC,” she suggested when speaking of possible reforms.

But Ambiga disagreed, saying that the EC has only “one job”, indicating that the commission should be able to ensure free and fair elections.

“They only do elections. If they haven’t got it right by now, then I’m not sure it’s just a lack of empowerment,” she said.>

The People’s Tribunal on the 13th general election, which is organised by polls watchdog Bersih, has been hearing evidence since September 18 on alleged vote-rigging in the contentious polls, with the five-day hearing to end today.

The citizen’s initiative does not have the legal authority to enforce its recommendations, but has the “moral authority” to be accepted by Putrajaya, according to Bersih.

The five-member People’s Tribunal is led by Yash Pal Ghai, a former United Nations Special Representative and constitutional law expert.

The other members are former Indonesian Electoral Commission deputy chairman Ramlan Surbakti, prominent lawyer Datuk Azzat Kamaludin, University of Malaya associate senior fellow Mavis Puthucheary and Rev Dr Hermen Shastri, the general secretary of the Council of Churches of Malaysia.

In his closing speech today, Yash said the panel will meet again next Friday afternoon, where lead counsel Prof Gurdial Singh Nijar will present a summary of the evidence heard during the five-day hearing.

                This entry was posted on Monday, 23 September 2013, 7:48 am and is filed under
Elections
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


First day back, Kit Siang targets new Bumi agenda, says only for Umnoputras

by Jennifer Gomez

The Malaysian Insider

September 23, 2013

DAP national adviser Lim Kit Siang fired the first salvo when Parliament’s new session began today, saying that the government transformation programmes had failed and that the new Bumiputera agenda went against the grain of the New Economic Model which hinged on merit and not based on race.

He said this after Deputy Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Datuk Razali Ibrahim responded to a question from Lenggong Member of Parliament Datuk Shamsul Anuar Nasarah to state the achievements of the transformation programmes.

Lim pointed out that the new Bumiputera agenda only benefitted a select few “Umnoputras” when there were many other Bumiputeras and non-Bumis who lived below the poverty line and needed government assistance.

“Isn’t this evidence that the government programmes have failed?” Lim, the Gelang Patah MP, asked.

He questioned whether Umno leaders were willing to pledge that they were Malaysian first and Malay second.

Razali replied that Lim just wanted to see the transformation programmes fail, adding that they were not about politics but helping the needy.

 – September 23, 2013.

                This entry was posted on Monday, 23 September 2013, 12:13 pm and is filed under
NEM
,
NEP
,
Parliament
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Najib’s Leadership Deficiencies Undermine Malaysia’s Future

M. Bakri Musa

23.9.2013

Najib’s glaring leadership deficiencies have now been glaringly exposed. Malaysia deserves better. His performance has not been up to par even when compared to his lackluster predecessor. If under Abdullah Badawi Malaysia had the modernity of Manhattan but the mentality of Mogadishu, under Najib, Malaysia risks degenerating, period.

            Najib is not terribly bright or introspective. Like a little child, he always hunger for approval. He is also severely “charimastically-challenged.” A leader could survive or even thrive despite having one or two of these flaws, but to be cursed with all three is fatal.

            All his adult years Najib has depended entirely on government paychecks. No surprise then that his worldview is narrowly circumscribed. His solution to every problem is to distribute government checks, well exemplified by his many “1-Malaysia” handouts. His recent Majlis Ekonomi Bumiputra was no exception; likewise its hefty price tag.

            Not being introspective, Najib does not and never will recognize his shortcomings. Consequently unlike his immediate predecessor, Najib will never resign voluntarily; he would rather destroy his party and country first. If UMNO does not recognize this, it too will go down with him; likewise the country.

            A good leader, to paraphrase a hadith, is one who protects his followers from his hands and tongue. Najib does neither. Functionally, he slipped his hands into the pockets of Malaysians when he raised the price of petrol. He wants to do it again with his Goods and Services Tax (GST). Meanwhile his smooth tongue bribes us with his ever-generous “1Malaysia” gifts, using the rakyat’s money of course.

            While being smart is an obvious asset in a leader, not being one would not necessarily be a handicap. Reagan, one of the most successful American presidents, was far from being brainy. He however, knew his limitations and duly compensated for that; his cabinet was full of intellectual heavyweights and individuals of proven achievements.

            Incidentally my comparing him to Reagan, no matter how unfavorably, only feeds Najib’s delusion.

            Najib thinks he is super smart; he frequently parrots the latest buzz words. It is not just an increase but a quantum leap! It is not just any strategy but a blue ocean one! Meanwhile the ship of state is headed straight to the bottom. He does not appreciate his fundamental problem. You cannot scour the ocean on a leaky sampan with a crew familiar only with the rakit (bamboo raft), and hope to survive.

            The embarrassing caliber of Najib’s cabinet and advisors reflects his blissful ignorance of his deficiencies. He had over four years to scout for fresh talent, only to end up with the same mediocre core ministers he inherited from his equally dull predecessor. I cringe whenever I hear any pronouncement from them. They are all “half-past six.”

