Teo says surau row nadir in her life

By Debra Chong

September 04, 2010

The Malaysian Insider

PETALING JAYA, Sept 4 — Serdang MP Teo Nie Ching has revealed that she broke down over her surau visit controversy because she thought she had done something to make the Malays hate DAP and caused terrible hardship to the surau committee members.

The young first-term MP told The Malaysian Insider yesterday that the row had been the lowest point in her life.

But yesterday, she looked the epitome of confidence in her bold red dress and big toothy smile as she strode into the DAP national headquarters.

It was in stark contrast to the abject figure she cut a week ago after national Malay daily, Utusan Malaysia , front-paged a picture of her — a non-Muslim — addressing a Muslim group from inside the inner sanctum of a surau, dressed in a kebaya reminiscent of the Singapore Girl uniform and with her head uncovered.

The stunt earned her the Sultan of Selangor’s wrath, the paper reported.

“I cried,” the 29-year-old lawmaker admitted plainly to The Malaysian Insider in an exclusive interview, after reading the report.

The lawyer who was catapulted into the political ring after winning a seat in the federal lawmaking body two years ago was accused of disrespecting Islam by invading the sanctity of the dewan solat or prayer hall at the Surau Al-Huda in Kajang Sentral, Selangor and without covering her aurat, a major social and religious faux pas in predominantly Muslim Malaysia.

Her emotional distress was from a combination of fear and guilt without knowing for certain if she had committed an offence, mixed in with a bewildering sense that she had somehow betrayed her party seniors, built up over two days that led to her nearly-public breakdown.

“Actually, I cried in my car. I don’t know if my assistant saw me or not,” Teo related.

She was attending a Phor Tor (Hungry Ghost) event in her constituency and had been frazzled by a flood of phone calls from sympathisers and party leaders from within the Pakatan Rakyat (PR) bloc.

“I got a lot of calls, from (Lim) Kit (Siang), (Lim) Guan Eng, Ms Foo, the DAP Chief of Staff, Tok Guru (Datuk Nik Aziz Nik Mat)… they didn’t try to scold me but tried to pacify me and give advice.

“But the more they tried to pacify me, the more I felt like crying,” Teo said, recalling the moment.

“I was so afraid and worried,” she added.

Why?

“It’s hard to explain. I thought I made a mistake that could jeopardise the DAP. I thought I did something wrong to make the Malay community hate the DAP. I thought it was my fault,” said Teo, a Christian.

She elaborated that there has always been a strong perception the DAP was a “Chinese, chauvinist, communist” party, and she felt responsible that she might have inadvertently reversed the years of effort by party veterans to erase the misperception.

Teo said she also felt bad that the surau committee has been suspended and its management taken over by the Selangor state Islamic Council (MAIS).

“The incident caused a lot of hardship to the AJK (committee members). They’re suspended. Even though they had invited me sincerely, what I did to them was a disaster,” the DAP national assistant publicity chief said.

But while Teo described the incident as her rock bottom, she has now recovered, and credits support from PR leaders and the general public who sympathised with her naivety for her ability to bounce back.

She was immensely grateful to PAS Spiritual Advisor, Nik Aziz, for giving her the strength to go on with his reassurance that she had not done anything offensive to Muslims, contrary to comments published in Utusan Malaysia.

“After seeing the comments, especially from Tok Guru Nik Aziz… I feel I’ve not done anything wrong. I went there with a pure intent,” Teo said, adding that reading sympathetic comments on the Internet helped cheer her up and prompted her to purchase a BlackBerry soon after — to enable her to keep in touch with Netizens.

Does she think she is getting more public support after the surau incident?

“To a certain extent,” Teo said, after a moment’s pause.

“Whether for good or bad, people now know who I am,” she added, and explained that even though she had been making the rounds on the ground regularly as an MP, few recognised her face, let alone her name.

“Now, when I go out, people know me. ‘Ini YB Surau’,” she burst out in giggles, relating how people who recognise her now hail her.

And her feelings about the nickname?

 “To me, it’s okay. It’s a joke,” Teo said, glad for the free publicity, even if few still remember her real name.

—————————————————————————————————-

MP Serdang kini popular ‘YB Surau’, sangkal sumbangan ‘hina Islam’

Oleh G Manimaran dan Syed Mu’az Syed Putra

The Malaysian Insider

KAJANG, 4 Sept — Sementara kira-kira 30 kariah menunggu dengan sabar sambil berbual mengenai perkembangan semasa, sekitar pukul 11 malam tadi, Ahli Parlimen Serdang Teo Nie Ching singgah di Surau  At-Tholabiah, Sungai Ramal Luar berhampiran Kajang.

Wakil rakyat itu sepatutnya berada di surau itu pukul 10 malam untuk bertemu dengan mereka selepas berakhirnya majlis tarawih. Bagaimanapun beliau lewat sejam kerana terpaksa singgah di Madrasah Cheras Perdana untuk memenuhi permintaan saat-saat akhir.

“Maaf, saya tiba lewat. Ada program saat-saat akhir. Mereka memanggil saya datang,” kata beliau dengan tenang ketika melangkah ke Surau At-Tholabiah, yang terletak di tepi Lebuh Raya Sik.

Madrasah Cheras Perdana antara yang mengundang beliau bertemu dengan umat Islam meskipun tercetusnya isu kunjungan ke Surau Al-Huda.

Permintaan Madrasah Cheras Perdana dan kesungguhan pengurusan Surau At-Tholabiah menandakan Teo yang sudah mula dikenali sebagai “YB Surau” menandakan terus menerusi semangat dan sokongan di sebalik debat mengenai isu ini berterusa.

Dengan berpakaian baju kurung berwarna kuning dengan selendang, yang dihadiahkan oleh salah seorang peminatnya baru-baru ini, Teo berkata: “Apa yang berlaku sekarang ini adalah satu ujian.”

Beliau telah menerima enam selendang setakat ini, termasuk selendang dari Mesir yang dihadiahkan oleh “Datuk Zin”. “Kalau ada jemputan saya akan datang, menjadi tugas saya untuk datang…. saya melakukan ini bukan sahaja ketika Ramadan, tetapi sepanjang tahun… saya pergi bertemu dengan semua orang tidak kira agama dan kaum,” katanya.

Kehadiran di Surau At-Tholabiah adalah persinggahan beliau yang terakhir pada bulan Ramadan. Awal pagi ini beliau bertolak di Sarawak sebagai sebahagian daripada persediaan DAP menghadapi pilihan raya umum negeri itu.

Ahli Parlimen penggal pertama berusia 29 tahun itu tiba-tiba menjadi ‘popular’ ekoran kontroversi yang dibangkitkan oleh Umno dan Perkasa dua minggu lalu.

Dalam ucapannya Penasihat Surau At-Tholabiah Mohd Yusof A. Kadir berkata, “walaupun berhadapan dengan isu kontroversi, kami berharap beliau  (Teo) akan terus bersemangat untuk berkhidmat sebagai wakil rakyat.”

“Kami berharap semangat YB tidak jatuh, tetapi pada masa yang sama kita akan ikut arahan orang atasan,” kata beliau mengalu-alukan kedatang Teo yang menyampaikan sumbangan pada majlis ringkas yang diadakan di ruang luar.

“Ini duit rakyat,” kata Teo ketika menyerahkan sumbangan kepada Pengerusi surau Abdul Rahman Mohd Tahir seolah-olah mahu menangkis kritikan sesetengah pihak yang mempertikaikan wakil rakyat bukan Islam menyampaikan sumbangan dan derma di kawasan masjid dan surau.

Ketika ditemui The Malaysian Insider dalam satu pertemuan kira-kira 10 jam sebelum itu, Teo berkata, kunjungan beliau ke masjid atau surau sama sekali tidak harus dilihat sebagai tindakan menghina agama Islam.

“Mengapa saya perlu memberi sumbangan untuk menghina agama lain, tidak… tidak,” kata beliau ketika ditemu bual di ibu pejabat DAP di Petaling Jaya tengah hari semalam.

“Kalau saya nak menghina, adakah saya hendak memberi sumbangan, saya rasa kenyataan itu (dakwaan menghina) itu tidak masuk akal, tidak betul,” kata wakil rakyat kelulusan undang-undang ini.

Teo mengulangi bahawa Umno dan Perkasa sengaja memperbesarkan isu ini dan menolak bahawa beliau menggunakan kunjungan ke masjid atau surau untuk kepentingan politik.

“Saya juga terkejut. Saya tidak panggil wartawan ke program saya. Ini lawatan biasa,” kata beliau sambil menambah, “saya pergi ke sana dengan niat yang suci dan ikhlas iaitu untuk memberikan sumbangan.”

“Umno memang ada cakap saya telah memperalatkan surau untuk meraih publisiti untuk diri sendiri.

“Tetapi saya tidak berniat untuk buat demikian lagipun  pada hari itu juga saya tidak jemput wartawan untuk datang…. kalau saya pergi saya dan bawa wartawan mungkin boleh tuduh saya gunakan surau untuk jadikan saya lebih popular,” katanya.

Selepas isu ini diperbesarkan, Teo mengakui sudah melawat beberapa surau lagi.

“Ini adalah tugas saya jadi saya perlu jalankan tanggungjawab seperti biasa,” katanya lagi.

Sebenarnya kata Teo, kebanyakan program telah disusun sejak sebelum Ramadan lagi dan ada juga jemputan yang baru selepas isu ini tercetus.

“Macam malam ini baru terima jemputan dua hari lalu, mereka tidak takut kerana faham.

“Selain masjid dan surau saya juga ada pergi ke bazar untuk beri buah kurma.

“Respons syang saya terima sampai hari ini agak menggalakkan… ada orang cakap ia bukan satu isu, ada juga yang cakap mereka itu (pengkritik) cemburu,” kata Teo sambil menambah, beliau akan melakukan apa yang sepatutnya perlu dijalankan selaku seorang wakil rakyat.

Menjawab soalan bagaimana beliau menghadapi isu semasa ini, Teo juga berkongsi bahawa pada hari pertama dan kedua beliau memang tertekan dan ada menangis.

Teo berkata, beliau menitiskan air mata semasa dalam perjalanan ke rumah dan ketika berada di rumah sehari selepas Majlis Agama Islam Selangor mengeluarkan kenyataan bahawa Sultan Selangor murka dan akan mengeluarkan surat amaran.

