Pakatan Harapan should work on an active plan and  strategy to win the mandate to be the  government in six states as well as the Federal government in Putrajaya in 14GE

I am awed by the 146-table dinner organized by Triang DAP Branch in conjunction with “Solidarity with Lim Kit Siang & Mana RM2.6 billion?” nation-wide campaign tonight, which is not only the biggest-ever dinner organized by Triang DAP Branch but also the biggest-ever dinner in the history of Triang.

My six-month suspension from Parliament should be the cause of a new national awareness of the need to achieve two fundamental changes in Malaysia – the urgency to have  a new Parliament where Members of Parliament are not prevented or persecuted for voicing out the innermost concerns of the people of Malaysia; and secondly, for an end to the rampant corruption, abuses of power and violation of the principles of accountability, transparency and good democratic  governance illustrated by the growing list of political, economic, good governance and nation building scandals plaguing the country.

Public anger and protests against an irresponsible and unaccountable government resulting in scandals like Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak’s RM2.6 billion and RM50 billion 1MDB twin mega scandals are not just confined to Opposition ranks of DAP, PKR and Parti Amanah Negara leaders, members and supporters.

I believe patriotic, right-thinking and justice-loving members of UMNO and Barisan Nasional parties, whether in Peninsular Malaysia, Sarawak or Sabah, also cannot agree, accept or tolerate Najib’s twin mega scandals or the host of economic, political, good governance and nation-building injustices surfacing in the country.

Najib can buy the support or silence of the leaders in UMNO and Barisan Nasional parties, but I have the gravest of doubts that he can buy the support or silence of the overwhelming majority of Malaysians, including the general membership of UMNO and Barisan Nasional parties.

This is the reason for two recent political phenomena in the country: firstly, public support for the Najib government is at an all-time low.

UMNO Deputy President and former Deputy Prime Minister, Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin told 1,000 Barisan Nasional leaders in Pagoh on Sunday that Malay  support for UMNO has dwindled to 30 per cent while 78 per cent of Malaysians are dissatisfied with how the government was handling the economy.

He  said the  level of Chinese support for the government has also dwindled, from 13 percent in the last general election to only five percent at present.

Muhyiddin blamed UMNO’s woes primarily  on Najib’s twin mega scandals, warning that if the UMNO decline is not corrected within the next two years, UMNO may lose in the 14th General Election.

The second new political phenomenon in the country is that internal  UMNO support for Najib as UMNO President and Prime Minister is also at an all-time low.

Najib is quite safe at the moment as Prime Minister as he had no problem getting  his 2016 Budget passed  in Parliament and  Parliamentary Opposition Leader, Datuk Seri Wan Azizah’s “no confidence” motion against him will not see the light of day in Parliament when  adjourns tomorrow after a 25-day six-week budget parliamentary meeting.

I also do not see Najib  will have any problem to sail through the UMNO General Assemblies on Dec. 8 to 10, but opposition to Najib’s position as UMNO President and Prime Minister inside UMNO itself is set to gain strength and momentum in the coming months, and the question whether Najib should be ditched to save UMNO in the 14 GE will become an ever bigger issue with passing months.

Earlier today, Muhyiddin joined the supporters of nine UMNO branch leaders who were hauled up by  the UMNO disciplinary committee at UMNO Hqrs at Putra World Trade Centre in Kuala Lumpur for calling on Najib to resign as Prime Minister and UMNO President so as to save UMNO.

Najib is sure and certain of the loyalty of 300 UMNO chieftains, who dominate the UMNO Supreme Council and the various UMNO divisional leadership levels, but can he be assured of the blind loyalty of three million UMNO members and 21,000 UMNO branches, who have constantly to face public anger and outrage over the Najib’s twin mega scandals as well as his other policy disasters, like the Goods and Services Tax (GST)?

There is  a group of UMNO branch leaders, calling itself “Gabungan Ketua Cawangan Malaysia” or “Coalition of Branch Chiefs Malaysia” (GKCM) who have made three demands for  Najib’s resignation to resolve the party’s problems, viz:

*First, the Umno president must step down.

*Second, there should be no sacking of Umno members who criticise or condemn leaders to improve them.

*Third, the Umno elections must go on.

With UMNO, Barisan Nasional and even the entire government machinery facing an unprecedented crisis of fracture and fragmentation, what are the future political prospects of the country?

Does it mean that the Opposition is on the verge of achieving power in the country to effect the first change of Federal government in Putrajaya in the nation’s history?

We must not assume that this is definitely the case. We must never forget the saying, “There’s many a slip ‘twixt the cup and the lip”.

The 13GE in May 2013 was the highest water-mark  of hopes of Malaysians for political change and the end of UMNO rule since Merdeka in 1957 and the beginning of a  new Pakatan Rakyat Federal Government with a new Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim.

Although Pakatan Rakyat comprising DAP, PKR and PAS won the majority of 53% of the popular  votes, Najib continued as the first minority Prime Minister when the UMNO/BN coalition won 60 per cent of the parliamentary seats with only 47% of the popular votes.

The Pakatan Rakyat of DAP, PKR and PAS is now history  because of the refusal of PAS after the 13th General Election to abide by the  Pakatan Rakyat operational principle of consensus and the Pakatan Rakyat Common Policy Framework particularly on the hudud and local government election issues.

In fact, the PAS President even refused to endorse Sdr. Anwar Ibrahim as the PR candidate for Prime Minister of Malaysia and PKR President, Datuk Seri Dr. Wan Azizah Wan Ismail as the Mentri Besar for Selangor.

The future rests with Pakatan Harapan, comprising DAP, PKR and Parti Amanah Negara.

The formation of Parti Amanah Negara and establishment of Pakatan Harapan can save the political situation by filling the political vacuum and void caused by

of despair and seeming hopelessness caused by the split and demise of Pakatan Rakyat.

Malaysians can dare to hope again that the goal of political change in Putrajaya as well as the vision of Pakatan Harapan for a united, harmonious, inclusive, progressive and competitive Malaysia   is still possible and achievable in the 14th General Election.

The immediate political challenge is for  Pakatan Harapan to march forward confidently and purposefully to create a new Malaysia, by aggressively working on a  plan and strategy to win the mandate to be the  government in six states as well as the Federal government in Putrajaya in 14GE.

Heading these six states are Penang and Selangor, as we must ensure that there is no way UMNO/BN can win back these two states. Next, to  win back Perak, regain Kedah and  achieve the greatest political breakthrough of all by winning the Johore State Government.

What is the sixth state which should be the concentrated focus of Pakatan Harapan?

(Speech at the Triang DAP 146-Table “Solidarity with Lim Kit Siang & Mana RM2.6 billion?” dinner in Triang on Wednesday, 2nd December 2015 at 8 pm)

                This entry was posted on Friday, 4 December 2015, 8:01 am and is filed under
Corruption
,
Najib Razak
,
Pakatan Harapan
,
Pakatan Rakyat
,
Parliament
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Parliament inflicted three black eyes on itself in one day – quite a feat!

It’s quite a feat – Parliament inflicted three black eyes on itself in one day!

Yesterday was one of the darkest days in the history of the 56-year Parliament in Malaysia, for in one day,  it scaled a new height of shame and  dishonour with a trio of disgraceful parliamentary episodes, viz:

•	The “cop-out” in the three-minute Ministerial statement by the Deputy Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Zahid Hamidi  dismissing some 90 parliamentary questions about Najib’s RM2.6 billion and RM50 billion 1MDB twin mega scandals in the 25-day budget parliamentary meeting;

•	The petty and spiteful persecution of PKR Vice Chairman and MP for Lembah Pantai, Nurul Izzah Anwar virtually convicting her of disloyalty and treason to Malaysia, and referring her to the Parliamentary Committee of Privileges under terms of reference which can only allow the Committee to propose the “commensurate” penalties to be meted out to her; and

•	What has been fittingly described by a former Malaysian ambassador as “the final step in the Zimbabweisation of Malaysia”.

It is to the eternal shame of  Tan Sri Pandikar Amin Mulia that so many shameful and disgraceful  records could be set by the Malaysian Parliament in one day under his Speakership!

How could the Speaker allow the UMNO/BN government to show such utter contempt and disrespect for Parliament as to allow Zahid to make a farcical and outrageous three-minute Ministerial statement that Putrajaya could not elaborate on the RM2.6 billion deposited in Najib’s personal bank accounts as it would prejudice investigations by the authorities after promising for more than six weeks from Oct. 19 to Dec. 2 that the government would answer all the questions about Najib’s RM2.6 billion “donation” scandal on the last day of the parliamentary meeting yesterday?

Are all Malaysians now to learn that assurances, undertakings and promises given by Cabinet Ministers, including the Prime Minister, are not to be believed or trusted as illustrated by the disgraceful episode of the three-minute dismissal of the questions on Najib’s RM2.6 billion donation scandal?

DAP MP for Bagan Lim Guan Eng had asked Najib very specific questions on the first day of the Parliamentary meeting on Oct. 19 –  on the source of the RM2.6 billion donation, how was it spent and how much balance is left; who the money was spent on, if taxes were paid and if there was a formal declaration.

How could answer to these questions be sub judice or  prejudice ongoing investigations by the authorities unless someone is lying and such stone-walling is to stop exposes of such lies and falsehoods?

If Najib is allowed to set such an outrageous precedent, then he can similarly refuse to answer any question about the RM50 billion 1MDB scandal on the same ground that might prejudice ongoing investigations into the matter by the authorities – and win total immunity from accountability and even  being questioned on any scandal in Parliament!

With his refusal to honour the government undertaking to answer all questions about the RM2.6 billion donation  scandal, Najib has lost all credibility about the high-falutin promises about commitment to the principles of accountability, transparency and good governance which is supposed to be the core of his National Transformation Programme, which can now be chucked  into the drain following Najib’s  refusal to come clean on the twin mega scandals in Parliament.

Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, Datuk Azalina Othman Said said that the sub judice reason was the advice given by the Attorney-General Tan Sri Mohamed Apandi Ali to the Prime Minister for not answering questions about  the RM2.6 billion donation.

Is this true? Did  the Attorney-General give ‘sub judice’ as the  reason why the Prime Minister should  not answer questions about the RM2.6 billion donation scandal in Parliament?

If so, Apandi Ali should be sacked as Attorney-General especially as a former Federal Court judge, Gopal Sri Ram and two former Court of Appeal judges, Mohamad Ariff Mohd Yusuf and Mohd Hishamudin Mohd Yunus disagreed with the argument of sub judice put forward by the government as the reason why the  Prime Minister did not answer questions in Parliament on the RM2.6 billion donation scandal.

How can Malaysia have an Attorney-General who does not even understand the concept and meaning of ‘sub judice’?

The second black-eye which Parliament inflicted on itself yesterday was the vindictive persecution of Nurul Izzah over the Nurul-Jacel photograph.

It  is another shameful episode in the annals of Malaysian Parliament, mobilizing the brute majority of the government coalition  accusing and convicting Nurul of disloyalty and  treason and referring her to the Parliamentary Committee of Privileges to decide on what “commensurate” penalties to be meted out to her.

If Nurul is guilty of treason, then charge her in a court of law but it is no business of Parliament to become a “kangaroo court”  to pass a motion to convict and refer her to the Committee of Privileges on the commensurate penalties to be meted out to her – which is taking parliamentary abuses and excesses in Malaysia to a new heights.

The third self-inflicted black-eye of Parliament yesterday was the indecent haste with which the Najib government rushed through the enactment of the National Security Counci Bill, which former Malaysian High Commissioner to Canada Dennis Ignatius  has condemned as “the final step in the ‘Zimbabweisation’ of Malaysia and a prelude to dictatorship”.

As Dennis has eloquently described it, the National Security Council Bill “is more about consolidating power, silencing dissent, stifling the opposition and intimidating the people than anything else. It is a power grab plain and simple, the end game in Umno’s strategy of acquiring absolute and total power.”

This is what Dennis fear will come to pass:

“It will crush what’s left of our democracy. It will institutionalise kleptocracy. It will bring us closer to the day when we will once again be ruled by a national operations council. It will make peaceful change impossible.

“It is an act of desperation by a government fearful of its own people and terrified of change. As the man in the street knows all too well, the greatest threat to Malaysia today is not from subversion, incursion or invasion but from a government which has increasingly abused its authority, corrupted our institutions, and undermined our social fabric just to stay in power.”

How can the Malaysian Parliament inflict three black eyes on itself in just one day under a reforming Speaker!?

                This entry was posted on Friday, 4 December 2015, 11:59 am and is filed under
Corruption
,
Financial Scandals
,
Human Rights
,
Najib Razak
,
Parliament
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Senate should veto the National Security Council Bill as it is a quadruple power grab at the expense of  Yang di Pertuan Agong, the Cabinet and the autonomy powers Sarawak and Sabah and refer it back to Dewan Rakyat after full national consultative process

The Senate should veto the National Security Council Bill which was rammed through the Dewan Rakyat in indecent haste in a late-night sitting last night, which was sprung as a total  surprise on the nation as Members of Parliament on both sides of the House and the civil society did not have any clue beforehand  that the government was preparing to enact such a monstrous legislation which is no less than a quadruple power grab at the expense of the Yang di Pertuan Agong, the Cabinet and the autonomy powers of Sarawak and Sabah.

The National Security Council Bill was surreptitiously presented for first reading on Tuesday on Dec. 1, and even without any briefing for Barisan Nasional MPs especially from Sarawak and Sabah, the second and third readings of this monstrous Bill  was rushed through Parliament yesterday, with BN MPs particularly from Sarawak and Sabah voting for it blindly like robots  although they did not fully understand its far-reaching implications, including undermining the very  autonomy powers of Sarawak and Sabah which have become the burning issues in these two states.

In fact, I do not believe that the 37 Ministers of the Cabinet  could have discussed, debated  or understood the National Security Council Bill before it was presented to Parliament for a shot-gun passage, for no self-respecting Cabinet would have agreed to such  power-grab by the Prime Minister, who is in fact setting himself up as a dictator who need not pay heed to what is already a very supine and servile Cabinet!

The NSC bill was passed by the Dewan Rakyat in a division with 107 votes in favour and 74 votes against.

If the 25 Barisan Nasional Members of Parliament from Sarawak had heeded their conscience and duties and refused to vote blindly in support of the NSC Bill, and had instead voted against the Bill, the “ayes” vote would have been reduced by 25 to 82 while the “nays” vote would have increased by 25 to 99 votes – resulting in the rejection of the NSC Bill with a division of 99 votes against versus 82 votes in favour!

Were the 25 Barisan Nasional MPs aware of their “king-maker” role in determining whether the NSC Bill could be passed in Parliament or not?

Why did the Sarawak BN MPs  become the crucial bloc vote ensuring the passage of the monstrous NSC Bill when the Bill constitutes a further erosion of the autonomy powers of Sarawak and Sabah, apart from the erosion of the constitutional powers of the Yang di Pertuan Agong and the Cabinet?

In fact, if the 22 Barisan Nasional Members of Parliament  from Sabah had been fully conscious of their responsibilities to Sabah and Malaysia and had solidly voted against the NSC Bill, the nays vote against the Bill would have reached 99 + 22, i.e. 121 votes, a number which is enough to topple Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak’s government and form a new Malaysian government in a Parliament with 222 MPs.

The question now is whether the Senate, which is meeting on Monday for 10 days till December 22, will save the day for the Yang di Pertuan Agong, the Cabinet, Sarawak and Sabah be vetoing the NSC Bill when it is presented to the Dewan Negara.

The Sarawak State Assembly had appointed two Senators, Dayang Madinah Tun Abang Openg and Datuk Lihan Jok to represent and protect the rights and  interests of Sarawak in the Dewan Negara.  This is also the case with the Sabah State Assemby which elected Datuk Kadzim bin Yahya and Datuk Dr. Lucs Umbul as Senators to represent and protect the rights and interests of Sabah.

These four Senator from Sarawak and Sabah have a historic role in the Senate for they should  spearhead a campaign in the Dewan Negara to block the NSC Bill from becoming law before there is the fullest consultation involving all the stakeholders in the country, in particular the state governments, all political parties and the civil society.

As Barisan Nasional Senators, they may find it difficult to lead a campaign to veto the NSC Bill, but the least they should do is to ensure that NSC Bill is not approved in the Senate but sent back to Dewan Rakyat for reconsideration as well as requiring a full national consultative  process involving the major stakeholders as to whether the country needs a National Security Council  with such monstrously wide-ranging  powers which usurp the constitutional powers of the Yang di Pertuan Agong and the Cabinet as well as the autonomy powers of Sarawak and Sabah.

As the Sarawak State Assembly is meeting for its budget session on Monday (the last Sarawak State Assembly meeting before the Sarawak state general elections expected in March), the top priority agenda should be a clear directive by the Sarawak State Assembly to the two Sarawak state senators to lead a campaign to ensure that the Senate does not approve the NSC bill, but refer it back to Dewan Rakyat for reconsideration after a major national consultative exercise involving all major stakeholders like the state governments, all political parties and the civil society.

(Speech at the DAP Miri 33th Anniversary-cum-”Solidarity with Lim Kit Siang & Mana RM2.6 billion?” dinner held at Boulevard Restaurant, Miri on Friday, December 4, 2015 at 10 pm)

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 5 December 2015, 8:15 am and is filed under
Constitution
,
Najib Razak
,
Parliament
,
Sabah
,
Sarawak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


What is the use of having seven Ministers and 25 Members of Parliament from Sarawak Barisan Nasional if they cannot even defend the basic rights for Sarawak autonomy which faced the greatest threat since formation of Malaysia in the form of the National Security Council Bill

The seven Ministers and  25 Members of Parliament from Sarawak Barisan Nasional would have made a great difference and stopped the National Security Council Bill – the greatest threat to the basic rights of Sarawak autonomy since the formation of Malaysia 52 years ago – in its tracks if they had spoken out against the Bill.

The National Security Council Bill is the most monstrous piece of legislation that I have seen since my election to Parliament 46 years ago in 1969, for it would confer the Prime Minister with dictatorial powers, and in areas which are declared as “security areas”, the Prime Minister’s National Security Council would be able to do whatever it deems necessary (which is completely unheard-of in modern democratic governance) but also confers immunity for whatever violations and atrocities against human rights, even involving deaths, committed under the auspices of the National Security Council.

This is because  the  National Security Council Bill specifically provides that there would be no accountability whatsoever (everything will be protected under the Official Secrets Act) and there is even  no need for post mortems in cases of mysterious deaths in security areas.

The most objectionable part of the National Security Council bill is that it would vest the Prime Minister with dictatorial powers at the expense of the constitutional provisions about the prerogative of the Yang di Pertuan Agong to proclaim an emergency, the powers of the Cabinet which must decide whether the Prime Minister should advise the Yang di Pertuan Agong to declare an emergency, and the autonomy rights of Sarawak and Sabah.

In fact, the National Security Council Bill confers on the Prime Minister the powers and prerogative to evade the constitutional position of the Yang di Pertuan Agong as the Prime Minister would be conferred the statutory authority   to exercise emergency powers without a proclamation of emergency  by the Yang di Pertuan Agong.