            Even on the rare occasion when Naijb picked a bright star like Idris Jala, the former chief executive of Shell, the sparkle is gone. It is hard to soar like an eagle when surrounded by turkeys. Idris is reduced to and consumed with making elegant Powerpoint presentations to any willing audience.

            Tasked with “transforming” the government (note the bombastic buzz word!), Idris Jala either severely underestimated the enormity of the task or generously overestimated his talent in executing it. He forgot the evident reality that the government of Malaysia is not Shell with respect to size, scope of activities, availability of talent, or any other matrix. The bureaucratic inertia of the civil service pales the physical one of a loaded supertanker.

            If Idris had appreciated the enormity of the challenge, or had a wee bit of humility, he would have focused on only one or two areas, and learned from the experience. Once successful, he would have minimal difficulty selling his ideas and initiatives.

            If Najib had been introspective, he would have assigned Idris a specific portfolio and then let him do his own “transforming.” Idris would then be able to show instead of just merely tell us his managerial capabilities.

            Like a skillful carpenter, a good leader knows when and where to deploy his finest tools. Implicit in that observation is that a good leader must first recognize which tools are sharp and which ones are dull, to be discarded. It is precisely this critical insight that Najib is severely lacking.

            Najib’s second weakness, his hunger for approval, is equally crippling. He tried to ingratiate himself to extremist Malay nationalists by brandishing his kris dipped in tomato sauce, but to no avail. During the last election he had his son utter a few words of Mandarin and gave generous on-the-spot grants to Chinese schools. Likewise, he visited Rome for an audience with the Pope. At home he garlanded himself in that outlandish floral arrangement around his neck while visiting Batu Caves. Voters readily saw through those silly overtures.

            Like a spoilt brat who had grown accustomed to being indulged upon, Najib could not accept the harsh rebuke that was the last election. He reacted like the over-pampered kampong kid by sulking; hence his shameful silence during the many recent crises.

            Lacking self-awareness, Najib has pretensions of great charisma. If contrast is the essence of art, then his on-stage performance with the South Korean Gangnam Group, Psy, during the last election campaign was truly, well, artistic. If that were his only gig, that would be harmless enough. It was however, mildly funny, even if it was at his expense.

            A charismatic leader could at least attract talent to his cause despite lacking competence or not being generously-endowed intellectually. Najib does not attract the best. He confuses endless slogans for substantive efforts, frenetic activities as decisive actions, and sulking withdrawal as deep contemplation.

            Take his endless sloganeering. First there was glokal Malay (contraction for global and lokal, Malay bastardization for local). Lacking traction, he shifted to “One Malaysia.” Streams of slogans later, it is now “Endless Possibilities!” What’s next? Najib is the leader caricatured by Shahnon Ahmad’s lead character in his novella, Unggappan.

            We must change the nation’s sorry trajectory by dispensing with the current leadership. The excuse that there is no one else capable may be solace to Najib but an insult to all Malaysians. Allah would not be so unkind and unjust as to deprive us of our share of leadership talent. To get our rightful due however, we must first stop indulging our present incompetent leaders, beginning with Najib. Only then could we diligently search for better ones.

            Malaysia deserves better than to be saddled with Najib Razak.

                This entry was posted on Monday, 23 September 2013, 6:36 pm and is filed under
Bakri Musa
,
Najib Razak
,
UMNO
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Thank you, now move on

Hafiz Noor Shams

The Malay Mail Online

September 23, 2013

SEPT 23 — A good dozen issues is holding Malaysia back. Several big ones are legacies originating from days long gone.

While we can never truly escape history, I feel it is dragging us down too much. So heavy is the baggage that sometimes, I feel the best way to move forward is to forget.

I write this because Chin Peng died on Malaysia Day. He fought for a very different version of Malaysia, possibly the very opposite of what we have today.

That makes the date of his death quite ironic, although it is arguable that his struggle hastened the independence of Malaya and later the formation of Malaysia.

We can never truly know how it would have been if he had his way. But, if offered the choice between a Communist state and today’s Malaysia, I will choose today’s reality—even with its lamentable imperfections—without hesitation.

That does not mean the imperfections afflicting Malaysia today are acceptable. We can live in a society that is better than what we have today. That has to be true because otherwise we must have given up on this country.

One imperfection comes from the very era Chin Peng and his generation represent. The fight against the Communist rebellion took a toll on our way of life.

We sacrificed our liberty for security then. Unfortunately years after the conflict ended, we continue to make the same sacrifices when none is needed. Instruments useful for the fight against the Communists have been abused to suppress other Malaysians.

There has been progress, like the abolition of the Internal Security Act, but the opening is happening too slowly for my liking. The promise of more liberalization remains unfulfilled, no thanks to pressure from those still unable or refuse to move on.

I hope the death of Chin Peng – and slowly, his generation regardless the sides they are on – brightens the prospect of us forgetting old fears that are increasingly irrelevant to this age. I use the word irrelevant not to deny old wounds. The wounds are real and I respect that.

I write so because when you look all around you, you will not expect a Communist to shoot you. Communism itself does not deserve the attention it receives in Malaysia today.