Malah kenyataan itu menjadi tajuk muka depan media pada Sabtu lalu.

“Hari Sabtu, saya rasa begitu susah,” katanya.

“Memang saya rasa tertekan kerana saya ingat ia salah saya,” kata beliau tetapi mengaku tidak menjejaskan kerjaya politiknya.

Bagaimanapun kata Teo, beliau seolah-olah merasakan telah membuat satu kesilapan yang boleh menjejaskan reputasi parti dan juga ahli jawatankuasa Surau Al-Huda.

“Memang rasa begitu, tidak senang dan sedih kerana ahli jawatankuasa telah digantung kerana tindakan saya.

“Pada saya, jika pada malam itu mereka tidak menjemput saya masuk ke ruang solat, ia tidak akan jadi satu isu yang begitu besar.

“Walaupun mereka jemput saya dengan niat baik dan ikhlas, layan saya dengan baik dan akhirnya apa yang saya bawa kepada mereka adalah masalah.

“(Oleh itu) saya menangis sendiri bukan depan orang,” katanya.

Teo juga berkongsi bahawa beliau menerima banyak panggilan daripada pemimpin parti dan mereka sebenarnya tidak marah.

“Semua orang hanya simpati dan faham bahawa pada hari pertama dan kedua saya berada dalam satu kedudukan yang sangat sukar.

“Mereka hubungi dan memberi nasihat kepada saya… apabila (Lim) Kit Siang dan Lim Guang Eng hubungi saya, bila mereka hubungi mereka cakap jangan risau, saya rasa ini satu sokongan moral daripada mereka,” katanya lagi.

Teo, antara calon pilihan raya umum 2008 yang menggunakan pendekatan kreatif untuk mendekati pengundi memberitahu beliau tidak sama sekali terfikir untuk meletakkan jawatan kerana isu ini, tetapi rasa takut dan risau kerana “saya tidak mahu membawa masalah kepada parti.”

“Saya rasa begitu ketika itu kerana pada saat itu kita belum terima begitu banyak nasihat, sokongan dan panduan daripada PKR dan PAS lagi.

“Tok guru (Menteri Besar Kelantan Datuk Nik Abdul Aziz Nik Mat) juga ketika itu masih belum keluarkan apa-apa kenyataan pada masa itu,” katanya lagi.

Teo, penolong setiausaha publisiti kebangsaan DAP berkata, beliau sememangnya bimbang sama ada telah buat satu kesilapan yang akan mengakibatkan orang Melayu menganggap DAP sebuah parti anti-Melayu dan anti-Islam.

“Ini kerana saya rasa telah mencuba dengan begitu bersungguh untuk meyakinkan masyarakat Melayu bahawa DAP bukan sebuah parti ‘Chinese, Chauvinist dan Communist (CCC)’ sebagaimana didakwa oleh musuh kami,” kata beliau dengan merujuk kepada usaha DAP yang cuba meyakinkan orang ramai bahawa ia adalah sebuah parti yang berkhidmat untuk semua kaum.

“DAP adalah sebuah parti untuk semua rakyat Malaysia… memang saya takut bahawa usaha-usaha yang kita lakukan selama ini akan terjejas oleh sebab saya telah lakukan kesilapan atau boleh kata kecuaian yang bodoh,” ujar beliau.

Selain menangis, insiden ini juga membawa kepada Teo membeli telefon BlackBerry untuk mengikuti perkembangan semasa dengan lebih dekat.

“Sebelum ini saya tidak guna BlackBerry, lepas insiden tersebut saya beli pada 31 Ogos. Saya perlukan BlackBerry sekarang, pada hari ini saya perlukan BlackBerry untuk dapatkan banyak informasi,” katanya.

Beliau masih melihat ke depan untuk berhadapan dengan cabaran dan tanggungjawab lebih besar sebagai wakil rakyat.

“Selepas melihat komen dan Tok Guru mempertahankan saya dan sudah menjelaskan bahawa dari segi Islam memang tidak salah orang bukan Islam masuk masjid dan surau, dari sana saya telah mendapat kekuatan dan selepas insiden itu, ramai orang telah keluarkan kenyataan mempertahankan saya termasuk (Naib Presiden PAS) Datuk Mahfuz Omar, Dewan Muslimat pusat dan Selangor juga ada datang jumpa saya untuk beri semangat – satu jumpa di Kajang dan satu jumpa di Balakong.

“Saya rasa selepas hari Sabtu, komen daripada masyarakat agak positif.

“Ada orang yang kata saya tidak buat apa-apa kesalahan dan kata tiada masalah orang bukan Islam masuk masjid dan surau.

“Ada juga fikir bahawa tidak pakai tudung itu adalah tidak sopan kerana saya sepatutnya pakai tudung,” katanya yang mengaku telah meningkatkan pemahaman tentang Islam berbanding Mac 2008.

“Lepas kejadian itu, masyarakat sekarang lebih kenali saya. Saya mengaku walaupun telah jadi wakil rakyat lebih daripada dua tahun tapi masih ramai yang belum kenal siapa saya.

“Tetapi selepas insiden ini saya pergi ke bazar mereka sudah tahu siapa saya.

“Walaupun tidak dapat sebut nama saya tapi mereka panggil saya “YB surau”, tapi saya rasa mereka peka dengan isu ini dan telah kenal saya,” katanya lagi.

Teo juga merasakan telah menerima banyak simpati daripada masyarakat berkata, beliau sebenarnya merasakan telah menerima sokongan yang begitu banyak.

“Hari-hari, sekarang saya terima selendang dari kawan-kawan Melayu dengan mengatakan bahawa supaya mereka (pengkritik) tidak bising

“Hari ini saya dapat satu lagi emel – ada pihak yang mahu mendermakan RM5,000 kepada saya untuk membuat satu program di kawasan saya,” kata Teo.

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 4 September 2010, 12:41 pm and is filed under
DAP
,
Islam
,
nation building
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Why double standards against Namewee, questioned for over 10 hours, for his anti-racist outburst as compared to treatment for the two errant school principals?

Four questions need to be asked in  the Nameweek’s “Nah” videoclip controversy.

Firstly, is the three-minute video “Nah” uploaded on YouTube by rapper Wee Meng Chee better known as Namewee seditious? I would say no.

Secondly, is the video racist? I would also say no, unless an anti-racist response has also become “racist” in the way that former Prime Minister Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad wants Malaysians to believe that meritocracy has become a form of racism.

Thirdly, is the video crude, vulgar, abusive and even obscene? Yes. I have said twice publicly that I do not approve of the crude, vulgar, abusive and even obscene style used by Namewee but that is different from saying that it is seditious or racist and deserves the harshest criminal action to be taken against Meng Chee.

This is also why I cannot agree with the public stand of the MCA President Datuk Seri Chua Soi Lek who declared on National Day eve that MCA fully supports any action taken by the  government against Meng Chee. Does this include action under the Sedition Act or other capital offences?

How can the MCA leadership with four Ministers in Cabinet take such an irresponsible position, giving a blank cheque to racists and extremists to set the agenda as to the punishment that should be meted out to Meng Chee? Isn’t this a gross abdication of responsibility in government?

The fourth question is whether Meng Chee is the victim of double standards by the authorities?

Yesterday, Meng Chee was questioned for more than seven hours at the Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission (MCMC) for the “Nah” videoclip. Three days earlier, he was questioned for three  hours by the police – making a total of over ten hours of questioning by the authorities since National Day.

In contrast, the two schools principals in Kulai and Bukit Selayang, who had made racial and seditious slurs against non-Malay students, had been spared such an ordeal although Meng Chee’s video was made as an anti-racist protest against these two incidents.

The Public Service Department (PSD) is reported today as saying that a show cause letter  will be issued to the school principal in Kulai if she had indeed uttered derogatory remarks at her students recently.

Three weeks have passed since the incident in Kulai on 12th August. Is it so difficult to establish the facts and the truth of the incident?

Where is the Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak’s pledge of “Zero tolerance for racism” and his slogan of  “1Malaysia. People First. Performance Now” when there could be such great contrast between the treatment meted out to the two errant school principals and Meng Chee?

If action is to be taken against Meng Chee, there must be a sense of proportion and justice with regard to the action meted out to the errant school principals on the one hand and Meng Chee on the other.

UMNO Youth leader Khairy Jamaluddin’s self-serving response to my statement on Thursday does not merit much attention as I had never said that “two wrongs make a right”.

However, a person who had been guilty of making racist statements should not be trigger-happy to demand action to be taken against others on the alleged ground of racism.

Malaysianki  readers have themselves shot down Khairy’s self-serving explanations in the Malaysiakini interview, as his defence of his racist statements would be as believable as his support for the keris-wielding incidents by the Umno Youth leader, Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Hussein for three years consecutively when he was then Deputy Umno Youth leader!

Khairy’s claim “if you ask 10 Malaysians what they thought” of the Namewee line “You tak baca? Siapa buat Malaysia kaya?” that  10 Malaysians would agree with him that it was racist is debunked by one reader who commented:

Wong Jiang Fung KJ: “If you ask 10 Malaysians what they thought Namewee meant by that statement, they’d say that there is an obvious undertone which is suggestive.” “Of course it was offensive, implying that we don’t have any contribution at all,” I have 10 friends on fb who watched the video, none of them think like KJ did. This proves KJ is wrong. The statement is controversial but not seditious.

Writer Mariam Mokhtar in her article ‘
Namewee is a uniting factor
’ also clearly does not agree with Khairy, and I would urge Umno and MCA leaders to ponder what she wrote, viz:

Umno Youth chief Khairy Jamaluddin adopted a different spin on Namewee’s questions: “You tak baca? Siapa buat Malaysia kaya?” (Don’t you know? Who made Malaysia prosperous?). Khairy assumed that Namewee suggested the ‘Malays played a minor role in Malaysia’s economic growth’.

Khairy is possibly wrong and as far as can be ascertained, Namewee wasn’t alluding to anything.

Namewee posed an open-ended question. However, political personalities are already scoring brownie points by insinuating various things.

Namewee was wrong to be abusive – even I would balk short at such behaviour. But Namewee speaks for all those who suffered that day in school and for the people in Malaysia who care.

Maybe if the authorities had been swift in their response, Namewee would not have had the reason to come up with this clip.