The National Security Council Bill is a preposterous and monstrous law for the definition of “national security” is so open-ended that it covers virtually all issues under the sun, and not  confined to strictly security issues like the threats from Islamic State (IS) or intrusion from Sulu terrorists from southern Philippines.

“National security” under the National Security Council Bill includes “sovereignty, territorial integrity, defence, socio-political stability, economic stability, strategic resources, national unity and other interests relating to national security”.

I challenge the seven Ministers and 25 Members of Parliament from Sarawak Barisan Nasional (and this applies equally to the six Ministers and 22 Members of Parliament from Sabah Barisan National) to publicly defend and justify their support for the National Security Council Bill which erodes the autonomy rights of Sarawak and Sabah, and explain what are the issues which are excluded from the wide and catch-all definition of “national security” in the National Security Council Bill.

(Speech at the opening of the DAP  Northern Sarawak  election operation centre in Senadin, Miri on Saturday, 5th December 2015 at 10 am)

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 5 December 2015, 12:14 pm and is filed under
Constitution
,
Najib Razak
,
Parliament
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Why the NSC Bill should scare the living daylights out of you

Khairie Hisyam Aliman

Malay Mail Online

Thursday December 3, 2015

DECEMBER 3 ― On Tuesday, minister Datuk Seri Dr Shahidan Kassim dropped a bombshell by way of the National Security Bill 2015 ― furore immediately erupted over the allegedly excessive powers this Bill seeks to confer to a sitting prime minister if it is passed into law.

But what are these powers exactly and what implications do they bring to us? On Wednesday, a copy of the Bill became available for download on the Parliament website, so I indulged my curiosity (because I have an unnatural reading preference).

In simple terms, the Bill seeks to set up a National Security Council with eight members, namely the sitting prime minister as chairman; the deputy prime minister as deputy chairman; the ministers in charge of defence, home affairs and communication/multimedia respectively; the chief secretary to the government; the chief of the armed forces; and the Inspector General of Police.

The council’s powers under the Bill can be summarised into two broad areas: to control and co-ordinate government entities on operations concerning national security as well as to issue directives to any government entity on matters concerning national security.

But that’s where the problem begins, because….

1. National security can be anything

While what “national security” is not explicitly defined in this Bill, Clause 4 which deals with the functions of the Council offers an indirect definition.

Among others, the Council will function to “formulate policies and strategic measures on national security, including sovereignty, territorial integrity, defence, socio-political stability, economic stability, strategic resources, national unity and other interests relating to national security.”

Think about that long sentence for a minute. Notice that the quote above explicitly includes “socio-political stability”, “economic stability” and “national unity” as part of what it says constitute “national security.”

This implies that matters of national security under this Bill may extend to a very wide spectrum of subjects which are not strictly limited to threats of terrorism and violence as we may think of it. Such vagueness only opens room for potential abuse.

Will socio-political stability be deemed threatened if members of Umno threaten to overthrow an incumbent president as part of an internal power struggle, for example? Will socio-political stability be deemed threatened if there is public discourse over Bumiputera rights and the position of Islam-related institutions such as Jakim?

Will national unity be deemed threatened if Malaysians gather for another public rally similar to those organised by Bersih, for example? Will national unity be deemed threatened if Malay leaders are criticised for their mistakes, even if such criticism are based on verifiable facts and sound logic?

Will economic stability be deemed threatened if members of the public publicly criticise government policies or actions concerning the economy and business environment, for example?

We don’t know where “national security” really ends, which means we don’t know where the jurisdiction of this Council really ends. For all intents and purposes, this Council seems empowered over anything and everything it thinks is covered by the phrase “national security.”

And that raises another question….

2. Vaguely wide powers over the whole country

Clause 5, which deals with the powers of the Council, states: “Notwithstanding any other written law, the Council shall have the power to do all things necessary or expedient for or in connection with the performance of its functions…”

Note the word “notwithstanding”, which Oxford Dictionaries interpret as “in spite of.” In layman terms, the Council can do anything it thinks is necessary in respect to its functions (see (1) above) regardless of whatever any other existing law of the country says.

That is essentially carte blanche for the Council, which the same clause further defines as including the authority to control and co-ordinate government entities on operations concerning national security as well as the power to issue directives to any government entity on matters concerning national security.

So what does “government entities” mean? The Bill defines this as any ministry, department, office, agency or any other body under the federal or state governments, any local authorities as well as the police and the army.

Couple this with the vaguely subjective definition of “national security”, this implies that the Council has potential influence on all aspects of governance nationwide. In other words, the Council may be able to do anything anywhere in the country so long as it believes national security is under threat.

The wording of Clause 4 suggests this pervasive authority will remain in place at all times without even declaring any area as a security area.

Speaking of which…

3. A security area is up to PM

An immediate focus of criticism in this Bill had been the powers of the prime minister to declare any area in the country as a “security area.” Any such declaration carries big implications because a lot of power is then conferred onto officers appointed to the Council to do as they think necessary.

But first, the security area declaration. This seems to hinge a lot on the prime minister’s discretion ― he may make any such declaration, on advice of the Council, if he believes national security in an area is seriously disturbed or threatened and requires an immediate national response.

Bear in mind that national security seems open-ended. The prime minister, as the wording of Clause 18 seems to imply, has full discretion to make such a declaration and it will take effect immediately.

This means the prime minister, in theory at least, can make any such declaration for any area where he thinks national security is under threat for whatever reason. That is a troubling amount of subjective judgment call by one person.

And as some observers have noted, this may overlap into the power of the Yang Di-Pertuan Agong to declare a state of emergency under Article 150 of the Federal Constitution.

A security area declaration will last for a maximum of six months but the prime minister can renew the declaration for another six months without any specified limitation on how many times such renewals can be done.

Further, while any declaration must be gazetted and presented to Parliament immediately, a declaration does not seem to require Parliamentary approval. Rather the only thing Parliament can do is to pass a resolution to cancel it ― if the Senate also passes a similar resolution, then the declaration is annulled.

Realistically, such cancellations are unlikely because the prime minister enjoys support of the majority of Parliament at least. By contrast a cancellation seems to require both Houses to pass a resolution to that effect and may not be valid if only one House votes in favour of annulling a declaration.

In other words, if the prime minister declares a security area, there is slim to none chance of that declaration being cancelled.

So what happens in a security area? Well…

4. Troubling powers in security areas

After an area is declared as a security area, the Council is empowered by Clause 19 to issue executive orders. These orders may include deploying the armed forces or any instructions to any government entity as defined above.

The Council is also empowered by Clause 20 to appoint a Director of Operations to be in charge of operations in the security area. And this position comes with wide-ranging discretionary powers.

First, Clause 21 specifies the Director of Operations’ duties to include doing anything the Council instructs him or her to do. Further, the same Clause gives the director “the power to do all things necessary or expedient for or in connection with the performance of his duties in the security area.”

In other words, there may be no limit to what the director may be empowered to do within a security area. If the Council wants something ― which can be anything ― done in the belief that it is relevant to the vaguely defined national security, the director is compelled to do it and is given legal power to do it.

Further clauses add more specific powers. For example, Clause 22 empowers the director to forcibly bar anyone from entering a security area or evacuate anyone already within to anywhere the director thinks proper.

This power is augmented by Clause 24 which gives the director powers to block roads, waterways and airspace to any vehicle and persons vis-a-vis the security area. Security forces may also seize any vehicle in the security area that is “likely to be connected” to any offence being committed against any law.

Clause 23 empowers the director to impose a curfew in a security area except on the Yang Di-Pertuan Agong, any police, military or government personnel on duty or anyone given exemption by the director.

Anyone who is convicted of failing to comply with these orders will be liable for a fine of up to RM100,000 or up to three years of jail time.

Further, Clause 25 allows any member of the security forces in a security area to arrest anyone without warrant if suspected of having committed an offence under any law. They may also stop and search any individual, vehicle or premises without warrant if there is suspicion that an offence had been committed against any law.

Clause 30 even empowers the director to take temporary possession of or even destroy any building or other assets in a security area if this is believed to be in the interest of national security. In doing this, the same clause permits security forces to do whatever is needed and to use “such force as appears to him to be reasonably necessary.”

There are more such discretionary powers accorded to the director and the security forces within a declared security area. The worrying part is that the exercise of such powers depend much on the discretion and personal judgment of the officers involved ― the room for potential abuse is too vast for comfort.

And that leads us to…

5. Will there be checks and balances?

With such great discretionary powers up in the air, can we expect a comprehensive check-and-balance mechanism to ensure there is absolutely no abuse of power? That’s a problematic proposition because, firstly, Clause 11 stipulates that the Council will determine its procedures and how it works on its own.

That means the Council is likely able to decide for itself how it should use its powers ― again, much riding on subjective discretion. And then there is Clause 37, which imposes absolute secrecy on any Council member or anyone with any knowledge of information relating to the Council’s affairs.

About this secrecy, Clause 37 does provide exceptions for the purposes of any civil or criminal proceedings, among others, but then again Clause 38 immediately says this:

“No action, suit, prosecution or any other proceeding shall lie or be brought, instituted or maintained in any court against the Council, any committee, any member of the Council or committee, the Director of Operations, or any member of the Security Forces or personnel of other Government Entities in respect of any act, neglect or default done or omitted by it or him in good faith, in such capacity.”

This implies that no court can help you if you have any issues with what the Council or its appointed officers does.

To summarise here, not only do we not know what exactly will be the procedure through which the Council uses its terribly vast discretionary powers and whether these procedures will be reasonable for the public, but we may also not know of any checks and balances the Council decides should be in place because it is allowed to keep things secret.

Unless of course the Council decides in its wisdom that the public should know. What if it decides that the public shouldn’t know in the interest of safeguarding national security?

So how?

These general concerns from the current form of the Bill raises a grave question. Do we even need this Council?