All the silly political ding-dong on the matter like arguing about the ashes of Chin Peng, gives Communism too much undeserved attention. In fact, the government’s stubborn refusal to let Chin Peng be buried in Malaysia gives Communism too much sympathy.

As that generation slowly fades, my hope is that we can finally take a step forward and leave all the old baggage behind. I hope that the memories of past terrors and the rationale for illiberal laws that we have now will go away with that generation too bitter to move on. I believe only when they are gone will we have a freer hand to write our future.

The era of Communist insurrection is not the only legacy issue bedeviling our modern Malaysia. There is a whole set too long for a comprehensive mention. Some people are blaming the British for Malaysian woes half a century later. What is certain is that these issues are in our collective mind, no thanks to that generation which keeps reminding us of their bitterness and insecurity.

The world changes but they do not. It would be okay if they had kept their old worldviews to themselves as they enjoy their retirement. The problem is that leaders of that generation are still pulling strings.

They are Malaysians too and they deserve a place under the sun but sometimes, they influence too strongly, as Lee Kuan Yew has done in Singapore years after his retirement.

This makes efforts by current leaders, whichever side they are on, to move on more difficult than it should. Former Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi knows what it feels like when Prime Minister Najib Razak comes under unrelenting pressure as the Umno election nears.

But Chin Peng reminds us all that we are mortals. It is just a matter of when.

That generation will be missed. But we need to move on.

                This entry was posted on Monday, 23 September 2013, 6:55 pm and is filed under
nation building
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Utusan and national aspiration

– The Malaysian Insider

September 22, 2013

Utusan Malaysia’s Sunday edition today carried an opinion piece lashing out at The Malaysian Insider for its reportage of the Malay newspaper, saying it goes against national aspirations.For good measure, it defined the aspirations as Malay issues and the official religion, Islam.

And it went on a litany of issues from the Allah issue to the late Communist Party of Malaya secretary-general Chin Peng and how the authorities should take action including suspending the portal’s permit.

Let’s make a few things clear.

Utusan’s narrow racial interest is not akin to the larger and wider Malaysian interest.

This is a nation which is 50 years old and it is for all Malaysians, not just a racial subset.

One cannot use the name Malaysia in its masthead and just champion a single race and call it a national aspiration. One cannot then say anyone having a contrary opinion is a traitor to a national cause.

One cannot put out innuendoes and unproven allegations and later ask the authorities to investigate or chastise them for not revealing the results.

And here is the thing, news portals do not need any permits. Only journalists need to be accredited by the Information Department to ensure they get to cover government events.

Utusan writers need to check their facts too before dishing out similar advice. And they should not confuse government policy with national aspirations.

We live in a country of diverse races, cultures, faiths and political leanings. Going to bat for one or labeling others is mischievous and disingenuous.

After all, isn’t this the newspaper that keeps losing defamation suits all the time? Also, the newspaper that wanted to reject a local airline’s advertisements because the chief executive, who is also Malay, criticised its racial slant.

Is this the newspaper that deserves advertisements from government-linked companies when that advertising money is used for a narrow racial agenda and to pay off damages resulting from losing all those lawsuits? – September 22, 2013.

                This entry was posted on Monday, 23 September 2013, 2:17 pm and is filed under
Media
,
nation building
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Beep beep here comes the roadrunner!

 – Sakmongkol AK47

The Malaysian Insider

September 24, 2013

Najib has launched the Bumiputera economic empowerment Plan. BEEP. It has come to this now. Twittering, face booking, blogging, whats-apping and now beep-ing the country. Najib will be  beep-ing the Malays so that they can take their rightful place in our country. After NEPing the country, Malay equity stands around 23%? Does ownership of this 23% mean anything to the ordinary Malays who have the face the daily grind of life?

Many of us know exactly what the BEEP means. It means a license to pillage and plunder in the name of king, religion and country. The Malay elite salivate at the prospects of carving out wealth earning resources.

23% is owned by GLCs, the Malay elite, the privileged and the Malay monied class. This BEEP is going to turn into another excuse to justify the rape and plunder. After raping the girl repeatedly, the rapist presents her with a bunch of flowers. This is exactly what the BEEP announced by Najib represents, the presentation of a bunch of flowers after the raping the Malay lady over and over again.

If you can’t dazzle people with your brilliance, confound them with your bullshit.

There are almost 10 million Malays living with a monthly income of RM1500. Why these people aren’t directly aided? Why do we arrogate ourselves the authority and omniscience to even claim we know what is best for the Malays? The ordinary Malay knows he wants to get out of poverty and destitution if only he has the means to. So why don’t we give them the means to? The problems of the present lot of 10 million people must be tackled immediately.

Why must we create an artificial layer of decision makers, central planners to work out things for us? It’s good that we acknowledge education, re-skilling and advanced training to be one of the means. Buts that for future generation and it’s also a deferred realization. What about the now and present? The 10 million destitute – no house, no land, no money, many children, no income generating resources?

I have gone around with a keener awareness about what to do with the people of Raub. To me, if we want to help the Malays, we do the Raub Model. Three things the government must do. Help the 10 million people directly by (1) building them really affordable and decent homes (2) give them land (3) give them capital. Then they work. They have a home over their heads, they have land on which to cultivate and they have capital in hand, presently to start their enterprise off the land. No need for that elaborate structuring of a blueprint thought about by a central body directing economic enterprise.