The more potent danger

Actually, Namewee has done the job of the government much better that the government itself. It has given prominence to racism issues in a creative way and made us take a stand against racism. If not for his Youtube, clip, would we have taken as much attention? The problem is that the authorities have ‘lost it’.

When Dr Chua Soi Lek criticised Namewee and said, “Freedom of expression should come with responsibility to consider sensitivities towards other races and religions”, he forgot that it was the two school principals who ignored sensitivities and caused a furore.

And instead of the school principals being censured, it is Namewee who is allegedly being charged with sedition. Namewee’s clip was crude and coarse, but not racist.

This young disgruntled Malaysia’s response to racism has been blown into something of a racial firestorm. That is the more potent danger.

It seems that when you scratch beneath the surface, 1Malaysia is unraveling faster than a knitted jumper. One person condemns an irresponsible racist head, and the so called defenders of the race, react like beasts unleashed, and all for the wrong reasons.

Namewee has talent. He engages with the young via his rap music and lyrics. He should be nominated for a role in the Ministry for Information, Communications, Culture and Arts, to promote racial unity and other Malaysian issues.

Far from creating disharmony, Namewee has united us against racism. He at least has the courage to tackle racism in his own entertaining way.

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 4 September 2010, 4:30 pm and is filed under
nation building
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Call for return of civility, reason and rationality in public discourse and an end to any form of racial or religious slurs in public domain particularly on the social media and Internet

The rise and frequency of instances of racial and religious slurs in the public domain particularly on the social media and the Internet must be a matter of grave concern to  all Malaysians.

All right-thinking Malaysians regardless of political affiliation should join hands to call and work for a return of civility, reason and rationality in public discourse and an end to any form of racial or religious slurs particularly on the social media and Internet.

The quality of Malaysian public discourse must not be degraded and sullied by lies and falsehoods, racial bigotry and religious intolerance which can only undermine and subvert the very fabric of Malaysian society.

The Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak has called for speedier action by the Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission (MCMC) against those who post racial or religious slurs and misuse the social networking websites.

MCMC can be assured of  public support for any strict action against abuses of the Internet as putting up  content with racial and religious slurs which could spark off tension in our country.

The MCMC must, however, jealously protect its credibility and legitimacy by never losing public confidence in its independence, integrity and professionalism as a key institution to protect the national interests and not to be the tool of any sectional or partisan political interests  or even the government-of-the-day.

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 5 September 2010, 1:06 pm and is filed under
IT
,
nation building
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


No place for God?

By
Thomas Lee

Professor Stephen William Hawking, the author of the 1988 runaway world best seller A Brief History of Time, has declared the dreadful finality that there is no place for God in theories on the creation of the Universe.

Britain’s most famous theoretical physicist and cosmologist had asserted previously that a belief in a creator was not inapposite with science, but in his latest book The Grand Design, he deduces that the so-called Big Bang was an ineluctable consequence of the laws of physics.

According to wire news reports this week, Hawking says in his new book, being serialized in The Times of London, that there is no need to invoke God to set the Universe going.

“Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something,” Hawking said in the book co-written by US physicist Leonard Mlodinow, challenging Sir Isaac Newton’s conviction that the Universe must have a designer or creator as it could not simply have emerged out of nothing and chaos.

Hawking, who calls himself as an agnostic, has often used the word “God” in metaphorical meanings to illustrate points made in his books and public speeches. In A Brief History of Time, he had appeared to accept the role of God in the creation of the Universe, saying “If we discover a complete theory, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason — for then we should know the mind of God.”

Hawking’s latest theory on the origin of the Universe, if true or unilaterally accepted as truth, will have prevalent and regnant implication, impact and influence in the ultimate value and morality of human beings as it renders the whole Universe and everything in it to merely a materialistic impersonal phantasm, resulting in non-authentic veritable moral chaos.

Hawking’s theory means that there is no morality as life is a merely meaningless materialistic mass – a body of matter with no definite distinctive significance and no perspicuous precious value. So, why have ethics and laws? Everyone should just go for the pursuit of pleasure, sensual self-indulgence, and do whatever he likes, including killing each other, since human life is merely a mass of matter that comes together by chance.

Obviously, Hawking’s theory is logically flawed as it does not answer the two fundamental supreme questions of the origin of the very well-designed Universe, and of the intrinsic inborn moral conscience of the human person.

Scientific theories, such as that of Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution which derives from natural observations of the universe and life, have never proven the non-existence of God. In fact, the very fact that there is a very well-designed and orderly Universe shows that there is a Designer with great wisdom and intelligence behind it. Screw and nuts and anything else just don’t come together by chance and become a computer. An intelligent designer and creator has to plan, design and make it.

There is this true story of a hardcore evolutionist called Dr Paul Gentuso who discovered the reality and relevance of God while attending a class on anatomy at medical school.

According to Gentuso, he dissected a human hand during one class session, first by removing the skin, then isolated the individual tendons and muscles, and work his way to the bones.

“The tendons of the hand are aligned in tendon sheaths, like self-lubricating pulleys, allowing the hand to move in a tireless, noiseless, almost effortless fashion. It was perfectly designed to carry out all the works it was called to do, everything from lifting a small object to lugging a tree truck,” Gentuso said.

The experience led Gentuso, who had serious doubts about the existence of God, to take an honest look at himself and at the marvelous and magnificent design of the human body with its stupendous functions.

“In seeing how each tendon was perfectly aligned along the axis of each finger and how each figure moved in a coordinated fashion when tugged by individual tendons, it became obvious to me that there was a Creator who had intelligently designed and created the human hand. This was the first time in my adult life that I could say with assurance that a creator existed. It was really a spiritual experience for me. I went from doubt to certainty based on seeing God’s creation,” Gentuso said.

In this age of incertitude and skepticism, the scientific community and the so-called intellectuals have attempted to dismiss and deny the reality and existence of God, but the more we explore the mysteries and marvels of our Universe and experience the astonishing and miraculous birth, growth and development of the human being, we cannot escape the wonderment of the evidence of the truth that God is.

If the human being is merely the result of a Big Bang lumping matter together by chance, as Stephen Hawkings postulated in his new book The Grand Design, then we are simply clods, with no meaning, no intrinsic essential value, no moral, and no purpose.

If the Universe was originated by chance, then the German philosopher Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche (1844-1900) was correct in declaring that God is dead, and was justified to launch his “Campaign against Morality”. Nietzsche, who called himself an “immoralist”, had harshly criticizes the prominent moral values of Christianity, and called the establishment of moral systems based on a dichotomy of good and evil a “calamitous error”.

If that is what we human beings and our Universe are all about, then nothing matters anymore. Let’s eat, drink and be merry, for life has no essential meaning and value.

Otherwise, we should pause, and reflect on the reality and truth of Who created us and what he wants us to be and to do.

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 5 September 2010, 9:39 am and is filed under
Religion
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Revisiting the Bumiputera corporate equity issue

By
Lim Teck Ghee

More than five years have passed since the Asli corporate study report revealed that Bumiputera ownership of corporate equity in the Kuala Lumpur Stock Exchange had exceeded the 30 per cent target.

The study’s findings of a 45 per cent Bumiputera share were based on a different method of measurement compared with the official one. Using market value as opposed to the par value valuation official method, and allocating the equity of GLCs according to racial share, the study noted that it was time to do away with the policy which had been implemented since the 1970s.

The study’s findings raised a hue and cry not only because it challenged the official data on the share equity attained by the Malay community but more importantly because it challenged the official orthodoxy.

Strong reactions from various Umno leaders at that time indicated their fury — and perhaps fear — that the Asli study negated a long-held belief on how the Bumiputera corporate equity strategy was necessary for Bumiputera economic advancement and synonymous with the interests of the Malays.

Lost in the firestorm were the study’s recommendations that encompassed a wide spectrum of issues. Those recommendations are reproduced below. I hope they will be read more carefully by the present crop of policymakers and politicians that are trying to find their way out of what has correctly been referred to as the “bastardisation of the NEP” — an assessment made by one of the nation’s foremost bankers, Datuk Seri Nazir Razak.

Corporate equity findings (from Centre for Public Policy Studies’ Report)

GLCs are leading shareholders of corporate equity. The GLCs’ pattern of operation reflects little entrepreneurial and manufacturing capacity.

Regulatory agencies ensure that 30 per cent of the equity of quoted firms is owned by Bumiputeras. These agencies do not, however, ensure that individual Bumiputeras allocated large volumes of publicly-listed equity, especially during IPOs, retain their ownership of this equity.

Publicly-listed shares distributed to Bumiputera minority shareholders during IPOs should be done in a more equitable and transparent manner. Currently, an elite benefits from such IPOs, and these shares are quickly divested for huge profits.

The continuous divestment by Bumiputera shareholders (partly as a means of asset diversification) has been mainly responsible for the so-called “under achievement” by the Bumiputera in relation to the NEP corporate equity targets based on the official definition.

Even if this divestment is not taken into account, Bumiputera share of corporate equity presently is well in excess of the target of 30 per cent, if more objective methodologies of measurement are used.

There is little intra-ethnic business co-operation among leading Chinese businessmen. There is growing evidence of inter-ethnic partnerships forged on a basis where the partners contribute equally to the development of an enterprise.

Government regulation and policies, principally in the form of NEP measures, are stymieing entrepreneurial development and hindering domestic and foreign investment.

Corporate equity recommendations

Enterprises owned by the GLCs must be managed by competent professionals with expertise in the business of the company under their charge. Senior management positions should not be determined on the basis of ethnic background but on merit and professional achievement.

The government should cease allocating equity to individual Bumiputera during IPOs. The allocation of shares to Bumiputera before IPOs tend to promote “Ali Baba” relationships that only serve to undermine investor confidence and foster ill-will.

Bumiputera trust agencies, such as the ASN and ASB, should be the primary beneficiaries of IPOs allocated to this community. At the same time, there should be equal determination by the government to increase the share participation of the Indian and East Malaysian Bumiputera communities through similar community-based trust agencies.

Government initiatives to promote enterprise development on the basis of affirmative action will undermine entrepreneurial endeavours, which have emerged primarily among SMEs, without state support.

The government should focus its attention on promoting key economic sectors and SMEs as a means to develop Malaysia’s economic potential. The government should particularly tap into the potential of the new middle class to create thriving enterprises and find means to support such endeavours.