The thing is, we already have people looking after our national security, even if we overlook the fact that there is an existing National Security Council (although without powers as great as this Bill intends to confer).

First, we have the Ministry of Home Affairs, under which we have our Royal Malaysian Police Force which takes care of internal security ― bear in mind the police also have its own intelligence unit to sniff out potential threats. The ministry even has a unit dedicated to combat terrorism financing.

The ministry’s own corporate objectives, available on its website, even explicitly states that it seeks to “ensure the continuous maintenance and preservation of national security and public order through strict enforcement of the laws and efficient implementation of policies for programmes that are based on the core services of the Ministry of Home Affairs.”

And then we also have the armed forces, which come under the Ministry of Defence. According to the ministry’s website, it seeks to manage national defence efficiently and effectively.

So we already have a large portion of the public service corps dedicated to preserving national security.

Should this Bill be passed into law, it may effectively lead to the rise of a second and potentially redundant layer of bureaucracy because Clause 15 empowers the Council to appoint an unlimited number of officers to carry out the Bill’s provisions.

And it goes without saying that all this means a lot of extra expense for the government ― Clause 14 requires the government to provide enough money annually for the Council to operate and at present it is not yet known how much extra financial expenditure is required, according to the Bill.

Furthermore, the Bill itself may prove to be undemocratic and detrimental to Parliamentary democracy because of the provisions that effectively excludes the executive branch wielding this power from the reach of the judiciary (see 5 above).

This immunity compromises the underlying idea of separation of powers among the three branches of government in a democratic setting, although it is hard to argue that this compromise isn’t already here.

This is before we even mention that the Bill’s provisions ultimately place a lot of discretionary powers onto the sitting prime minister where there is already a disproportionate amount of power concentrated today. In turn this raises a lot of concerns on potential abuses that may arise which we may be wise to simply avoid altogether.

The overarching conclusion here is that if this Bill is passed into law, it may compromise the overriding interests of the average Malaysian in having a system of checks and balances in government to prevent power abuses and further worsening of corruption.

And this is simply why it is a matter of urgent national and public interest that this Bill should be withdrawn immediately and not be passed into law.

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 5 December 2015, 6:56 am and is filed under
Law & Order
,
Parliament
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Challenge to Deputy Prime Minister-cum-Home Minister  Zahid Hamidi to public debate on the National Security Council Bill as  it paves the way for a dictatorship and does not safeguard public and national security

Deputy Prime Minister-cum-Home Minister, Datuk Seri Zahid Hamidi has denied that the National Security Council (NSC) Bill which was passed in indecent haste by Dewan Rakyat 107 to 74 votes in a late-night sitting on Thursday had any political motive or gave absolute power to the Prime Minister.

Zahid  claimed that the NSC bill was to strengthen enforcement in comprehensively looking after the security of the people in the country and the  full executive power is not with the Prime Minister  but with the National Security Council as had been done before with Poca and Pota, namely, the crime prevention law and terrorism prevention law.

He further claims that overall, the NSC Bill is aimed at safeguarding public and national security.

I challenge all these claims by Zahid and I further challenge Zahid  to a public debate on the NSC Bill as it paves the way for a dictatorship and does not safeguard public and national security.

The public debate could be held in Kuching, Kota Kinabalu, Kuala Lumpur, Penang or Johor Baru and I leave it to Zahid to decide on anyone or even  at all of these five venues.

Both Zahid and I had not taken part in the parliamentary debate on the NSC Bill on Thursday.

Zahid was only an observer in the parliamentary debate on Thursday as  the Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, Datuk Shahidan Kassim was responsible for taking the NSC Bill through Parliament for the second and third readings while I had not participated in the parliamentary debate as I had been suspended from Parliament for six months for  demanding accountability for Najib’s RM2.6 billion and RM50 billion 1MDB twin mega scandals.

Zahid could not be so naive as to think that his bald denial that the NSC Bill is  vesting the Prime Minister with absolute powers would have any credibility when even the former longest-serving Prime Minister, Tun Mahathir has denounced the  NSC Bill as reducing the constitutional powers of the Rulers and usurping the powers of the Yang di Pertuan Agong in declaring an emergency.

The NSC Bill will render Article 150 on proclamation of emergency by the Yang di Pertuan Agong on Cabinet advice  completely superfluous, for the NSC Bill will vest powers on the Prime Minister to exercise emergency powers without having to invoke Article 150 for a proclamation of emergency by the Yang di Pertuan Agong on Cabinet advice.

This is clearly  a Prime Ministerial usurpation of the powers of the Yang di Pertuan Agong under Article 150, for the Prime Minister by the simple expedient of the declaration of a “security area” would be able  to exercise all emergency powers which under the  Malaysian Constitution, could only  be made  after a proclamation of emergency had been made by the Yang di Pertuan Agong under Article 150 of the Federal Constitution.

But this is not the only power-grab in the NSC bill, as it  is no less than a quadruple grab of power at the expense of the Yang di Pertuan Agong, the Cabinet, and the autonomy powers of Sarawak and Sabah.

The NSC  Bill is a preposterous and monstrous law for the definition of “national security” is so wide as to be a  “catch-all”, covering not only “sovereignty, territorial integrity, defence” but also encompasses “socio-political stability, economic stability, strategic resources, national unity and other interests relating to national security” [Section 4(a)  of NSC Bill], which allows for   great abuses by the Executive.

In fact, the definition of “national security” is so elastic and open-ended that it covers virtually all issues under the sun, and not  confined strictly  to security issues like  threats from Islamic State (IS) or intrusion by Sulu terrorists from southern Philippines.

The Najib government’s track record on human rights and the rule of law  is so dismal that it could not be trusted with untrammelled powers as it has acquired the bad habit of abusing existing laws.

The latest example of the propensity of the Najib government to abuse powers is the prosecution of the former de facto Law Minister Datuk  Zaid Ibrahim under the Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission (MCMC) Act for calling for Najib’s resignation and public support for Tun Mahathir  in his campaign to achieve this objective.

Zaid is accused of making an offensive statement under Section 233 (1)(a)  of MCMC Act which, on conviction, carries a maximum RM50,000 fine or up to one year’s jail or both.

With such an abysmal record in abuses of power –  as Zaid’s prosecution is only the latest case  of  a long list of government abuses of power arresting and charging Opposition and civil society activists, including prosecuting  persons with no terroristic tendencies  under laws enacted specifically to combat terrorism – how can the Najib government be entrusted with such  new untrammelled powers to impose emergency rule in declared  “security areas” without having to comply with Article 150 on a Proclamation of Emergency by the Yang di Pertuan Agong?

The charge  against Zaid under Section 233(1)(a) of the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 (Act 588), punishable under Section 233(3) of the same Act, carries a maximum RM50,000 fine or up to one year’s jail, or both, upon conviction.

Imagine Zaid going to jail for a year just for calling on Najib to resign as Prime Minister?

There are grave concerns that the NSC Bill could also be  used to suppress the  growing national clamour  about Najib’s RM2.6 billion “donation” and RM50 billion 1MDB twin mega scandals, or the growing support in Sarawak and Sabah for greater autonomy in the areas of resource development with regard to the claim for 20% of oil royalty to the oil-producing states, education particularly on the use of English language and recognition of the UEC in Sarawak, the NCR and other issues connected with greater autonomy for Sarawak and Sabah.

Let Zahid come to a public debate or a series of public debates to convince Malaysians that the NSC Bill will not pave the way to a dictatorship and is indeed necessary to safeguard public and national security.

(Speech at the Bintulu DAP “Solidarity with Lim Kit Siang & Mana RM2.6 billion?” ceramah at Mandarin Restaurant, Bintulu on Saturday, Dec. 5, 2015 at 8 pm)

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 6 December 2015, 7:15 am and is filed under
Constitution
,
Parliament
,
Zahid
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Pandikar is not  enhancing  public respect for the Speakership or the institution of Parliament with his tantrum and  threat through the BNBBC to pursue a vendetta to blackball  DAP MPs for Segambut and Tanjong

Tan Sri Pandikar Amin Mulia is not enhancing public respect for the Speakership or the institution of Parliament with his latest tantrum and threat  through the BN Backbencher’s Club (BNBBC) to pursue a vendetta with DAP Members of Parliament, Lim Lip Eng (Segambut) and Ng Wei Aik (Tanjong) by blackballing them from speaking in Parliament.

Pandikar  challenged the two DAP MPs to resign if parliamentary reforms were implemented in the early sessions next year.

“I want them to resign or clear their seats if the first phase of the reforms are done early next year in the Parliament session.

“If they do not resign, even if they stand up a hundred times to speak or debate, I will not invite them to speak under Standing Order 35.

“They will not get my respect as a speaker”.

I do not want at present to get involved in the argument over parliamentary reforms.

However, as an independent Speaker, Pandikar has no business to speak to BNBBC on the subject of pursuing a vendetta with Lip Eng and Wei Aik.

Secondly, a Speaker must completely stay above the political fray, whether inside or outside Parliament. He may personally hate the guts of Lip Eng and Wei Aik, and cannot stand the sight of these two MPs, but  he must not allow his personal prejudices and likes or dislikes to  influence his role and responsibility as Parliament Speaker.

It is completely unthinkable that there should be a Speaker in Parliament who will hold personal grudges against MPs to the extent of announcing a public policy to blackball them by ignoring their existence and refusing to allow  them to participate in parliamentary debates and proceedings.

Can a Speaker unilaterally and arbitrarily deny the rights of the electorate of Segambut and Tanjong from having their elected Member of Parliament the right to represent them in Parliament?

A Speaker who have descended to this level of personal animosity towards MPs should resign  as Speaker as clearly he could not function efficiently and competently as an independent and impartial Speaker.