This is a fundamental error the government is repeating.  We all know the role of government. A minimalist umpire responsible for a certain number of specific functions. Beyond that, we must have faith in the market system. If we continue placing faith in a handful of men/women who plan our lives, then we are going to regret the decision. If we allow ourselves to believe in the myth of trickle down sharing of wealth, we are also going to get disappointed. Help the poor and destitute directly. Place income generating resources directly in their hands. Don’t assume we can manage their money better.

Instead the government plans to spend through the middleman institutions. Education is deferred wealth creation. You reap the benefits of education years later. In the meantime, the 10 million living on less RM1,500 per month will do what? Every essential item has increased in purchase price- rice, sugar, fish, meat, food stuffs, transport, utilities, etc.

These 10 million ordinary Malays face the daily grind of life. A pair of Bata shoes has increased by RM3. School bags, transportation, schooling equipment have gone up in price. The cost of living is going up. The self-employed in the kampungs living on a monthly allowance of RM300 per month, with three to four children, rented housing will have to make ends meet. These people are destitute. Why they are not aided directly?

Here is something which I can’t understand. We know who the destitute and poor are. But we don’t aid and assist them directly. We don’t appoint them to wealth creation resources. – sakmongkol.blogspot.com, September 25, 2013.

* SakmongkolAK47 is the nom de guerre of Datuk Mohd Ariff Sabri Abdul Aziz, the Raub MP.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 24 September 2013, 3:32 pm and is filed under
Najib Razak
,
NEM
,
NEP
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Chin Peng has the last laugh

Mariam Mokhtar

Malaysiakini

Sep 23, 2013

The Malaysian government intended to deliver a humiliating blow and final insult to Chin Peng, the late former secretary-general of the Communist Party of Malaya (CPM), by denying his dying wish.

Despite the sabre rattling by premier Najib Abdul Razak and extremist groups like Perkasa, it is Chin Peng who has won the psychological battle and more importantly, is having the last laugh from beyond the grave, leaving Najib with egg on his face.

Najib may wish to diminish Chin Peng’s role in our history, perhaps even airbrush him out of the struggle for Independence, but the irony is that his death on Sept 16, will mean that the Malaysia Day celebrations, will now also commemorate Chin Peng’s memory.

Chin Peng has been praised for being a wily operator and the brains behind the guerrilla warfare of the Emergency (1948-1960).

Even he could not have planned it better. His death on Malaysia Day was the ultimate accolade for a man who was denied his right to return to the country of his birth and denied a fair hearing in the Court of Appeal. What poetic justice!

The Malaysian government reneged on the terms of the three-way Peace Treaty which it signed with Thailand and the CPM leaders, in Hadyai in 1989. The PM at the time was Dr Mahathir Mohamad.

In life, the government rejected Chin Peng’s application to live in Malaysia. In death, they refused to allow his remains be interred in his family burial plot near Lumut. This prolonged revenge-fuelled retribution by Umno Baru will unwittingly give Chin Peng, the oxygen of publicity. If the young and uninformed did not know of Chin Peng, they do now.

When Najib ordered that government forces be placed on red alert at border checkpoints, people scoffed at his idea.

If two jet engines can be smuggled out of Malaysia, then it would be child’s play to smuggle an urn into the country. This is a pointless exercise especially as resources and manpower should be deployed to better use, to deter crime.

Fighting and living in the shadows were Chin Peng’s speciality. It would have been easy for him to sneak across the border, assume an alias, and live anywhere in the country, like the former Bosnian Serb leader, Radovan Karad ic’ the architect of the Srebrenica massacre who escaped arrest for 12 years, practising as a doctor in Belgrade. Chin Peng may have been the leader of a disbanded guerrilla army, but he was a man of honour.

The unprecedented furore and lack of compassion, to allow an old man his dying wish, is prompted by the upcoming Umno-Baru elections. Najib will milk Chin Peng’s death for political mileage to show his ultra-Malay credentials.

Many people are probably unaware that the struggle for Malaya’s Independence was fought on several fronts.

During World War II, Chin Peng and the British army (Force 136) joined forces in 1941, to fight the Japanese invaders. Chin Peng’s outfit was called the Malayan People’s Anti-Japanese Army (MPAJA) and after the war, he was decorated for his heroism with the Order of the British Empire (OBE).

When the Japanese invaded Malaya in 1941, the Malays and Indians were given better treatment than the Chinese. Sino-Japanese relations had deteriorated after the Nanking Massacre (The Rape of Nanking) in 1937.

When the tide turned against the Japanese in 1943, the Japanese started to encourage Malay nationalism by arranging conferences, demonstrations, language courses and education. They even whipped up anti-Chinese sentiment by using paramilitary groups of, mainly, Malay men, to fight Chinese resistance groups.

Without the CPM …

In the chaos immediately after the war, the MPAJA being the most organised and well-armed group within Malaya was given tacit approval by the British to restore law and order, at least until the British administrators returned in force.