Racially oriented affirmative action and the promotion of Malay-owned businesses have created serious intra-ethnic Malay cleavages while also hindering the creation of a competitive economic environment. The government should not continue with the continued promotion of such policies.

In calculating the respective ethnic shares of the corporate equity, there is need to apportion the share of GLCs as well as nominee companies according to the ethnic composition of the country. This will provide a fairer and more objective computation of the respective ethnic shares as compared with the current methodology.

Government policies to enhance Malay Bumiputera and other ethnic minority participation in commerce and industry are better achieved through capacity building efforts such as investment in human resource development and skills training rather than through forced equity restructuring.

Continuing “wayang” on Malay corporate equity

It is understandable why Perkasa and similar parasitic groups are raging away at the corporate equity issue. The ultra nationalist movement badly needs issues that can burnish its credentials as the protector of Malay interests and derail the structural reforms the country needs to flourish.

What is incomprehensible is why Umno continues to harp on the attainment of the racial corporate equity share target as a key goal to be pursued for the Malays and country as a whole.

It is absolutely the wrong target to focus on because it has been conclusively shown to benefit only a small minority of well-connected and already wealthy business and political leaders — numbering perhaps no more than a few tens of thousands of individuals and their families at most.

One would have thought that the RM52 billion out of RM54 billion of equity value sold off by Bumiputera preferred investors between 1985 and 2005 would be sufficient proof that these individuals do not need more perks and special treatment.

More important, the Bumiputera corporate equity target is the wrong one as it will only distract from the more important challenges that the nation and especially the Malays and other Bumiputera communities need to face up to.

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 5 September 2010, 9:47 am and is filed under
NEP
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Seeing the back of Musa: An answer to a prayer

By
Tunku Abdul Aziz

I hardly ever receive presents because, I suppose, I rarely ever give any. I do not even bother to celebrate my own birthday; it comes and goes completely unnoticed. When on the odd occasion I do receive a present for delivering an anti-corruption and ethical governance speech, I treasure it even though it is just another Royal Selangor pewter plate, to clutter my already-cluttered sitting room, collecting dust, to the annoyance of my long-suffering wife.

The present I am now writing about is infinitely more precious, a bountiful God’s munificent blessings in answer to a nation’s desperate prayer. The prayer, in short, beseeches God the Almighty to give Hishammuddin Hussein, our often “not all there” Minister of Home Affairs, the courage and wisdom to put Musa Hassan out to pasture, not so much as a normal and inevitable consequence of the ravages of time, but, in this case, his unethical baggage had grown too large for the nation to ignore. That must surely weigh heavily against his fitness for continued employment.

In an ethically more demanding society, which ours, I fear, is not, he would never have been allowed to darken the portal of Bukit Aman, let alone occupy the office of the Inspector-General of Police, a position of trust. Musa should never have been appointed the nation’s top dog in the first place, especially after his remarkable stellar performance in the infamous earlier Anwar Ibrahim trial, appearing complete with his pathetic stock in trade or prop in the shape of a decidedly grubby mattress, for the entire world to see.

It was in the course of this trial that he showed the full extent of his brilliant professional approach to policing which led an irreverent friend of mine to describe both Musa and Augustine Paul, and may his soul rest in peace, as “the lowest form of human life.” I apologise on behalf of my friend to the amoebas of this world. Musa displayed the agility of someone who knew exactly which side of the bread was buttered and he served Mahathir Mohamad’s evil purpose well. Quick promotions followed as a reward.

There is a sense of blessed relief permeating the atmosphere; even the police, I am told, are celebrating the departure of the man who has brought them into disrepute. Musa became the first IGP, since the post was held by Claude Fenner, to be publicly denounced in a court of law in Sabah as an “unreliable witness.” But then he was merely reverting to type and following in the footsteps of a long line of corrupt predecessors who are now luxuriating in the lap of their ill-gotten riches.

From my years of observation of the PDRM, there have only been three IGPs who were clean and seen to be free of corruption, namely the late Claude Fenner, Abdul Rahman Hashim who died under tragic circumstances in the service of the nation, and the best of them all, Mohamed Hanif Omar who is enormously disappointed to see his years of work destroyed under a succession of disreputable men. Hanif remains the quintessential officer and gentleman, an iconic figure symbolising the golden age of the Royal Malaysia Police.

While the nation rejoices in seeing the back of Musa as he gets on his bicycle to ride into the sunset of ignominy, his shadowy successor’s opening expression of gratitude to his soon departing superior sent shivers down the spine. He said, “I have been well trained by Musa. I am honoured to succeed him.” The last thing we want after the Musa years is a Musa-cloned successor. If continuing in the Musa policing model is all Ismail Omar can bring to the table, then woe betide this nation that has so far waited in vain for a human rights-based police culture.

Let Musa’s deftly cultivated culture of impunity be replaced by one espousing honour, dignity, respect, responsibility, transparency and accountability for actions taken to protect life and property. The new IGP would do well to be his own man and exorcise the dubious and unethical practices that Musa believed to be his great gift to this nation. We deserve better.

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 5 September 2010, 10:46 am and is filed under
Police
,
Tunku Abdul Aziz
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Improve Our Schools, Not Tinker With Examinations

By
M. Bakri Musa

In about two weeks nearly half a million Malaysian school children will be sitting for their UPSR, the national examination taken at the end of Year Six. Today there is raging debate on abolishing this as well as the PMR (taken at Year Nine) examination. A decision is expected within weeks. There is however, minimal discussion on the timing of these examinations, administered as they are so early in the school year.

This year UPSR will be on September 20th, with PMR two weeks later. From then till the year-end holidays in late November, there will be no effective teaching or learning at these schools. With the examinations out of the way, the entire school – students and staff – will already be in holiday mode. The staff will effectively be makan gaji buta (paid but not working).

Come January when these students begin their classes, they would have already suffered through considerable attrition in their learning skills as a result of the three-month hiatus. The first few weeks if not months would be diverted to re-learning lessons of the preceding grade.

The problem only gets worse when they sit for their SPM examination (at Year 11). Although that is held in mid November, the results would not be out till late March. Visit Malaysia at the end and at the first half of the year and you will see thousands of these young boys and girls loitering. Query them and the typical answer would be, “Waiting for exam results!”

The next public option for those wishing to continue their formal schooling would be either matrikulasi or Sixth Form. Both however would not start till June.

When they were sitting for their UPSR and PMR, these students wasted away only three months; with SPM they would be fritting away over half a year, a substantial period in a young student’s life.

This terrible wastage of time escapes the attention of policymakers. They should be addressing this more pertinent and pressing issue instead of the non-productive controversy over abolishing UPSR and PMR.

Better Timing of Examinations

I fail to see why UPSR and PMR have to be set so early in the third term. Delaying it to mid or even late November would greatly extend the students’ instructional time by at least a couple of months.

Similarly I cannot comprehend why the Examination Syndicate takes such an inordinately long time to process the SPM examination. The Syndicate should ban its staff from taking holidays from October till the results are out so it could devote fully to processing the examination. Additionally we could reduce the number of subjects tested to a few core ones like language, science and mathematics. As for the rest, rely on the teachers’ assessments.

Even with the core subjects, have the final examination contribute only about 60-70 percent to the total score, with the rest made up of the student’s year-round work. With modern statistical techniques we should be able to reduce inter-school variations in teachers’ assessments.

After Form Five I see no reason why students could not proceed directly to matrikulasi or Sixth Form come the following January. In the 1960s there was a special entrance examination whose only function was to select students into Sixth Form. Alternatively, use the SPM trial examination as the basis for selection. That would certainly give the examination some clout! An even better proposal would be to make Form Six an integral part of secondary schooling, with everyone expected to continue on.

Keeping these young folks with raging hormones (as those Fifth Formers are) not occupied for over six months only invites trouble. Idleness is the root of mischief; we ignore that at our peril. That is quite apart from the learning attrition that inevitably occurs during the long hiatus.

Rich parents of course have wider options for their children, like enrolling them in the many excellent private pre-university programs. Those are expensive, beyond the reach of the poor. In the context of race-conscious Malaysia, this means Malay and Indian children.

By June when Sixth Form and the other public pre-university programs begin, those children of the rich who are accepted there would have a head start since they had spent the past six months in private pre-university programs. That gives them a substantial advantage in what typically is a one-to-two-year program.

I recently met a group of students enrolled in such a program, this one meant to prepare them for American universities. There was an incentive put into it whereby if the students were to perform well in the first six months, they would be sent abroad earlier.

Guess what? Of the students who excelled and thus sent abroad earlier, the vast majority were non-Malays. Those poor Malay students left behind were confounded. In the poisonous sociopolitical landscape where race considerations are never far from the surface, those poor Malay students not unnaturally felt their acute sense of deficiency, feeding the already ugly stereotype they have of themselves.

However, when I asked them what they were doing in the interim between sitting for their SPM and enrolling in the program, to a person they all replied that they did nothing! They idled the time away while waiting for their results. In contrast, those non-Malay students who did well were already ahead of them at the time of enrolment as they had been in private pre-university classes while waiting for their SPM results.

Interestingly, of the Malaysians who are privileged to attend elite American universities, few are from matrikulasi or Sixth Form. Instead they come from the many private pre-university programs in Malaysia. That is an indictment of our national education system, specifically post-Form Five.

Malay College IB Program

Malay College (MC) is embarking on its IB program next June, after about ten years in the planning. This is certainly long awaited and much needed. Up till now MC is nothing but a glorified middle school; its students have to go elsewhere to prepare for university.

The program will take in only MC students; presumably there will be enough to fill the class. Back in the 1950s and 60s MC had difficulty filling its Sixth Form, and the program was frequently threatened with closure if not for the many Malay students from other schools to fill the vacancies.

Those potential IB students will sit for their SPM this November and then return home to wait for the results. Come June next year, based on their SPM results, they will return to begin their IB class.

IB is radically different to what these students are used to. For one, it is English-medium while MC, like all national schools, is Malay-medium. Those students will thus encounter significant language and other adjustments.

As such I would have expected the policymakers to have planned a suitable “Pre-IB” program to prepare those students. What better time to do that than in the six-month hiatus while waiting for the SPM results! At the very least these students should have intensive English immersion classes.