I hope good sense will prevail and Pandikar will cease and desist from undermining the high office of Speakership, which must be the common aim of Members of Parliament from both sides of the House in having any meaningful parliamentary reforms.

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 6 December 2015, 1:41 pm and is filed under
Parliament
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


3 reasons you should be worried about the National Security Council Bill

Julia Yeow

The Malaysian Insider

6 December 2015

Just before the stroke of midnight last Thursday, December 3, Parliament passed the National Security Council Bill that nobody, not even the hawk-eyed opposition or the wide network of civil society groups, had any premonition of before it was tabled a mere two days earlier.

All peace-loving Malaysians regardless of your political affiliations, or even if you really couldn’t give two teh tariks for politics, have good reason to be concerned when this security law comes into force.

The manner in which it was bulldozed in Parliament, the ease with which it was passed and the ramifications of the vast executive powers it confers to members of the National Security Council (NSC) have left little to the imagination as to the sinister undertones of this Bill.

Absolute power in the hands of an unpopular leadership

The tabling of the Bill comes at a time when the country’s leadership is facing a crisis of public confidence. State investment firm 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB) has yet to be made accountable for the loss of billions of taxpayers’ dollars while Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak continues to evade and ignore all calls for transparency into the source and use of RM2.6 billion that was deposited into his personal bank accounts.

The NSC Bill grants absolute power to members of the Council, which includes a scandal-plagued prime minister facing relentless calls from the opposition, and even within his own party, to step down.

One of the more insidious points in the Bill is the granting of the right to the prime minister to declare any area in the country as a “security area” if national security is deemed to be threatened.

However, the Bill fails to clearly specify what constitutes a threat to national security. The combination of an embattled leader, with the ambiguity as to what constitutes a national threat means that anything from a female journalist, to Umno critics of Najib and leaders of civil rights society are fair game to be detained.

With this Bill, the rights of any citizen to freedom of speech and civil liberties, in one fell swoop, can be made redundant if the Council sees fit to exercise its powers.

A climate of fear

The post-independence era of the Internal Security Act have shown how the security law was abused with the detention of hundreds of political opposition members and outspoken activists, all jailed as threats to national security.

Most of us have grown up in a climate of fear, practicing self-censorship in what we say or do. It is only in the past decade that the country has seen a growth in civil society movements and greater, more active participation of the Rakyat in the country’s political processes.

The NSC Bill, just like other restrictive laws, threatens to return the nation to an era where “stability” is used as the justification for the oppression of dissent.

In our highly competitive world, nations that are thriving with a dynamic society that encourages creativity and political and economic competition are the ones that will surge ahead.

Malaysia’s decision to put in place a Bill like the NSC is backward thinking, and clearly an act with little regard to the social and economic implications on the next generation.

The failure of our MPs to defend the people

The ease with which the Bill was passed, with 107 MPs voting for it against 74 who disapproved, is highly disappointing, to say the least.

For an MP to vote for a Bill that accords absolute power and immunity to the Executive, with no need for accountability to the people, is just further proof that the elected BN lawmakers we currently have in Parliament have failed to do their jobs of defending the rights and well-being of the people.

It’s an affront to the process of democracy when those voted into positions of power by the people, turn against the Rakyat.

The lack of principled MPs that make the majority of Parliament is indeed worrying as this means that the people have no safeguards against laws and policies that assault our rights and way of life.

The only possible positive outcome that can come from the passing of the NSC Bill is that voters who have yet to realise it will now see how our leaders are largely self-serving and our elected lawmakers blindly compliant.

And those voters will hopefully remember to expect higher standards in choosing their representatives in the country’s next general elections. – December 6, 2015.

                This entry was posted on Monday, 7 December 2015, 6:39 am and is filed under
Constitution
,
Human Rights
,
Parliament
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


A strict and no-nonsense Prime Minister would have sacked Abdul Rahman as  Minister for his shockingly insensitive tweet about bomb explosion in Kuala Lumpur in an attempt to justify the monstrous and pernicious National Security Council Bill

A strict and no-nonsense Prime Minister would have sacked Datuk Abdul Rahman Dahlan as a Minister for his shockingly insensitive tweet about bomb explosion in Kuala Lumpur in an attempt to justify the monstrous and pernicious National Security Council  (NSC) Bill.

Responding to tweets criticizing the NSC bill, which was passed “like a thief at night” at the late-night session last Thursday on Dec 3, the final day of the 25-day budget parliamentary meeting, and which conferred on  the Prime Minister such absolute executive powers as to usurp the constitutional  prerogative of the Yang di Pertuan Agong to declare an emergency under Article 150 of the Malaysian Constitution, as well as to oust the powers of the Cabinet and to undermine the autonomy powers of Sarawak and Sabah, Rahman had tweeted:

“If a bomb exploded in KL then perhaps you guys would have a different view. But sadly that would be too late.”

Rahman’s tweet is not only frighteningly insensitive but also outrageously illogical.

Firstly, the NSC bill  confers wide and untrammelled powers on the Prime Minister and the National Security Council headed by him not only to deal with extraordinary situations arising from a bomb blast, but also in  more mundane circumstances having bearing on “political stability, economic stability, national unity”.

How does Rahman’s “bomb explosion” argument apply in these cases?

Secondly, even in extraordinary situations such as those arising from a bomb blast, if ordinary police and  security forces are incapable to deal with the exigencies of the situation because of  a sustained or wide area of violent unrest, Article 150 on the proclamation of emergency by the Yang di Pertuan Agong can be invoked if “the security, economic life or public order in the Federation or any part thereof” is threatened.

Why should there be a new law in the form of the National Security Council Act which usurps the powers of the Yang di Pertuan Agong and the Cabinet in such circumstances.

Lastly but not the least,  the cynical and sadistic attitude exhibited by a Cabinet Minister in justifying such a monstrous and pernicious law is most insensitive, deplorable and reprehensible, as if Rahman would not mind seeing bomb blast in Kuala Lumpur when all Malaysians must be united in ensuring that peace and harmony prevail throughout the country, and that there should be no bomb explosion whether in Kuala Lumpur or any other  part of the country.

Rahman should apologise for such an  insensitive and outrageous tweet, which is most unbecoming for a Minister.

                This entry was posted on Monday, 7 December 2015, 6:20 pm and is filed under
Constitution
,
Human Rights
,
Parliament
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Islam in a Constitutional Democracy

— G25 Forum

Malay Mail Online

December 6, 2015

DECEMBER 6 — We, members of G25, at the conclusion of the Forum on Islam in a Constitutional Democracy at PAUM in Kuala Lumpur on December 5 and 6, 2015, agree on the following statement of reaffirmation:

Having discussed the role of Islam in a Constitutional Democracy under four themes namely;

i) The Federal Constitution and Shariah Law.

ii) Issues of Conflict between Shariah law and Civil law, and impact on the Federal /State division of powers in Malaysia’s legal system.

iii) Islamisation and its Consequences.

iv) Islam and Politics.:

Reaffirming our commitment to upholding the Federal Constitution as the Supreme Law of the Nation;

Reaffirming our commitment to upholding the Rukun Negara which articulates the principles and goals that should guide the Nation;

Reaffirming our belief that political stability and economic progress in a multi-ethnic, multi-cultural and multi-religious nation like Malaysia can only be achieved when there is racial harmony, tolerance, understanding and co-operation amongst the various communities;

Reaffirming our commitment to a democratic, peaceful, tolerant and moderate multi-racial Malaysia;

Reaffirming our commitment to the rule of law, good governance, respect for human rights and upholding the Institutions in the country.

Reaffirming our belief in and commitment to the Islamic Principles of Maqasid Al Shariah and Wasatiyyah;

We do hereby agree to:

Promote the Islamic principles of justice, compassion, mercy, equity and moderation and work towards the realisation of the Quranic principles of Maqasid Al Shariah and Wasatiyyah;

Promote an informed and rational dialogue on the ways Islam is used as a source of public law and policy in multi-ethnic and multi-religious Malaysia, within the letter and spirit of the Federal Constitution, the Supreme Law of Malaysia;

Work towards making Malaysia as a model to the world for a just, democratic, moderate, tolerant, harmonious and progressive multi-ethnic, multi-cultural and multi-religious nation;

Address the areas of conflict and overlap between civil law and shariah law which are inconsistent with the provisions of the Federal Constitution, and which have led to a breakdown in the Federal /State division of powers;

Raise public awareness on the legal jurisdiction and substantive limits of the religious authorities and the administration of Islamic laws in Malaysia;

Work towards the creation of an inclusive Consultative Committee of Experts to advise the Government to facilitate amendments to the State Shariah laws to bring them in line with the Federal Constitution and the spirit of the Rukun Negara;

Support reforms for good governance practices among public institutions to ensure integrity, transparency and accountability in the government and respect for the rule of law.

* This is a G25 Statement of Reaffirmation issued at the end of a G25 Forum on Islam in a Constitutional Democracy on December 5 and 6, 2015, at Persatuan Alumni Universiti Malaya (PAUM), Kuala Lumpur.

                This entry was posted on Monday, 7 December 2015, 6:25 am and is filed under
Constitution
,
Islam
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Let Najib clarify in his UMNO Presidential Address at the UMNO General Assembly whether he is the first Malaysian Prime Minister to be investigated by the FBI as to whether he is a ‘kleptocrat’

Should Pakatan Harapan MPs from DAP, PKR and Parti Amanah Negara who have been in the forefront demanding  full and satisfactory accountability from the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak for his twin mega scandals on RM2.6 billion “donation” and RM50 billion 1MDB go on their bended knees and thank their lucky stars that the Prime Minister was so merciful and spared them the agony and shame of an expose on the last day of the 25-day parliamentary meeting last Thursday (Dec. 3)?