The MPAJA used this opportunity to exact retribution on their old enemies and Japanese collaborators. As the Malays had been given preferential treatment by the Japanese during WWII, the MPAJA punished them severely.

The clashes were interpreted as racial conflict. The Malays retaliated by forming groups to fight what they saw as the “Chinese MPAJA/CPM”.

Internecine clashes between these two groups, continue to this day and to increase the distrust between the Malays and Chinese, Umno Baru will conveniently use the bogey, ”Chinese communists” or “May 13”, whenever it suits them.

After WWII, Chin Peng continued his armed struggle for Independence, but this time, he fought against the British because he wanted Malaya to be free from colonial rule. He renamed his outfit, the Malayan Races Liberation Army (MRLA).

His ideology was to have an equal society with the wealth redistributed among the people equally, through the labour movement, under communism.

The civilian side of the MRLA was the Min Yuen (Masses Movement) which provided the guerrillas with food, information, and new recruits. Civilians who did not cooperate were tortured by the MRLA, whilst those caught cooperating, were imprisoned by the British.

The guerrillas would disrupt labour relations on the rubber estates and their sympathisers would demand military protection. The idea was to sabotage the economy but also to keep the British troops out of the jungle. The communists later changed this strategy when civilians began to blame the communists for their hardships.

Najib said that returning Chin Peng’s ashes would upset the Malays because the CPM had committed atrocities against them. Malaya was on a war footing. Atrocities were committed on both sides.

The Japanese killed several hundred thousand Malayans during the Japanese Occupation; the Batang Kali massacre was blamed on rogue elements in the British army; and yet, the worse treatment has been reserved for Chin Peng, whose forces were responsible for 10,000 deaths.

No one is condoning Chin Peng’s guerrilla warfare but Malaysians must realise that without the CPM, the Japanese in Malaya would not have been defeated.

Without the Min Yuen, we would not have the current identity card system and Chinese squatters living on the jungle verges would not have been resettled into new villages, much to the irritation of Malay villagers who complained that these settlements had electricity and running water.

Without the CPM, we would not have had the Internal Security Act or a return to the authoritarian regime of Gerald Templer, the high commissioner who introduced local elections and village councils as his objective was the formation of a united Malayan nation. The Chinese were urbanised, by the British, to reduce the influence of the CPM.

Umno Baru and the Malays are in their exalted position because of Chin Peng. Without the armed conflict of the CPM, the British would not have agreed to give Independence to Malaya, nor the privileges that the Malays now enjoy.

Tunku Abdul Rahman acknowledged that Chin Peng’s challenge to him, at the Baling talks in 1955,  immediately led to Merdeka.

Perhaps, it is fitting that divine intervention has made it possible for Umno Baru to honour Chin Peng, every year, on Sept 16.

The British used the divide-and-rule strategy to conquer the locals, the Japanese in WWII deployed the same tactic. Today, Umno-Baru continues this method of control.

Chin Peng may be gone but his legacy continues. Malaysians are still striving to establish a just and equal society.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 24 September 2013, 8:06 am and is filed under
Mariam Mokhtar
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Happy One Tree Day!

Ong

Sep 24, 2013

I do not understand the obsession with race and race-based policies in Malaysia. It has already been scientifically proven that everyone alive today on earth share the same ancestors who left Africa around 60,000-80,000 years ago. For the scientific proof, see
National Geographic’s The Genographic Project

The scientific fact is, all humans alive today share a common African ancestor. Yes, this means we Malaysians are all genetically-related cousins. Humans may have developed a diverse range of cultures, civilizations, and languages over the centuries but it doesn’t change the fact that there is only 1HUMANRACE.

Think about it: When we humans get cut, we all bleed red. Doctors will tell you that when you compare the internal organs of two people from two so-called ‘different races’, you really can’t tell which internal organ came from which ‘race’–they function and look the same. Cosmetic differences like skin colour are nothing more than natural adaptations to climate and other environmental factors–just google ‘melanin’ to learn more about skin colour.

The truth is, ‘race’ is nothing more than a false mental construct that the political class use to coerce, terrorize, and oppress the masses, so that they can remain in control. But you already knew that.

This brings me to my next point: May 13, 1969.

May 13, 1969, continues to be a day that is demonised in Malaysia and continues to scar Malaysians psychologically. Some historians say that the racial riots that took place that day were caused by Chinese people and communists, while others citing British intelligence documents say that May 13, 1969, was just a smokescreen for a leadership coup amongst the UMNO politicians. One day soon, I hope that we can find out what really transpired so that proper healing can begin amongst Malaysians.

I believe we should respect our past and learn from it. At the same time, we shouldn’t allow the sins of our fathers to continue holding our children in chains. In regards to May 13, 1969, it’s not the kids’ fault, is it? So why burden them with the guilt and fear of something that happened 44 years ago? What’s the purpose of releasing a movie like ‘Tanda Putera’ two days before Merdeka Day? It was totally unpatriotic and inappropriate.

The time has come for Malaysians to once and for all move on from May 13, 1969.