Without such careful preparation, those first batch of IB students risk not being successful. Were that to happen, then those otherwise bright and promising students would forever suffer the blight of being tagged a failure, and perpetually carry the stigma of the presumed inadequacies of their race.

Public pressure would then arise and the authorities would be tempted to terminate the program. That would be a monumental tragedy not only for those students but also for MC and Malays. Thus far there is little concern among college and ministry officials in avoiding this possible disaster. Based on past experience, this lack of concern is unjustified.

Our education minister and policymakers should not distract themselves with such non-productive issues as scrapping the UPSR and PMR. They should instead focus on making 13 years of schooling as the new norm for our children, as they do in Germany. We should make Form Six an integral part of secondary education, available to everyone. Unlike the Germans however, we should stream our students into the academic, general and vocational streams (comparable to their Gymnasium, Realschule and Hauptschule) not at Year 5 but at the upper secondary (Year 10).

Such a move would better prepare our students for the increasingly competitive world and help advance our economy up the value scale. Tinkering with examinations does nothing; it is a “make busy” project for policymakers.

                This entry was posted on Monday, 6 September 2010, 10:35 am and is filed under
Bakri Musa
,
Education
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Is Najib prepared to put his 1Malaysia policy to the test by leading a nation-wide “Say No to Racism” campaign starting with errant Umno leaders, government officials and Utusan Malaysia?

Although the Director-General of Education Tan Sri Alimuddin Mohd Dom has issued a circular dated August 26 to all school principals and teachers warning of action to be taken for racist remarks in schools, the absence of action against the two school principals in Johore and Kedah who had made racist remarks stands out like a sore thumb.

More than three weeks have passed and both principals had not yet been referred to the police, let alone the Attorney-General’s Chambers.

This is totally at variance with the “Zero tolerance for racism” belatedly made by the Prime Minister two weeks after the deplorable incidents involving the two school principals.

The Prime Minister should realize that the escalation of the rhetoric of race and religion makes a total mockery of his 1Malaysia slogan, one reason why there is so little national enthusiasm for the Natioal Month theme of “1Malaysia – Transforming the Nation”.

Is Najib prepared to give flesh to his “Zero tolerance for Racism” declaration and put  his 1Malaysia policy to the test by leading a nation-wide “Say No to Racism” campaign starting with errant Umno leaders, government officials and Utusan Malaysia?

The Cabinet at its meeting this Wednesday could not make a more useful decision than to launch a nation-wide “Say No to Racism” campaign to end the escalation of racist bigotry and religious extremism which has increasingly invaded the public space and consciousness.

The “Say No to Racism” should be a truly national one, rising above party politics, leveraging on the fact that the overwhelming majority of Malaysians regardless of race or religion abhor racial and religious extremism and mobilizing the good sense and goodwill of the majority of Malaysians to take a clear and unequivocal stand to denounce racism in any form.

                This entry was posted on Monday, 6 September 2010, 12:34 pm and is filed under
1Malaysia
,
Education
,
Media
,
Najib Razak
,
UMNO
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


What social contract?

by
Clive Kessler

Malaysian Insider

September 06, 2010

“Najib warns against questioning ‘social contract’,” it is reported.

This claim is plain and simple “historical revisionism”.

To what “social contract” precisely is the PM referring?

In the 1980s a new political idea was created: that of “Ketuanan Melayu”, of Malay ascendancy, supremacy, domination.

Thereafter, especially from 2008 it has been ever more powerfully promoted, generally in association with the suggestion that a “social contract” had been entered into and constitutionally enshrined in the mid-1950s.

How was this manoeuvre executed? With what purpose and consequences?

It was, from 1986, now newly suggested that the notion of “Ketuanan Melayu” had been part of the “Merdeka process and agreements”, and that the nation’s non-Malay citizens had thereby consented to accept, and thereafter ever live subject to, Malay ascendancy and supremacy.

There was perhaps an implicit, but only implicit, “social contract” formed in 1955-1957. If that is how one chooses to denote the core political substance of the Merdeka process, then that implied “contract” was about inter-communal or inter-ethnic power-sharing and the secular nature of the Malaysian state. It was not about notion of “Malay supremacy”. That notion was only subsequently, indeed very much later, confected.

If there was at that time a “social contract”——if that is how some people later may choose to characterize the Merdeka process and agreements——then what they are referring to is merely a retrospectively imputed or implied social contract.

This term was now offered as a new way of denoting, and seeing, that national political legacy and foundation, that core political substance. But, when reached, in their own time, those agreements, that subsequently implied “contract” (to use the new, and newly inflated term) was not about and did not provide for “Ketuanan Melayu” — nor for the supremacy of Islamic shari’ah law as the supreme and uncontestable law of the land either, for that matter, as some creative constitutional revisionists also now like to suggest.

Yet there was no “social contract” as such at the time.  People have only inferred and argued subsequently that there was, because there somehow must have been, such a contract at the time of Merdeka — and, driven by retrospective wish-fulfilment, they have then “filled in” what it pleases them to believe, or passionately desire, that its terms must have been. They “read back” the politics of the present, and their preferred political future that they like to imagine for themselves, into the historic past.

Yet nobody talked at the time, in 1955-1957, about there being concluded any such “social contract”. Nobody seriously imagined that any such contract formally enshrining and constitutionally entrenching Malay domination was being entered into by all the people. Nobody suggested that people, or the nation as a whole, had signed up to and agreed to be bound by any such “contract” providing for enduring Malay ethnocracy — for Malay domination in perpetuity and with the unalterable assent over the generations of the dominated.

Subsequently, from the mid-1980s, the idea that there had been an implicit “social contract” was fashioned. It was suggested that the notion of “Ketuanan Melayu” had, by inference, been part of or implied by that contract.

In this way, born only in the 1980s, the new idea of “Ketuanan Melayu” was “read back”, or subsequently “smuggled”, into the Merdeka agreements and process, or into now authoritatively offered but very questionable claims about what those agreements had provided for and “locked in” as the solemn foundations of nationhood . If there was an implicit contract at that time (it was at first subliminally and then explicitly suggested) then universal assent to “Ketuanan Melayu” was and must have been part of it.

This, quite simply and evidently, is historically erroneous. It is sheer revisionism. It is retrospective meddling with national historical truth and the nation’s constitutional foundations.

Never has the need for clear historical study, analysis, accuracy and faithfulness to the facts been greater.

* Clive S. Kessler is Emeritus Professor, Sociology & Anthropology at The University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia

                This entry was posted on Monday, 6 September 2010, 4:02 pm and is filed under
1Malaysia
,
Constitution
,
nation building
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Zero tolerance for racism or zero action?

By
Thomas Lee

It is nearly a month since the controversial racist remarks allegedly made by Johor school principal Siti Inshah Mansor on 12 August 2010 was highlighted in the media, but no action has so far been taken on the case.

On the contrary, the case involving 27-year-old rapper Wee Meng Chee, popularly known as Namewee, who last week uploaded a video titled “Nah” on the YouTube criticizing Siti Inshah’s alleged racist remarks uttered against students, was investigated straight away by the Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission (MCMC), which questioned him for more than seven hours.

It was reported that the police also went to Meng Chee’s house in Muar 15 minutes before midnight on the eve of the 53rd Merdeka celebration, leading him to post this message on his Facebook: “3 POLICE CARS FINALLY CAME TO MY MUAR HOME TO ARREST ME***** this happened 15 minutes before our 53rd National Day Celebration. YES, I’m still here but for how long more, I don’t know … my beloved MALAYSIA, where is our justice system?! (THIS IS NOT A JOKE)”.

Federal CID chief Datuk Seri Bakri Zinin has also confirmed that Meng Chee was being investigated under the Sedition Act.

DAP parliamentary leader Lim Kit Siang wants to know why the police are investigating Meng Chee for sedition when there is nothing seditious in his three-minute rap against the Kulai secondary school principal for making racist slurs against students while the school principal is still scot-free for her seditious racism.

Siti Inshah’s case concerns her remarks likening Indian students wearing prayer threads to dogs, and ordered dissatisfied ethnic Chinese and Indian students to “return to China or India”.

Her remarks sparked a nationwide public furor and drew calls for her to be sacked. Several police reports were lodged against her, but despite setting up a task force to probe the allegations, Deputy Prime Minister cum Education Minister Muhyiddin Yassin has so far stonewalled on taking any action.

She had reportedly made the derogatory remarks during the launch of the school’s Merdeka celebrations on Thursday 12 August 2010.

Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak had recently declared that there should be “zero tolerance for racism”, yet there has been no concrete action taken against the racists and extremists, some within the ranks of his own party, who are making his 1-Malaysia concept into a worthless slogan, and causing him to be held in contempt by the people.

The unremitting incessant racist comments by the mercenary newspaper columnists and the igneous fiery rhetoric of the ardent fervid racist politicians promoting the supremacy of one particular race are creating an atmosphere of dread and fear among the people.

The chorus of protests and condemnation against such racist propaganda seems to have fallen on the deaf ears of the power-that-be, with no vocal and visible actions being taken to curb the racist politicians and civil servants.

For example, in the Siti Inshah case, Education director-general Tan Sri Alimuddin Mohd Dom trivialized the whole serious matter as simply a “misunderstanding”, instead of viewing her racists remarks as something that hurt the feelings of others, jeopardizing the peace, harmony and unity of the nation.

Alimuddin’s thoughtless dismissal of the grave scenario exposes him as being incapable and incompetent in understanding the severity and gravity of the consequences of such damaging remarks, which could destroy the peaceful co-existence of our multi-racial, multi-religious, multi-cultural, and multi-lingual nation.

The Najib administration has a duty and accountability to take fast and hard actions against those who fan the racial fire, threatening the peace and harmony of the nation, and creating disunity among the people.

First of all, Najib and his ministers cannot keep silent in the face of such racist rhetoric and racial power play among the nefarious politicians, especially those promoting the supremacy and superiority of any particular race.

Najib wants to create a 1-Malaysia community, but it is surely obvious that his ideal has not been filtering down to the people, with several extremist rights groups going all out to create disharmony.

Over the last one year or so, the dubious and shady characters of certain rights groups have been going around disparaging the non-Malays calling them “immigrants” or “passengers”, and asking them to leave the country. There was also the so-called cow-head protest, and the arson attacks on places of worship.

There were also acts of sabotage against a duly elected state government by creating problems and scandals with racial or religious overtones, such as the doctored picture of Penang Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng.