This is because Najib said last night that the opposition spews nothing but “lies” on 1MDB (auta bukan fakta), declaring: “It they (the opposition) attack us  using logic, rational thinking and facts, they will lose. It’s now the battle of the minds.”

If Najib is right, and the Prime Minister had appeared in Parliament on the last day of the budget parliamentary meeting on Dec. 3 to lay down the facts of the two scandals, all  the Pakatan Harapan MPs who had been harping them would have been mercilessly exposed not only as opportunists, charlatans and even ignoramus.

However, before deciding whether the  Pakatan Harapan MPs should be thankful for such little mercies from Najib, they must ask why the Prime Minister was so kind to them, if it was true that it would be so easy for him to squash the Opposition MPs who had been raising a storm particularly since March about the 1MDB scandal?

If Najib could go for the jugular and sack his Deputy Prime Minister, Minister for Rural and Regional Development, the Attorney-General;  presided over  a “nine day of madness in Putrajaya” where recalcitrant officers in the Attorney-General’s chambers, Malayan Anti-Corruption Commission, Bank Negara and the Police were arrested, subject to immediate tranfers, or generally intimidated; sabotaged the work of the multi-agency Special Task Force on 1MDB; derailed the Parliamentary Public Accounts Committee (PAC) for three months  from continuing its 1MDB investiations until a pliant “cari makan” chairman of PAC had been appointed and got me suspended from Parliament for six months, why was the Prime Minister so “full of the milk of human kindness” as to spare Pakatan Harapan MPs the pain, agony and shame of being opportunists, charlatans and ignoramus on the 1MDB issue on the last day of Parliament last Thursday?

There could only be one answer: Najib was just bluffing with an empty hand, and he could not give any satisfactory answer to the some 90 questions which Pakatan Harapan MPs have submitted related to Najib’s twin mega scandals – resulting in the three-minute parliamentary ignominy of Deputy Prime Minister Zahid Hamidi.

Were Muhyiddin Yasin, Shafie Apdal and Gani Patail also fascinated by “auta bukan fakta” over Najib’s twin mega scandals they jeopardized their public careers as Deputy Minister, Cabinet Minister and Attorney-General respectively?

Najib should not take the 30 million Malaysian as fools.

He should remember Abraham Lincoln’s famous quote: “You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.”

Najib may have in is pockets the 300 UMNO chieftains who dominate the UMNO Supreme Council and the UMNO Divisional leaderships but the battle ongoing all over the country is the battle bewtween the 300 UMNO chieftains vs the 3 million UMNO members in the 21,000 UMNO branches.

Let Najib give full and satisfactory explanation for his RM2.6 billion “donation” and RM50 billion 1MDB scandals to the UMNO General Assemblies, and in particular, let Najib clarify in his UMNO Presidential Address at the UMNO General Assembly whether he is the first Malaysian Prime Minister to be investigated by the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) and the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) as to whether he is a ‘kleptocrat’ under the US Kleptocracy Asset Recovery Initiative 2010.

Would Najib be able to state categorically that he had verified with US President Barack Obama and that the US President had confirmed that the FBI and US DOJ are not investigating him as to whether he is a kleptocrat under the US Kleptocracy Asset Recover Initiative 2010?

                This entry was posted on Monday, 7 December 2015, 2:08 pm and is filed under
Financial Scandals
,
Najib Razak
,
Parliament
,
UMNO
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Paris and California Shootings: What Are Muslims Teaching Their Children?

Prof Dr. Mohamad Tajuddin Mohamad Rasdi

7th Dec 2015

In the wake of the horrific events in Paris and California the so called ‘middle ground’ Muslims are quick to denounce them as the work of an ‘extreme’ faction. Well, I have got news for the world. In my thesis, it is these so called ‘middle ground’ Muslims that ultimately give birth to these extremist factions they fear so much.

Perhaps many are in disagreement and in shock to my statement. I will elucidate.

Firstly, what do I mean by ‘middle ground Muslims’?

Middle ground Muslims are those Muslims who are hardworking middle class and upper middle class individuals who live the dream of an easy and care free life of having a family, owning houses and property for investment, send their children to both a ‘secular school’ and a religious school so that the children can be good Muslims. These individuals are men and women who travel to Umra and Hajj not once but a frequent number of times and also are devout congregants at mosques praying and listening reverently to the teachings of Islam from the ustazs.

These are the Muslims who find no use to expand their knowledge by reading books by critical Muslims and the more so reject any readings or opinions of the ‘kafirs’ or unbelievers like Mahatma Ghandi or Nelson Mandela.

To them, Islam is already complete. There need be nothing else that the whole history of human civilization or the whole knowledge of mankind in the West that is useful for them to go to heaven.

To their minds, the whole problems in the Islamic Worlds are caused by the Jews, Christians and the Evil West. Islam is not only complete but perfect in every sense and those who proclaim and practice being a Muslims are always on the right. These are the middle ground Muslims.

Where did I get this profile?

From analysing all the Muslims I have come in contact with, I would say 99% of them fit this profile completely. I have met Muslims in USA, UK, Indonesia, Singapore, Australia and my own country and I find a similar profile.

Now of course, people can point fingers at ‘evil villians’ like the leadership of PERKASA, ISMA, PAS or UMNO but the reality is, the millions of Muslims ‘living the ordinary life’ are the first I would blame for allowing mindsets and perception of values that could not have come from the teachings of the Prophet Muhammad.

Although I am not an ‘ulama’ but I have read enough hadiths and Qur’anic Verses to suspect that many of these middle ground Muslims are teaching or are allowing to be taught values and perceptions that go against the very grain of the Prophet’s teaching in order to bring about a Muslim that is open, humble, compassionate and tolerant and can exist in any social or political environment with ease.

The ‘small’ problem of creating Muslim who is an American national, a French National or even a Malaysian national is similar to the ‘big’ problem of suicide bombers and mass killings by so called Muslim jihadists. It is in the education of the children and young adult Muslims.

Where do they learn these ‘strange values’? Well, none other than from national schools, from madrasah, from religious vernacular schools, from the lectures at the mosques and you tube by clerics, muftis and ulama.

The Muslim parents are too trusting and uncritical when it comes to religious education. As long as their sons or daughters fast in Ramadhan, pray almost 5 times a day, where the tudung, they think that their place in heaven has already been reserved.

Muslim children who are critical of prevailing views and values that the host culture thinks are Islamic, will be dealt with a rebuff and a good talking to by their ustaz that asking so many questions are tantamount to blasphemy of Islam.

I will now list three major perception or values that are prevalent in the minds of these ‘middle ground Muslims’ which I think eventually lead the young adult Muslims to subscribe to the heinous deeds of the California and Paris shootings. I have lived among Muslims all my life and I know what I am talking about. My fault seems to be that I have too critical a mind sharply tuned by postgraduate education in USA and Scotland to analysed roots of problems and an educational background free from the entrapments of the Malaysian secondary and tertiary education systems

The first perception of middle ground Muslims that is passed on to their ‘practicing Muslim’ children is;

We Muslims must never make friends or trust non-Muslims because they are all ‘kafirs’ or disbelievers and forever shall remain our enemy. The reason is that if these people were good then they would have accepted Islam because the explanation of Islam, the Qur’an and the Hadith are all easily available. There is NO EXCUSE for the kafirs not to accept Islam. This proves that they have evil intention because they have rejected Islam.

Truly, I have heard this statement in ceramah or religious lectures and private conversations.  This is the prevailing attitude and position of most Muslims and they feel absolutely righteous about it.

I trust my Christian friends whom I know to be righteous and good and I will trust them with my children’s welfare than I would some Muslims that I know. When I say such things, my friends brand me as ‘sesat’ or misguided.

Well, I told them, I do not know who guides you in the teachings of Islam but I am guided by the Prophet Muhammad himself in his decision to entrust the first group of migrants to Yemen under King Najashi who was a devout Christian.

Furthermore, I read a book by none other than Dr Mohamad Asri Zainal Abidin who wrote in one book that ‘it would be a sad thing if Allah allows non-Muslims who are good into heaven and ignore us Muslims. These people have never been shown good examples of what Islam stands for by Muslims even though there are many books on Islam.’

In the Qur’an I understand that there are Verses in which Allah says that among the People of the Book who are devout, full of good deeds and feared Allah, they will be forgiven and rewarded by Allah. These are not ‘practicing Muslims’ but great souls of humanity.

Finally, Muslims have forgotten the basic teaching of Islam that NONE of us Muslims knows who Allah will admit into heaven. Even if you have been a Mufti for 30 years, that is no guarantee. Even if you are the head of a self proclaimed ‘Islamic’ political party for 40 years, that is no guarantee.

Even the Prophet has whispered to his daughter, Fatimah, that he does not know her fate in the hereafter. Now, my question is, do Muslims know these simple teachings of Islam?

Perhaps they learnt them but the lessons were buried under the busy and crazed mindsets of setting up an ‘Islamic State’ to the point that killings and murders and deals with opportunist politicians are the order of the day.

The next perception or value is as follows:

We Muslims will all end up in heaven, regardless of our crimes and shortcomings. Yes, we may be tested in Hell but it will be for a brief period and then Allah’s Mercy will take over and we will find ourselves in Jannah. So, if we do excellently good deeds, we will fly into heaven without any trials but if we come up short, don’t worry, we will all end up still in heaven. Anyway, all sins can be expiated by doing extra prayers, feeding the poor, going to Hajj which cleanse everyone of sins like a new born baby.

Wow! What a perception. A blank cheque straight into heaven. Carte Blanche!

Truly, I heard the first part of the statement straight from a Malay Corporate member in one consultancy meeting I had attended. The second part I heard in conversations and ceramah.