For this coming May 13, I would like to propose that Malaysian civil leaders proclaim it as ONE TREE DAY (1-3 DAY), to celebrate the fact that all Malaysians are beautiful leaves growing on different branches of the same tree –a tree grown from an ancient African seed.

ONE TREE DAY is envisioned as a huge celebration of all things Malaysian and made by Malaysians–food, music, concerts, plays, movies, cultural and social dances, awards ceremony for outstanding Malaysians and notable Malaysian achievements, etc. ONE TREE DAY will allow us to celebrate and showcase our diverse yet shared Malaysian heritage. It’s a day when all Malaysians can come together to experience and enjoy each other’s cultural heritage.

ONE TREE DAY could also have tree planting events, to symbolise that we Malaysians realise and celebrate our shared ancestral roots, and are firmly committed to planting a better future for ourselves and our children in Malaysia.

There could also be a specially designated Family Tree, with its various branches representing the various human cultures that blossomed from that original ancestral African seed. Imagine Malaysians and visitors from all over the world attaching their written hopes and well-wishes for Malaysia on the Family Tree.

In terms of tourism, ONE TREE DAY could potentially become as big as Oktoberfest in Germany or Burning Man in the USA. It will be good for our economy. In terms of global reputation, ONE TREE DAY will make the world see us Malaysians as we really are: A truly innovative, tolerant, and fun-loving bunch who know how to throw a great party!

So, instead of celebrating racist parties in Malaysia, let’s all celebrate one big Malaysian party this coming May 13 aka ONE TREE DAY. Because, you know, the party’s so much better together-gether. We can start small and gradually build it up into an international event that people from all over the world will want to come for.

Let’s show the world what we Malaysians are really made of. Let’s show the world that Malaysians can take a negative day in our history and turn it into a positive yearly event that brings Malaysians closer together while boosting the nation’s economy.

In advance, I want to wish all Malaysians HAPPY ONE TREE DAY! Together we can start a new chapter and rewrite a happy ending for Malaysia.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 24 September 2013, 10:06 pm and is filed under
nation building
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Registrar of Societies disregarding the law, says DAP

by Diyana Ibrahim

The Malaysian Insider

September 24, 2013

DAP has criticised the Registrar of Societies (RoS) for accusing the party of not conducting its central executive committee re-election according to party constitution.

DAP’s legal head Gobind Singh Deo said RoS director-general Datuk Abdul Rahman Othman Abdul Rahman had repeatedly accused the party of wrongdoings before hearing explanations given by party leaders.

“Abdul Rahman should know. If there are complaints, he needs to inform us and ask for an explanation before making a decision,” DAP’s legal head Gobind Singh Deo said in a statement today.

“This raises questions because I would like to know if he follows this procedure. If not, why? And what is his power to make decisions in such a manner?” he added.

According to Gobind, the latest accusation showed RoS’s disrespect of the law.

“I would advise Abdul Rahman to be careful. As the head of a department, he must understand and respect the legal process. Whether or not the CEC re-election can be done through a Special Congress, this we will address in court tomorrow,” he said.

Abdul Rahman said yesterday that the RoS was trying to ensure justice for all DAP members by urging it to hold the re-election.

“As regulators, we are working on the principle of the Societies Act and not to victimise any organisations,” he was quoted as saying by national news agency Bernama.

The High Court will hear an injunction tomorrow by former Ladang Paroi DAP branch vice-chairman A. David Dass, to stop the party from holding the CEC re-election during a special congress scheduled for September 29, 2013.

The RoS had, on July 30, ordered DAP to hold a re-election for its CEC, saying it was not satisfied with the party’s explanation that there was a “technical glitch” in the previous election held last December. This followed allegations that there were manipulated votes involving 547 delegates.

DAP had initially defied RoS’s order but later agreed to hold a fresh CEC election.

On August 19 the party’s national organising secretary Anthony Loke claimed that more than 500 delegates had presented letters to the DAP headquarters to explain that they had received the notice for election but were unable to attend.– 24 September, 2013.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 24 September 2013, 2:56 pm and is filed under
DAP
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Adakah Kerajaan menyokong pemberian kuasa penuh pendakwaan kepada SPRM, serta kuasa menuntut pengistiharan harta dari mereka yang sedang disiasat ?

Pertayaan Dewan Rakyat:-

SOALAN
 :

Tuan Lim Kit Siang [Gelang Patah] minta PERDANA MENTERI

menyatakan sama ada Kerajaan akan menyokong pemberian kuasa penuh pendakwaan kepada SPRM dalam kes rasuah serta memberikan kuasa kepada SPRM menuntut kakitangan awam termasuklah Menteri, Ketua Menteri dan Menteri-Menteri Besar mengisytiharkan harta mereka sementara menunggu siasatan.

JAWAPAN
 : YB HAJAH NANCY SHUKRI

MENTERI DI JABATAN PERDANA MENTERI

Tuan Yang di-Pertua,

1. Kerajaan tidak bercadang untuk memberikan kuasa penuh pendakwaan kepada Suruhanjaya Pencegahan Rasuah Malaysia (SPRM) untuk memulakan pendakwaan bagi kes rasuah tanpa perlu merujuk Peguam Negara kerana dalam penyiasatan dan pendakwaan sesuatu kes, perlu ada ‘check and balance’.