Secondly, the Najib administration must go all out to rein in the unscrupulous malevolent elements in positions of power in the civil service and weed them out to preserve and protect the harmony, peace and unity of the nation.

Fast disciplinary and legal actions must be instituted against those who cast aspersion and obloquy on people of other races, like the school head who made racial slur against the non-Malays, and the police officer who told a snatch theft victim to “go back to China” when she couldn’t speak proper Bahasa Malaysia while making a police report.

Thirdly, the Najib administration should heed the proposal by DAP national chairman Karpal Singh to enact a Race Relations Act as a deterrent to prevent further racist remarks from being uttered by irresponsible individuals.

I believe that such a legislation would contribute much to enhance race relationship in Malaysia. I suggest that the following objectives be used as guiding principles for such a legislation:

To promote greater integration and better relations among people of the various races and ethnic groups.

To eradicate racial discrimination, harassment and abuses.

To promote racial equality in the civil service, and education institutions.

To support private sector employers to ensure equality of opportunity and good race relations.

To increase public awareness of racial discrimination and injustice through education and the information media.

To win the hearts and minds of the people and unite them to create a just, fair and equal society.

If Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak is truly serious and earnest about “zero tolerance for racism”, then he must act positively and constructively in dealing with the increasingly intolerant racist insurgency that is gathering momentum and threatening the fragile and friable mosaic of our multi-racial, multi-religious, multi-cultural, and multi-lingual nation.

                This entry was posted on Monday, 6 September 2010, 9:58 pm and is filed under
nation building
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Burma’s poll farce

Financial Times

September 5, 2010

Burma’s elections are shaping up to be the detestable sham the dictatorship’s sternest critics have warned. Unlike those held – and then callously ignored – in 1990, no credible opposition is running. Aung San Suu Kyi, whose National League for Democracy won the 1990 poll, is a prisoner after spending 15 of the past 21 years under arrest. She is barred from participating. Not satisfied with the quarter of parliamentary seats reserved for the military, dozens of officers retired last week so they could contest “civilian” seats. Philip Crowley, a US assistant secretary of state, accurately said of this mockery: “A dictator in civilian clothing is still a dictator.”

Sadly, if predictably, the opposition has splintered under the pressure. Ms Suu Kyi’s NLD party has boycotted the poll. The breakaway National Democratic Force has decided it is better to fight the election, however flawed. Its candidates have faced intimidation, strict censorship and a registration fee of $500, not far short of annual per capita income in the impoverished country. The two main opposition parties are expected to field only 200 candidates against the more than 1,000 standing for the junta-backed Union Solidarity Development party.

The generals must be feeling pretty pleased with themselves. They have rarely looked more secure.
Their economic prospects, in contrast to those of their downtrodden countrymen, are rosy. The regime is busily dividing up state assets through a phoney “privatisation” scheme. It is also selling gas to Thailand and will soon start supplying China. India, another big trading partner, treats the regime with kid gloves. All three countries ought to put the interests of Burmese people above their own commercial interests, though the chances they will do so are virtually nil. Even the US has begun to talk to – though not to trade with – the generals. Years of sanctions and cold-shouldering have produced precisely nothing.

Yet the election, however rigged, is not without meaning. General Than Shwe, who has ruled the country since 1992, is now 77. What he laughably calls “a roadmap to democracy” looks like a succession plan. That makes it unpredictable. Military officers may use the ballot to jostle for power. There must be a chance they will descend into infighting or let some true democrats into the political process by the back door. One should not exaggerate. The world is right to expose the process as a farce. But it should also be alive to the possibility, however slim, of surprise.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 7 September 2010, 4:16 am and is filed under
Burma
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Double standards on ‘illegal’ DVD charge

Perak: MB, BN Adun open to similar illegal DVD charge

By Clara Chooi | The Malaysian Insider

IPOH, Sept 7 — With a Perak DAP assemblyman facing the possibility of being charged in court for his unapproved DVD production, the authorities seem to have found themselves caught in a Catch-22 situation.

Questions now center on whether they would eventually be forced to slap similar charges on Perak Mentri Besar Datuk Dr Zambry Abd Kadir and MCA’s Datuk Dr Mah Hang Soon for allegedly committing a similar crime.

If so, this would mean the duo would also face the possibility of losing their state seats should the courts find them guilty.

The Malaysian Insider understands that it is likely that they too had failed to obtain approval from the Film Censorship Board prior to their DVD production of the tumultuous May 7 assembly sitting.

According to past reports, Dr Mah, who is also a state executive councillor, announced in May last year that the BN government would distribute a whopping 50,000 copies of the DVD to the public.

The purpose of the production was to counter the Pakatan Rakyat’s claims that they had been mistreated during the controversial May 7 sitting, during which DAP’s Tronoh assemblyman V. Sivakumar was famously forced out of the Speaker’s chair.

When contacted today an evasive Dr Mah refused to answer questions on the matter.

He only offered that the BN government was aware of the need to obtain approval from the board prior to the distribution of any production.

“We know. We were advised about it,” he claimed.

However when asked to confirm if he had obtained any certification to legalise his production, Dr Mah kept mum.

“I have no comment. I do not have to comment on all of your questions. I can choose not to answer,” he said, sounding upset.

Dr Mah’s defensive response has triggered Perak’s PR representatives into action.

Nga Kor Ming, who was formerly a state executive councillor when PR helmed Perak, told The Malaysian Insider that the state PR Youth would soon lodge a police report against both Zambry and Dr Mah for their production.

“We will lodge a report against them for printing and distributing 50,000 copies of the state assembly DVDs to the public. It was announced by them on May 29,” he said.

When contacted, Perak police chief Deputy Commissioner Datuk Pahlawan Zulkifli Abdullah confirmed with The Malaysian Insider that no investigation had been done so far against Zambry or Dr Mah over the DVDs.

“Whatever reports we received during that time, we launched investigations. So if there were none, then we would not have investigated them,” he said.

DCP Zulkifli gave his assurance, however, that the police would launch an investigation if the PR lodged a report on the matter.

“We are very fair. If there is a report, we will investigate. We will go through it and if there are elements of criminality, for sure we will conduct an investigation,” he promised.

DAP’s Tebing Tinggi assemblyman Ong Boon Piow presently faces the possibility of being charged with the possession of 23 copies of unapproved film material, entitled “BN’s Power Grab in Perak”, under Section 6(1)(a) of the Film Censorship Act 2002.

He had produced the DVD shortly after the May 3 ‘tree assembly’ sitting and had aired a preview of it during a ceramah on March 29 last year.

Shortly after the ceramah, Ong was detained by the police and questioned over his allegedly illegal production of the DVD.

According to Ong, this was because he had failed to obtain the “B” certificate from the Film Censorship Board, which was mandatory under the law.

If convicted, Ong faces automatic disqualification from his seat and the state would have to hold its first by-election for a state seat since Election 2008.

This is because the charge stipulates that Ong faces a fine of not less than RM5,000 and not more than RM30,000 or a jail term of not more than three years, or both, upon conviction.

Article 48 of the Federal Constitution states that an elected representative is disqualified from his seat if he is convicted of an offence and sentenced to an imprisonment for a term of not less than one year or to a fine of not less than RM2,000.

The charges against Ong were temporarily deferred today.

Deputy Public Prosecutor Mark Netto said outside court that the matter had been deferred due to instructions from the state prosecution chief. It is believed that the prosecution is now awaiting orders from the Attorney-General’s Chambers. No reason for the deferment was given.

PR lawmakers have mocked the prosecution for its sudden about-turn, claiming that it was because they were aware that by charging Ong, they would have to charge both Zambry and Dr Mah as well for the same crime.

Nga pointed out that the Federal Constitution stipulates that all men were equal before the law.

“That means everyone has to be accorded equal treatment. No one is above the law,” he said.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 7 September 2010, 5:42 pm and is filed under
Court
,
Media
,
Perak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Forum: What Does It Mean to be Malaysian?

In conjunction with celebrating both the National Day and the Malaysia Day, a forum featuring the following speakers will be held on:

Date: 8 Sept 2010 (Wednesday)

Time: 8 pm

Venue: Crystal Crown Hotel, 12 Lorong Utara A (Off Jalan Utara), Petaling Jaya, Selangor

Speakers:

1) Hannah Yeoh – State Assemblyperson for Subang Jaya

2) Rafizi Ramli – Chief Executive of Selangor Economic Advisory Office

3) V Ganabathirao – Former ISA detainee

4)  Azmi Sharom – UM law associate professor

5) Leon Donald – DAP Sarawak Asst Publicity Secretary

6) Tony Pua – MP for Petaling Jaya Utara

With the country and its population still seeking an identity, especially with the recent heated contradictions over race, religion and nationality, the above distinguished panel of speakers will give their thoughts on being “Malaysian”. Do come and share with us on how the country should be moving forward.

All are welcome, the forum will be conducted in English and Malay.  Please forward to all friends who may be interested in attending the event. For enquiries, please call 019-2865858 or email
[email protected]

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 7 September 2010, 5:05 pm and is filed under
Announcement
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Is there any Minister concerned enough about the escalating rhetoric of race and religion to propose in Cabinet tomorrow a “Say No to Racism” nation-wide campaign

The common response to my suggestion yesterday that the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak should propose to the Cabinet meeting tomorrow a nation-wide “Say No to Racism” campaign headed by him to give flesh to his 1Malaysia slogan and policy as well as his “Zero tolerance for Racism” declaration is one of skepticism and cynicism that Najib would do any such thing.

I admit that recent developments do not indicate that Najib is capable of rising to the occasion to prove that he is Prime Minister for all Malaysians and the future of Malaysia instead of being a prisoner of Umno politics and the past.

These developments include:

His “Zero Tolerance to Racism” declaration lack credibility and legitimacy as it was preceded by his two-week silence on the racism and seditious outbursts of the two school principals in Johore and Kedah and followed by another two weeks of further inaction against the two errant school principals.

Najib’s belated statement two days ago to re-open the controversy over the surau visit of DAP MP for Serdang, Teo Nie Ching saying that she had entered the prayer hall of Surau Al-Huda, Kajang last month when she had already tendered her apology to the Sultan of Selangor for any unintended offence caused, resulting in the statement by the chairman of the sacked Surau Al-Huda committee Azemi Ahmad refuting Najib’s claim that Teo had delivered a “tazkirah” during her visit. Azemi said the Prime Minister had obtained “wrong information” and insisted that Teo had not touched on religious matters and had therefore not delivered a “tazkirah”.