No wonder Malays are so free to accuse people of heresy, of sodomy, of blasphemy and of intent to topple the democratic government of Islam. These Malays fear no retribution because they think just by being Muslims and doing a few rituals, they are the beloved of God.

Where do these Muslims pick up such glaring misconception of sins? From religious education.

I was in a state of shock when one of my good friends said that it is okay to frame someone with sodomy if we can remove him because we cannot prove that he was in cahoots with the CIA in order to destroy the Malays and Islam in this country.

This is from a man who insists all his sons to go to a Hafiz school where you must commit the Qur’an to memory. This is the same man who in my university days in America goes to all length to ensure that we got halal chicken every week.

Regardless of what he thought of Islam and our differences in politics, he is still one I would trust my family with but I was very sad of his racist understanding of Islam. Don’t Muslims know about the dangers of slander and false accusation to another Muslim or to non-Muslim?

As far as I understand, in Islam, when one does wrong to another, one must settle it in this world and ask for forgiveness from that person wronged. You ask forgiveness from man first before you ask forgiveness from God.

If you stole something, you may be punished with imprisonment but you still have to return the goods or else your account in the hereafter is in the red. If you are unable to ask forgiveness from those you have wronged because he or she has passed away, then you must ask the family to forgive you but that is inconsequential in comparison to asking the forgiveness of the person when he or she was alive.

Similarly, if you have stolen and was unable to return the equal amount of value because you  have no means, then you must ask the owners to proclaim that what you have used to feed your children and wife to be ‘halal’ or else all those will be accountable in the hereafter. As I understand it no amount of Hajj pilgrimage, feeding the poor or extra prayers can expiate from the sins of doing wrong to another without that person’s action of forgiveness.

But many Muslims go through life back biting, slandering and gossiping without any conscience as to the dangers of the toungue. The great Imam Ghazali has listed over 20 misdeeds of the tongue that would put Muslims into hell fire.

That is why I am extra careful about talking bad of others until I know the facts and that I have a clear conscience free from petty vengeance or idle gossiping. I do not want to be those Muslim politicians who steals the rakyat’s money through corruption and having to pay back every single sen or having to ask all tax payers, Chinese, Indians, Malays for their forgiveness.

I also do not one to be a Mufti, or a religious teacher or a political leader who have to ask forgiveness in the hereafter from the non-muslims that they have slandered under the game of political expediency.

How is it that such teachings of Islam that is as strict as the punishment in the hereafter for slander and money politics have been left out or poorly instructed to young Muslims?

Finally, there is the perception or values which form the granddaddy of statements:

Allah says Islam is Complete and Perfect. Therefore, we Muslims should have no need of knowledge prior to the revelation of the Qur’an nor should we require any knowledge of philosophy, sociology, history, psychology or any human sciences because we have the Qur’an which guides us. (Of course, going overseas in the ‘kafir’ country for heart surgery or other major surgery is okay)

When I was praising one of my Malay post graduate student who had just completed a wonderful Masters Thesis on housing issues in Malaysia from the analysis of Chinese, Malay and Indian cultures, she said something funny to me. She said, “Prof, I would like to do PhD with you on the subject of Islamic Architecture or housing.”

I asked her why she did not want to continue her studies of different cultures as this was more important. She answered, “Well, I want to learn about Islam and architecture only because I feel that studying other cultures who believe in other faiths are a waste of my time because we are Muslims.”

I was at a loss to say anything at first but then I had to go into a three hour discourse on human civilization and its importance for our appreciation of the world and even of Islam.

Many Muslims who are considered ‘fundamentalist’ or committed Muslim find my personal study and understanding of Buddhism, Hinduism, Western Spiritualists, Taaoism, Christianity completely disturbing. They do not understand my thesis that the Islam of the Prophet Muhammad came at the tail end of the great search for God and man’s spiritual quest and that the Qur’an is the final chapter of this great search.

If you read only the Qur’an then it is just like reading the end part of a novel where you already know  the ending but you failed to value the ending as you do not know the story from the beginning. Many of my academic friends refused this analogy.

I tried again. I said, okay if Islam was a PhD thesis, don’t you think that it is strange if we do not know its position in the history of mankind before we proceed to examine the questions of humanity? No thesis would be valid without its literature survey to position an issue as well as the methodology chosen. Still my academic friends do not accept my second analogy.

To them Islam is Islam. Don’t compare and don’t place it in the kafir world of knowledge. To them We have 1500 years of Islamic civilization to understand….we have neither the time nor the need to spend on those useless knowledge of the Western civilization that contradicts the teachings of the Prophet.

When I heard this, I just kept quiet and moved away from the limited ‘discourse’ of Malay academics at public universities. This is also a notion that is propagated knowingly or unknowingly by ustazs and religious officials.

	Thus, I would like to summarize my thesis on the tragedies in California and Paris. It is all very well to blame IS, to blame so called jihadists, fundamentalists and others alike whether it is an individual, a political party, an organization or a school of thought.

In my analysis, the real fault lies solely with ‘middle ground Muslims’ who has unwittingly allowed the three perception of Islam to be taught indirectly or directly by ustazs who studies in cultural, political and religious isolation within a framework that has no curriculum to understand the richness of humankind’s history of thoughts and achievements.

That is why, I never sent my children to any religious school because I do not want them to be bigots, nationalists and racist individuals. The entire Muslim world and Muslim organisations in non-Muslim countries must look long and hard at the education of the young whether we are to teach them to be inclusive global citizens or exclusive bigots and racists.

If we still let such values or perception of the mere three that I have elucidated go without any serious evaluation on the qualification of our religious teachers, then we have committed our children to the rising tensions between Muslim and non-Muslims and have ultimately prepared them to be co-opted by extremist elements under the guise of nationalism, ethno-centricim or the idea of the glorified caliphate.

If I had the power of finance and administration, I would disallow any religious school that do not have a course in human civilization taught by responsible individuals that do not use their time to mock other faiths and cultures.

I would insist that the teaching of Islam focus on correcting the three perceptions and values I have written about.

Firstly, Islam must not be taught as an isolated thought or event in the history of mankind. There is much that our history of human existence can teach us and reinforce the values in the Qur’an and Hadith. Our young will find that all other faiths have similar values and need to be respected.

Secondly, the young should be taught that all deeds against Muslims and non-Mualims must be settled in this world and no amount of prostrating oor pilgrimage can replace the need to ask for forgiveness from those wronged.

Thirdly, the young must learn to trust all man who possess the basic ideas of humility, compassion, tolerance and good manners. We must also teach them to be open and magnanimous like the Prophet in dealing with small misunderstandings.

I would also require all Muslim students to visit houses of worship of others in order to cultivate a deep sense of respect for these great traditions of instructions to man on how they ought to behave to one another and how to treat the world we all share.

To me, the pathway to the door of Allah’s Mercy is the peace one feels as part of humanity, the natural world and the human and environmental events that unfold in our daily lives.

Without a sense of inclusiveness we would ultimately exclude ourselves from the peace that is already present in all of us.

Our education of our young is paramount for their great future. But we ourselves must unlearn the wrong teachings of society on Islam and embrace the true spirit of the Prophet Muhammad, the Mercy to Mankind.

Dr. Mohd Tajuddin is a Professor of Architecture at UCSI University, Cheras

                This entry was posted on Monday, 7 December 2015, 5:31 am and is filed under
Islam
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


So you think sexist jokes are funny?

Syerleena Abdul Rashid

The Malaysian Insider

4 December 2015

Jokes are meant to make us laugh. Plain and simple, right?

By definition, a joke is made up of words within a particular and “well-defined narrative structure” designed to make people crack a smile and express some level of amusement.

Jokes can be simple or even complex. It can be a story, a one-liner, a pun, slapstick or utter nonsense. However, there are jokes that have the opposite effect; some jokes are tasteless, crude, offensive and lewd. These are the type of jokes that joke tellers ought to think twice before articulating.

Don’t get me wrong, I like to laugh and appreciate good humour. But, after reading a pretty darn sexist comment made by one of our ministers, I got upset.

Although his comments, which were made during a public forum – attended by hundreds of people – were meant to be tongue in cheek, they simply weren’t. They were in fact painfully pathetic and highly offensive.

Some of the men in our society think it is ok to treat women as nothing more than commodity or sexual objects – we’re often told that we belong in the kitchen and exist solely for reproduction purposes.

A woman’s virginity, marriage and polygamy are topics usually made fun of. It doesn’t help when we have leaders who openly mock us without suffering any consequences and when we tell them how offended we feel, they tell us to stop whining and question our lack of humour and “edginess”.

They feel joking at our expense is harmless and inoffensive because it is only a joke and we shouldn’t take it too seriously. Wrong.  Sexist jokes not only allow society to believe that misogyny and patriarchal values are in line in social acceptability and humanism, it also discloses a deep rooted – somewhat latent, bigotry about our place in society.

I have said this before and will say this again: sexist jokes are not funny, they are indeed hostile and rude.

Jokes about rape, domestic abuse and other stereotypical traits men mock us for, normalise sexist attitudes and hostility towards us in a very dangerous way – humour often disguises the depravity of the issues or situation and most of us fail to realise the adverse impact these jokes will have in our society and subsequent efforts in fighting discrimination against women.

Let’s try to remember this: jokes are there to provide entertainment, not to start in-depth discourse or ideas or reinforce stereotypes.  A joke is only funny when the listeners laugh, when we don’t, we can safely assume that we just heard an abysmally bad joke.

Unfortunately, there is this premeditated blindness, therein lies a level of reluctance to admit the unforgiving influences these attitudes have to a woman’s self-image and confidence.

Exposure to such humour or behavioural patterns will lead to tolerance of misogyny –  humorous vilification creates the perception of a shared standard of discrimination may steer people to believe that sexism isn’t a serious matter, therefore, completely acceptable.