2. Sekiranya SPRM yang merupakan suatu agensi penyiasatan diberikan kuasa untuk membuat keputusan untuk mendakwa kes yang disiasatnya, maka tidak wujud suatu unsur pemikiran yang bebas (independence of mind) dalam mempertimbangkan fakta dan keterangan sesuatu kes secara objektif.

3. Pemberian kuasa pendakwaan kepada SPRM turut tidak disokong oleh Suruhanjaya Diraja Untuk Menyiasat Kematian Teoh Beng Hock yang berpandangan bahawa cadangan ini tidak sama sekali menambah baik sistem sedia ada. Suruhanjaya Diraja ini juga berpandangan bahawa Timbalan Pendakwa Raya yang berurusan dengan SPRM hendaklah ditempatkan secara fizikal jauh daripada SPRM agar mereka lebih bebas dan tidak dipengaruhi oleh pegawai SPRM di tempat kerja. Suruhanjaya Diraja ini turut mencadangkan agar subseksyen 5(6) Akta Suruhanjaya Pencegahan Rasuah Malaysia 2009 yang memberikan kuasa Timbalan Pendakwa Raya kepada Ketua Pesuruhjaya SPRM dipotong.

4. Sehubungan dengan itu, bagi mengekalkan prinsip ‘check and balance’ dalam pelaksanaan sistem keadilan jenayah di negara ini, Kerajaan tidak bercadang untuk meminda Perkara 145 Perlembagaan Persekutuan dengan tujuan untuk memindahkan budi bicara mendakwa kes-kes rasuah daripada Peguam Negara kepada SPRM.

5. Di mana-mana negara pun, kuasa untuk membuat pertuduhan dan memulakan pendakwaan adalah terletak hak kepada Peguam Negara atau pun Pendakwa Raya yang bebas dan tidak dipengaruhi oleh agensi penyiasatan.

6. Selanjutnya, asas pertimbangan dalam membuat sesuatu keputusan untuk memulakan pendakwaan adalah sama ada terdapat keterangan mencukupi untuk mendapatkan sabitan bagi setiap pertuduhan yang dibuat terhadap orang kena tuduh. Keterangan yang ada hendaklah keterangan yang relevan, boleh diterima dan credible bagi menentukan sabitan diperoleh dan juga bagi memastikan keadilan kepada semua pihak. Asas pertimbangan ini diguna pakai bagi setiap kes jenayah termasuk kes rasuah tanpa mengira siapa atau apakah kedudukan pelaku jenayah tersebut.

7. Sebagai tambahan, terdapat Panel Penilaian Operasi (PPO) yang diwujudkan secara pentadbiran dalam SPRM. Ahlinya dilantik oleh Perdana Menteri dari kalangan individu yang mempunyai kepakaran dan mewakili badan profesional yang bersesuaian serta individu yang berupaya memperlihatkan ketelusan dan kebebasan dalam menyemak (review) tindakan yang diambil oleh SPRM. PPO adalah mekanisme ‘check and balance’ bagi kes penyiasatan yang dijalankan dan akan menyemak (review) justifikasi sesuatu kes diperakukan untuk didakwa atau ditutup. PPO juga boleh mencadangkan kes dikaji semula sekiranya tidak berpuas hati dengan penjelasan yang dikemukakan oleh SPRM.

8. Dalam hal kuasa SPRM untuk mengarahkan orang yang disiasat untuk mengisytiharkan harta, kuasa ini telah pun diperuntukkan dalam seksyen 36 Akta Suruhanjaya Pencegahan Rasuah Malaysia 2009. Menurut seksyen ini, pegawai SPRM yang berpangkat Pesuruhjaya dan yang lebih tinggi boleh, dengan notis bertulis menghendaki seseorang yang disiasat memberikan penyataan bertulis secara bersumpah, antaranya tentang tiap-tiap harta, sama ada alih atau tak alih, sama ada di dalam atau di luar Malaysia, yang dipunyai olehnya atau yang mengenainya dia mempunyai apa-apa kepentingan, sama ada di sisi undang-undang atau ekuiti. Notis yang sama turut boleh dikeluarkan ke atas saudara atau sekutu orang yang disiasat oleh SPRM untuk mengisytiharkan hartanya. Kegagalan seseorang untuk mematuhi notis ini merupakan satu kesalahan dan sekiranya disabitkan boleh dipenjarakan selama tempoh tidak melebihi lima tahun dan boleh didenda tidak melebihi satu ratus ribu ringgit.

Sekian, terima kasih.

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 25 September 2013, 7:35 pm and is filed under
Corruption
,
Parliament
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


RM20 million for education blueprint is reasonable, says Muhyiddin

by Diyana Ibrahim

The Malaysian Insider

September 25, 2013

Education Minister Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin (pic) stood by Putrajaya’s decision to pay RM20 million to consulting firm McKinsey and Co for the National Education Blueprint.

He said the sum was reasonable as it was a two-year-project involving large scale processes and input from international experts.