Najib’s warning yesterday to Malaysians not to question provisions in the constitution, particularly those related to the “social contract” saying that they had been agreed upon by the nation’s forefathers, without distancing him from the recent escalation of rhetoric of race based on the irresponsible and mischievous equation of the entrenched sensitive provision of Article 153 with the concept of Ketuanan Melayu and New Economic Policy.

If it is most unlikely in these circumstances for Najib to propose the initiative of a nation-wide “Say No to Racism” to end the rise of racist bigotry and religious extremism, is there any Minister concerned enough about the escalating rhetoric of race and religion to propose in Cabinet tomorrow a “Say No to Racism” nation-wide campaign?

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 7 September 2010, 9:07 am and is filed under
1Malaysia
,
Najib Razak
,
nation building
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Malaysia or Malaysaja? Part 2: Clarifying and reconciling the Constitution

By
NURUL IZZAH ANWAR

Since I wrote my 31 August 2010 article, titled “The Ultimate Malaysian Debate: Malaysia or Malaysaja?”, which called for a constructive engagement with Perkasa, and with the stated purpose to seek clarification and not challenge or repeal the constitution, my invitation to Perkasa has not only been rejected but countless accusations and police reports were made against me.

I believe as a democracy, that all opinions made related to the article — which I hope was not lost in translation — is accepted and responded to with thanks.

With that, I invite everyone to read the full article again. (see:
http://www.mysinchew.com/node/44287
 )

I stand by that article and will remain a Malaysian Patriot forever.

I also recommend that the Malaysian Constitution be read in conjunction with the Articles mentioned. For brevity, the fantastic MyConstitution brochures produced by the Malaysian Bar Council are also very helpful.

Part 2: Clarifying and Reconciling the Constitution

In the interest of framing the context of my concerns for the state of our nation, I have written this sequel.

I wish to continue in the path of constructive engagement with all concerned Malaysians.

I again reaffirm that I only seek clarifications and not to challenge or ask to repeal our constitution.

I have decided to make a list of issues concerning “Malay Rights”, that needs to be clarified and reconciled between the mixed government policy signals over the years in relation to Article 153, Article 152, Article 89 and the NEP.

The main contention for clarification is that, how do we reconcile between the need for change to meet current circumstances facing the nation today and the constitution — the raison d’etre of my proposed debate with Perkasa for a better Malaysia?

The list, where all the information is available as a matter of public record, is as follows:

Part XII, General and Miscellaneous — Article 153 — Reservation of quotas in respect of services, permits, etc., for Malays and natives of any of the States of Sabah and Sarawak.

Article 153 contains a quota mechanism in the form of Article 153 (2)… the Yang di-Pertuan Agong shall exercise his functions under this Constitution and federal law… to ensure the reservation for Malays and natives of any of the States of Sabah and Sarawak of such proportion as he may deem reasonable for:

positions in the public service (other than the public service of a State)

scholarships, exhibitions and other similar educational or training privileges or special facilities given

permit or licence for the operation of any trade or business is required by federal law, then, subject to the provisions of that law and this Article, of such permits and licences.

Position in Public Service Quota

In regards to “position in the public service”, in 2009, 78.2% of public service positions are composed of Malays and 7.7% other Bumiputeras for a total of 85.9%.

However, it is reassuring that measures have been introduced to recruit more non-Malays into the civil service.

How do we reconcile this with the need for diversity and fair racial representation without diminishing “Malay Rights”?

Scholarship Quota

In regards to scholarships for Malays and natives of Sabah and Sarawak, I would like to propose that more scholarships should be given as education is a great equaliser and facilitates social mobility; hence shouldn’t all PTPTN student loans be converted to scholarships to fulfil Article 153 intent?

And as a sustainable source of funds for more scholarships, shouldn’t Petronas oil revenue have a specific 30% of profits mandated for scholarships, this would definitely be putting our “Khazanah Negara: (national treasure, i.e. oil) to develop our most treasured resources: our children?

Wouldn’t it also be an exercise in good governance and in the interest of “Malay Rights”, if Petronas accounts are made public and accountable through the Parliament?

I do believe with Petronas mandated scholarship contribution, even all deserving top scorers, regardless of race can receive a scholarship that will enrich the quality of our human resource and foster national unity to achieve higher economic growth; to improve the quality of our current workforce, 80 per cent of which are SPM holders.

Wouldn’t this enhance “Malay Rights”?

Public University Admission Quota

We should also look at how Article 153 (2) is to be reconciled, with the change of policy from a quota-based to a meritocracy-based admissions system to public universities made by then prime minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad in 2003?

Wouldn’t this lead to efforts to continue improving our education system or just be seen as limiting access to public universities? Which is the priority?

Permits and Licenses for Business and Trade Quota

In regards to permits or licences for trade or business, how can it be reconciled with the initiative of Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak’s act to liberalise 27 sub-sectors within the services sector?

Would this impact “Malay Rights” positively or negatively, in terms of creating market efficiencies through competition which will grow the economy or have market protection that limits growth?

Part XII, General and Miscellaneous — Article 152 — National Language

Article 152 (1) …The national language shall be the Malay language…..

How do we reconcile between the need for change and the constitution with the earlier initiative to teach Science and Maths in English in national schools by prime minister Mahathir in 2003, which now has been reversed back to being taught in Bahasa Malaysia?

As a note to the ability of the courts to interpret on the constitution, this year in a test case brought by four students, a High Court has ruled that it is constitutional to teach Mathematics and Science in English. [1]

Indeed, is it safe to surmise that the constitution can be reconciled with the needs of the times, as shown in the PPSMI case?

Part VI, Chapter 4 — Land; Article 89 — Malay Reserve Land

Article 89 refers to Malay Land Reservation matters, how can it be reconciled with the government’s proposal to establish the Kampung Baru Development Corp, with a yet to be finalised 60:40 ratio for Malay and non-Malay participation in property development (and ownership?) made by the Federal Territories and Urban Wellbeing Minister?

Wouldn’t this reduce “Malay Rights” in terms of landholdings, but how do we unlock the value of these lands for productive uses? Which should be the priority?

NEP — Poverty Eradication Goal

In the matter of the poverty eradication regardless of race, absolute poverty in the population as a whole dropped from 49.7% in 1970 to 3.8% in 2009, according to the 10th Malaysia Plan government statistics.

In real numbers this means that 228,400 households or 1,004,960 Malaysian live on an average of RM800 per household a month and below.

However, if we use a more realistic and reasonable measurement methodology for determining the Poverty Line Income (PLI) which is defined as income that is necessary to buy a group of foods that would meet the nutritional needs of the members of a household and other basic necessities such as clothing, rent, fuel and utilities, transport and communications, medical expenses, education and recreation, then according to Jayanath Appudurai, who writes extensively on poverty for the Centre for Policy Initiatives, suggest that Malaysia calculates the PLI based on two-thirds of the median income of its households. The median income is a country’s total income divided by half which is RM2,830 for Malaysia. Therefore, Malaysia’s PLI for 2010 based on two-thirds of the median income, should be RM1,886 rather than the government’s PLI average of RM800 per household. [2]

Based on RM800 per month per household of 4.4 people, then the daily amount needed to live is RM6.00 per person as compared to an income of RM 1,886 per month which would provide a daily average of RM14.00 per person to cover basic necessities.

What is the price of one chicken today? Has food prices increased? Is living getting more expensive while job opportunities and incomes are stagnant or declining? Are we losing our purchasing power day by day?

With a more realistic and reasonable PLI, it would mean that 32 per cent or 1,923,368 households with 8,463,821 million Malaysians are living below the poverty line.

And mind you, by some estimates it requires a monthly income of RM3,000 to barely live in Kuala Lumpur. However, should we take heed of a minister’s advice to cut overheads such as Astro and cars to survive?

Furthermore, our Gini Coefficient index which is a measurement of income inequality, where an index of 0 means perfect income equality and an index of 1 means perfect income inequality, in 2009 is 46.1 and ranked 35 among other nations. Will it go any higher to an index of 1?

Therefore, the first step should be to review the Poverty Line Income (PLI) for Malaysia to a realistic and reasonable measurement, and use it to set urgent corrective and doable policies which have been suggested by Pakatan Rakyat, such as:

A living income policy that will realign our labour market towards a higher-income nation.

To review the major utilities concessions that will bring down living costs.

To strictly implement anti-monopoly laws without fear or favour.

To expand micro-credit facilities for small business development.

To provide targeted subsidies for essential goods and services for deserving households.

To implement a transparent government procurement practice to avoid wastages and leakages that drives up economic cost that burden the poor more.

And for good measure, to provide even more scholarships and convert existing PTPTN student loans for these households into scholarships.

Can all these be done to assist the households that would be termed to be in poverty, which are majority Bumiputeras, with the more realistic and reasonable PLI, as part of “Malay Rights” struggle?

NEP — Corporate Equity Ownership Goal

Has the Bumiputera corporate equity ownership reached 18.9% or more than 30% in 2006?

These are the four studies or reports on the matter.

In the first study, a 2002 University of Malaya research entitled “Bumiputeras in the Corporate Sector — Three decades of performance 1970-2000?, by Dr M. Fazilah Abdul Samad, head of department of finance and banking in the Faculty of Business and Accountancy, has concluded that the 30% Bumiputera equity ownership as targeted under the NEP had been achieved in 1997.

The research was based on a 10-year analysis of Bumiputera equity ownership between 1988 and 1997 of public listed companies on the Kuala Lumpur Stock Exchange (KLSE), now called Bursa Malaysia. It is important to note, that the study used par value of KLSE listed companies as the basis of calculation.

Bumiputera equity ownership reached 33.7% in 1997, comprising 30.6% Bumiputera corporate equity ownership and 3.1% individual Bumiputera share ownership. This does not include nominee company ownership which could be held in the majority on behalf of Bumiputeras.

In a second study in 2006, the Asian Strategic Leadership Institute (Asli) also released a study that showed that Bumiputera ownership of corporate equity in the Kuala Lumpur Stock Exchange had exceeded the 30% target.

The findings of a 45% Bumiputera equity ownership share were based on a different method of measurement compared with the official one. It used market value as opposed to the par value valuation official method, and allocating the equity of GLCs according to racial composition.

In a third study, also in 2006 and in spite challenging the validity of both the UM and Asli reports of exceeding the 30% target, the government had inadvertently announced on 7 Novermber 2006, that Bumiputeras indeed owned 36.6% or RM78.4 billion in shareholding value in companies listed on the main board and second board of Bursa Malaysia up to 31 December 2005.

Deputy Finance Minister Datuk Dr Awang Adek Hussin said shareholding by non-Bumiputeras stood at RM100.4 billion (46.9%)while another RM55.2 billion (16.45%) was held by foreigners.

However, this initial report was later retracted by another qualifying report, which is our fourth report, was released.

The fourth study in 2006, attempted to explain the official NEP statistics calculation methodology. It was reported (published here in its entirety as to understand the full context of the subject) that:

“The Malaysian government has released details on how it calculates the Malay share of corporate ownership following a controversy over this statistic, which is crucial for the continuation of pro-Malay policies.

The Asian Strategic Leadership Institute (Asli) sparked a debate last month when it said Malays already owned 45% of business equity, ahead of the government target of 30% by 2020.

This was seen as challenging the government’s affirmative action policy. Official statistics put Malay corporate ownership at 18.9%.

Following the controversy, the government promised to reveal how it had arrived at its statistics.

The Deputy Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Rahman Suliman disclosed the methodology in Parliament on Tuesday, ahead of next week’s Umno general assembly, where the issue of Malay economic progress is expected to be debated.

He said the government based its calculations on the 609,625 registered companies and not just the 1,000-plus public listed ones.

Based on listed companies, the Bumiputera share would be 36.6% as at 31 December last year. This is because all such companies must have at least 30% Malay ownership.

In the case of registered companies, only 24% are controlled by Malays, said Datuk Rahman.

Secondly, the government uses the par, or nominal, value of the shares held, and not the market value, as this gives a better picture, he said.

Datuk Rahman said market value could be used for listed companies, but for the other companies, this could be manipulated easily.

“But the government is always open to reviewing the methodology,” he said.

The Asli study used market value because it believed that this reflected the actual value of the company.

Datuk Rahman addressed criticisms that the government failed to count as Malay the shareholdings of GLCs and shares held by nominee companies and trustee companies.

He said it had taken into account shares held by companies like Permodalan Nasional, set up to raise Malay involvement in business, and unit trusts open only to Malays.

It also counted shares held by nominee companies, most of which were owned by non-Bumiputeras.

As for GLCs, he said shares held by the Employees Provident Fund, Khazanah Holdings and Minister of Finance Inc are not classified as held by any particular ethnic group.

He said the government’s data covered only corporate equity in Malaysia and not wealth held overseas.

Datuk Rahman also said Malays owned less than 12% of urban commercial properties, while Chinese held 72% and Indians 5%.

These last two statements are telling. It shows the government has expanded its parameters for equitable wealth distribution beyond the usual yardsticks of corporate equity, household income and employment.

Property ownership, especially commercial assets, and overseas holdings are also now a factor.

Asli director Tan Sri Ramon Navaratnam told The Straits Times: “I hope the government will broaden the spectrum of experts to include academicians and the private sector to provide a wider perspective when they review the methodology.”

Opposition Democratic Action Party (DAP) secretary-general Lim Guan Eng criticised the use of par value calculation and said market value gave a more accurate picture.

Kemaman MP Ahmad Shabery Cheek told online news portal Malaysiakini that affirmative action was still needed to bridge income disparity between races. However, the government is adamant that the NEP should be continued. Earlier, it had rejected two reports from Asli and UM which suggested that Bumiputera corporate equity ownership is more than 30 per cent.”[3]

It would appear in summary that there are four Bumiputera equity ownership share reports with different conclusions and methodologies, the UM report puts it at 33.7% (using par-value method of listed companies), the ASLI report shows it at 45%(using market-value of listed companies and GLCs race apportioned method), the Deputy Finance Minister’s statement is 36.6% (using market value of listed companies) and the Deputy Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department places it at the official 18.9% (using par-value of listed and all non-listed companies excluding all GLCs and Government Managed Financial Institutions except PNB).

So has the Bumiputera corporate equity ownership reached 18.9% or more than 30% in 2006?

Which valuation method should be used?

Regardless of valuation method, what the reports fail to show is that which Bumiputeras own all this wealth? How was it allocated?

And how can we explain the NEP Equity leakage of RM52 billion that was sold off?

Shouldn’t the focus for the sake of “Malay Rights”, be on the improving the mode of NEP or progressive NEM implementation and share allocation to include more Malays rather than to only a few individuals?

Shouldn’t our efforts for the sake of “Malay Rights”, be on strengthening the diminishing “enabling” factors to equitable and sustainable economic growth, caused by cronyism, corruption, wastages, leakages, wrong resource allocations (big projects phenomenon), racism, anti-democratic laws and state institutional degradation and abuse, that in reality subverts and undermine achieving the well intended NEP or progressive NEM goals?

Therefore, I want to suggest that to correct this NEP wealth distribution dilemma, and in the interest of “Malay Rights”, a new mechanism be applied on existing Bumiputera equity holdings in both listed and non-listed, especially government vendors, privatisation, utilities and concession holder companies (which is in line with official Bumiputera Equity Share calculation methodology), whereby, 30% of current ownership be divested on a par-value basis (since this is the official method of calculating equity value held), in the following portions; 25% to a Bumiputera Education Fund for more scholarships, and the remaining 5% to a Bumiputera employee-owned co-operative of the participating company.

As for financing the par-value shares purchases, to compensate the current Bumiputera equity owners, the beneficiaries should apply for a loan from Bank Bumiputra Berhad which is a financial institution created from the Bumiputera Economic Congress, and as the bank no longer exist, then they should apply to CIMB instead.

This mechanism can be called the “Bumiputera NEP Equity — Quota in a Quota — Redistribution Program”, where the current Bumiputera equity owner will still be left with a 70% stake of his current holdings and the 30% be used for the programme, and may I suggest we start with Kenchana Petroleum, Scomi, CIMB, Perimekar, APCO and a certain Pasir Mas Bridge Building Construction Company as test-cases?

Conclusion

The above list should suffice for now, to set the context of my concerns for the future of our nation.

I would like to reaffirm, that I am only seeking clarification and to reconcile, and not challenge or repeal the constitution, for a better Malaysia.

I would again remind ourselves that a possible way forward out of this “Malay Dilemma”, comes from a Malaysian statesman, the late Tun Dr Ismail, who once argued that “the question (of the ‘Special Position’ of the Malays) be left to the Malays themselves because as more and more Malays became educated and gained self-confidence, they themselves would do away with this ‘special position’.” However, Tun Dr Ismail believed the special position was “a slur on the ability of the Malays.”

Finally, I do wish to end with the proposition that the government must allow the restoration of local government elections and implement national election reforms immediately, so that the people may legitimately decide, on how to live together as one people, with the constitution, in peace and harmony, in one truly independent and sovereign nation.

Hidup Malaysia! (or Hidup Malaysaja!?)

(Note: Bersih’s Joint Communiqué for Election Reforms provides an illuminating argument on the subject. Please support and promote new Voter Registration.)

[Nurul Izzah Anwar is the MP for Lembah Pantai.]

Notes:

[1] The Star, 7 May 2010, High Court: It’s constitutional to teach Maths, Science in English and 8 May 2010, Court: It’s OK to teach Science and Maths in English, Both by M. Mageswari

[2] The Malaysian Insider, 21 July 2010, How poor are we, really? By Sheridan Mahavera.

[3] Straits Times, Singapore 9 November 2006, KL Reveals How Bumi Share Is Calculated — Move follows dispute over claim that Malays own only 18.9% of business equity By Malaysia Correspondent Carolyn Hong

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 7 September 2010, 5:56 pm and is filed under
Constitution
,
NEP
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Why do Finland’s schools get the best results?

By
Tom Burridge

BBC World News America, Helsinki

Last year more than 100 foreign delegations and governments visited Helsinki, hoping to learn the secret of their schools’ success.

In 2006, Finland’s pupils scored the highest average results in science and reading in the whole of the developed world. In the OECD’s exams for 15 year-olds, known as PISA, they also came second in maths, beaten only by teenagers in South Korea.

This isn’t a one-off: in previous PISA tests Finland also came out top.

The Finnish philosophy with education is that everyone has something to contribute and those who struggle in certain subjects should not be left behind.

A tactic used in virtually every lesson is the provision of an additional teacher who helps those who struggle in a particular subject. But the pupils are all kept in the same classroom, regardless of their ability in that particular subject.

Finland’s Education Minister, Henna Virkkunen is proud of her country’s record but her next goal is to target the brightest pupils.

”The Finnish system supports very much those pupils who have learning difficulties but we have to pay more attention also to those pupils who are very talented. Now we have started a pilot project about how to support those pupils who are very gifted in certain areas.”

Late learners

According to the OECD, Finnish children spend the fewest number of hours in the classroom in the developed world.

This reflects another important theme of Finnish education.

Primary and secondary schooling is combined, so the pupils don’t have to change schools at age 13. They avoid a potentially disruptive transition from one school to another.

Teacher Marjaana Arovaara-Heikkinen believes keeping the same pupils in her classroom for several years also makes her job a lot easier.

”I’m like growing up with my children, I see the problems they have when they are small. And now after five years, I still see and know what has happened in their youth, what are the best things they can do. I tell them I’m like their school mother.”

Children in Finland only start main school at age seven. The idea is that before then they learn best when they’re playing and by the time they finally get to school they are keen to start learning.

Less is more

Finnish parents obviously claim some credit for the impressive school results. There is a culture of reading with the kids at home and families have regular contact with their children’s teachers.

Teaching is a prestigious career in Finland. Teachers are highly valued and teaching standards are high.

The educational system’s success in Finland seems to be part cultural. Pupils study in a relaxed and informal atmosphere.

Finland also has low levels of immigration. So when pupils start school the majority have Finnish as their native language, eliminating an obstacle that other societies often face.

The system’s success is built on the idea of less can be more. There is an emphasis on relaxed schools, free from political prescriptions. This combination, they believe, means that no child is left behind.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 7 September 2010, 5:00 am and is filed under
Education
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.