“I believe it was a reasonable sum as we needed assistance from experts. It was not something we could have done on our own,” said Muhyiddin who is also the Deputy Prime Minister.

Yesterday, DAP lawmakers demanded the Education Ministry to explain why it spent RM20 million in hiring a private consultant to prepare the National Education Blueprint when it could have been done by “capable personnel” within the government.

Describing the sum paid as a complete waste of taxpayers’ money, Serdang Member of Parliament Ong Kian Ming and Bukit Bendera MP Zairil Khir Johari said the management consultant should not have been hired as the company was a general management consultant and did not specialise in education. – September 25,

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 25 September 2013, 12:32 pm and is filed under
Education
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


UMNO’s Blunder with Chin Peng’s Place in Malaysian History

Koon Yew Yin

25th Sept 2013

Almost two years after my meeting with Chin Peng in Bangkok on 2 October, I learnt – as did other Malaysians – of his death on 16th September 2013.  His passing on is not unexpected as he had been ill for some years. What is unexpected is the Government’s refusal to allow his ashes to be returned to Malaysia, his home country for which he fought for liberty and freedom, initially against the Japanese and then against the British.

Chin Peng was a freedom fighter in every sense of the word. His record of defiance and opposition to Japanese and British colonial rule in Malaya is unprecedented.  It is comparable or even exceeds that of anti-colonial leaders such as Ho Chi Minh, Mohammad Hatta, and Jawaharwal Nehru who were his contemporaries in Asia’s struggle to free itself from the yoke of western powers and Japan in the mid twentieth century. Other leaders that come to mind during that crucial period of nationalist ferment after the Second World War are Nkrumah, Nasser and Lumumba.

In all those countries whether in Asia, Africa or Latin America where the anti-colonial and nationalist freedom fighters fought, they have been accorded due recognition and honour.

But not in Malaysia where UMNO-putraism has sought to stamp its racial and religious politics on every aspect of life in the country –dead and living; past, present and the future.

Why Chin Peng’s Ashes Are Not Allowed Back

It is sickening to read the lame excuses that UMNO leaders, in particular Home Affairs Minister, Ahmad Zahid Hamidi, have given to prevent the homecoming of Chin Peng’s ashes. These excuses range from the allegation that Chin Peng never applied for citizenship to concern that a memorial may be erected for him and fear that he would be treated as a “hero”.

Well, I have news for UMNO. Chin Peng is a patriot and hero in the eyes of many who are knowledgeable of that historical past of Japanese and British colonial rule in Malaya and the contributions of the Malayan Communist Party (MCP) in fighting to free our country.

Chin Peng had three failings.  One is that he and the MCP though engaged in an armed struggle against the British should have ceased it as soon as the country gained its independence.  This fact of MCP responsibility for killings and blood shed, including of innocent civilians, is undeniable and needs to be fully recorded.

He had two other failings – if we can call it that – which has prevented him from getting due recognition in his homeland.  The first is that he fought for the wrong ideology.  Now if he had collaborated with the Japanese and negotiated peacefully with the British and sucked up to them the way many other leaders did, perhaps he may not have been so vilified.

Our history books on the Japanese occupation of Malaya need to record the names of UMNO and other leaders who actively supported and collaborated with the Japanese in their murderous and blood stained rule. Let Malaysians then draw their own conclusions as to who are the true nationalists and patriots; who are the opportunists and collaborators; and which were the families and loved ones that died during Japanese and British colonial rule and who do not want the return of Chin Peng’s ashes.

His other failing appears to be that he is a Chinese. Others have pointed out that if Chin Peng was a Malay, his place in Malaysian history and his ashes would be treated differently.  I am sure there is more than a grain of truth in this.

Chin Peng’s Wish for Malaysia

My reason in writing this is not simply to remind of some uncomfortable truths and facts of our history but to point the Government towards a correct and fair closure of this particular episode of our history.

During my meeting with Chin Peng, I asked if he was keen to return to Malaysia and what is his advice for the Malaysian Chinese. His immediate reply was that he yearned to return to his homeland and to die in his birth place. He also emphasised that Malaysia is a rich country and that the Chinese must work together and cooperate with the Malays to make Malaysia a better country.

He had hoped that under the 1 Malaysia policy the Government would allow him to return to the country to show that there is no bitterness towards the Malayan Communist Party since both sides were fighting against a common colonial power enemy. It would also show that the Government is serious about the truthful portrayal of the history of Malaya which is one in which all races have contributed.

This would also help in getting rid of the misunderstandings and distortions that have plagued our views of the past and lay the groundwork for racial unity and solidarity.

Treating the case of Chin Peng with compassion and statesmanship, and permitting him to return to Malaysia – his home country – besides putting the historical record straight- would have been an important building block for our race relations.

The way UMNO is going about it is totally wrong.

Governing the country is like managing a very large business corporation. The definition of good management is to get all your stake holders – this includes staff – to do their share of work. Staff can only do it if they are motivated. The Government should have taken advantage of this situation to win the Chinese over to work harder for the country. Sadly, this has now become more difficult to achieve because of UMNO’s blinkered and narrow-minded ideology.

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 25 September 2013, 12:25 pm and is filed under
nation building
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.