And while society is no longer able to stomach racist jokes, people have become sensitised and nonchalant to gender discrimination – shameful jokes involving women continue to be said and the men delivering the punch line carry on doing so because society has given them a free pass.

And if you’re already rolling your eyes while reading this and trying to explain to yourself that women need to loosen up a little, you’re dismissing a very legitimate concern.

If you think equality and social inclusion has already been achieved in our Malaysian society – you are gravely misinformed and mistaken. So the next time anyone attempts to tell yet another chauvinist joke, think about the repercussions for a minute. Think about that and just stop because you are not being funny at all. – December 4, 2015.

                This entry was posted on Monday, 7 December 2015, 6:51 am and is filed under
women
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Tun Razak – A Leader With A Free Mind

M. Bakri Musa

www.bakrimusa.com

7th December 2015

Notwithstanding their common aristocratic background, obvious brilliance, and genuine nationalism, plus their overlapping leadership in UMNO, Tun Razak had little in common with Datuk Onn Jaafar. To start with, there was their obvious age and thus generational difference, Onn being about 30 years older. The critical differentiating feature separating the two however was their personalities.

     Like Onn, there is as yet no authoritative biography of Tun Razak. There is William Shaw’s, published in 1976, sympathetic bordering on the hagiographical. Razak had many contemporaries, some very erudite, but none had sought to pen an account of this great man. Likewise his sons (he had no daughters) who are all well educated, including one who is a Cambridge graduate, yet none has seen fit to write an account of their great father, apart from the anecdotal recollections in responses to interviews.

     The contrasting personalities between Onn and Razak could not be more obvious then when they were campaigning or otherwise engaging the common people. To be sure, both were atypical politicians; neither exhibited the usual politician’s backslapping or feigned familiarity and affability. They both seemed aloof and uncomfortable with crowds. While Onn had the imperious look of an aristocrat who is forced to be with the peasants, Razak had that of a policy wonk embarrassed at being unable to articulate more simply his complex ideas. Both however, had great intellect and more importantly, were remarkably free-minded although expressed in very different ways.

     Razak was head of UMNO Youth at the time when Onn walked out of the parent party in 1951. Razak’s remarkable leadership talent was already widely recognized. The members saw great potential in Razak and very much wanted him to take over the party. He however demurred. A man of quiet self-confidence to match his considerable intellect, Razak was not easily flattered. Or tempted! He knew that he was too young (not yet thirty when Onn bolted out of UMNO) and had joined the party only the year before. He rightly thought that the Malay masses would be more accepting of someone older and more experienced, considering our culture’s reverence for age and seniority for with that, it was assumed, would come wisdom and tolerance.

     Razak saw no one in the party’s hierarchy capable of leading it, especially considering the critical mission it was about to undertake – securing the country’s independence. That was an unusually perceptive and brutally honest assessment. Then he remembered his old fellow law student friend back from their days in England who was by then the Sessions Court President, and persuaded him to take over UMNO’s leadership with Razak as the number two.

     It was a perfect match. Tunku Abdul Rahman was more than an Anglophile; he was once married to an English woman and thus was very familiar and comfortable with the ways of the English. Though he was a member of the Kedah royalty, Tunku had a touch for the common man. Even more remarkable, he had the knack for extracting money from citizens for worthy projects. An excellent fundraiser is always an asset for any organization, especially a political party.

     Tunku presented the benign affable public relations face required of the number one, while Razak was the able second-in-command doing the heavy lifting. Knowing their age difference, Razak was in no hurry to get the top slot.

     Razak’s free-mindedness enabled him to view problems from many perspectives. He saw Onn’s departure not as a crisis, as many did, but an opportunity to look beyond the party for new talent, as he did by bringing in Tunku. Razak would later demonstrate this same resourcefulness when as Prime Minister he brought many outstanding young talent into his administration, such individuals as Tengku Razaleigh, Chong Hon Nan, Abdullah Ahmad (not that forgettable Badawi character who would later succeed Mahathir as Prime Minister but the former Special Envoy to the UN), and the late Ghazali Shafiee.

     Razak’s subsequent turn to be the number one did not come smoothly however, or in the best tradition of succession. Instead it was triggered by the bloody riots of 1969 that reduced Prime Minister Tunku Abdul Rahman to a hapless soul unable to control a nation that had gone berserk.

     In his memoir the Tunku lamented the many conniving ways Razak undertook, at the behest of the “young Turks” and others in UMNO, to undermine the Tunku.  Razak did not need to go through all those ugly and unseemly contortions. All he had to do was tell Tunku that he (Razak) wanted to take over and the Tunku would have gracefully given way. Razak however, bound by tradition perhaps, could not do that to his old mentor.

     That little personal blemish, though regrettable, did not diminish the luster of Razak’s leadership. Under less able crisis management, that 1969 conflict could have proved not only deadly but also intractable. Razak however, brought it under control within days. Bleeding-heart liberals may complain of his methods but there was no mistaking their effectiveness. Consider that the 1969 riots coincided with the modern flare-up of sectarian violence in Northern Ireland. While Malaysians today have long forgotten that dark period in our history, the folks in Northern Ireland are still busy settling deadly scores.

     Razak declared a state of emergency and suspended parliament. To this day he remained the only leader in the world who assumed dictatorial powers because of an emergency and then gave that up voluntarily 18 months later to the previously elected parliament.

     Razak was not at all perturbed by negative outside opinions although, unlike Mahathir, he did not purposely go out of his way to thumb his nose at the world. Razak was focused on the job at hand, confident that the results would vindicate his methods. He was right.

     In the same manner, Razak’s New Economic Policy was a bold and imaginative piece of social engineering. He was not in the least bothered by possible charges of racism or of favoring one race over another. He did what he thought needed to be done. Forty years later, the various successors to the NEP still keep its basic elements. None however, could match the efficacy of the original.

     In instituting his bold NEP, Razak anticipated the wisdom of modern economists by decades. Today it is an accepted wisdom that gross inequities especially between highly visible groups as with race, is not only incompatible with economic growth but would also undo whatever gains you may have achieved.

     In the geo-political arena, it was Tun Razak’s free-mindedness that made him undertake that trip to China in 1974, at the height of the Cold War and when the communist insurgency was still active in Malaysia. That also reflected the brilliance of his strategic thinking and visionary aspirations. He saw the rise of China and the importance of its inclusion into the international community earlier than any other statesman, either regional or global.

     History records Nixon visiting China two years earlier. However, Razak started his initiative, as did Kissinger for Nixon, in 1971. Unlike Nixon and his State Secretary who went though various intermediaries and did so in secret, Razak wrote directly and openly to Mao’s Chou En Lai. Like the American initiative, Razak’s too followed the visit of the Chinese ping pong team.

     Razak was a leader unencumbered by fixed ideas, the hallmark of a free mind. That is precisely the leadership that Malaysia desperately needs today. Alas, I see little hope of that happening.

Adapted from the author’s latest book, Liberating The Malay Mind, ZI Publications Sdn Bhd, Petaling Jaya, Malaysia , 2013.

                This entry was posted on Monday, 7 December 2015, 10:49 am and is filed under
Bakri Musa
,
UMNO
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Why was  the monstrous and pernicious  National Security Council Bill passed like “a thief in the night” in a late-night session on the last sitting  of the 25-day Parliamentary meeting  without any prior notice to  the major stakeholders in the land?

Both the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak and the Deputy Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Ahmad Zahid owe Parliament and the nation a full and satisfactory explanation as to why the monstrous and pernicious National Security Council (NSC) Bill was passed like “a thief in the night” in a late-night session on the last sitting of the 25-day Parliamentary meeting without any prior notice to  the major stakeholders in the land?

Najib’s kitchen Cabinet of trusted Ministers and top government officers and advisers must be congratulated for pulling off one of the most remarkable feats in Malaysian government history, keeping the monstrous and pernicious NSC  Bill completely under wraps without any one knowing about it, and even the snooping journalists with the most trained noses to sniff out the  goings-on in the corridors of powers, have been completely bamboozled this time.

But this adds to the mystery – why was the NSC Bill kept under such tight lock-and-key that when it was first  tabled in Parliament for first reading on Tuesday, 1st December 2015, it did not attract widespread attention and alert that it was such a monstrous and pernicious bill which not only usurped the powers of Yang di Pertuan Agong, the Cabinet and the powers of autonomy of the Sarawak and Sabah state, but would set the country off on the long dark road to a dictatorship?

Answers the following three questions are not only in order but urgent in clarifying the public mind as to what is cooking in the corridors of powers which could father such a monstrous and pernicious NSC Bill:

1.	Why was the NSC Bill incubated and born in such deep secrecy that there was no clue beforehand among MPs and the major stakeholders in the country  that it was in the works and would be presented for enactment by Parliament in the budget session?  When was the idea of the NSC Bill conceived – during the time of former Attorney-General Tan Sri Gani Patail or is this the first “masterpiece” of the new Attorney-General Tan Sri Mohamaed Apandi Ali?  Was such secrecy in drafting the NSC Bill conducive or  inimical to the promotion of a democratic and constitutional good governance and is there a secret ulterior agenda to the NSC Bill?

2.	When was the NSC Bill presented to the Cabinet and when did the Ministers give their approval for the presentation of the  Bill to Parliament? Was there a detailed discussion by the Cabinet Ministers into the far-reaching implications of the Bill and its threat to a democratic and constitutional government?

3.	Can the 107 Ministers and MPs who voted for the NSC Bill in the Dewan Rakyat last Thursday give reasons for supporting the monstrous and pernicious NSC Bill, especially as it usurped the powers of the Yang di Pertuan Agong, the Cabinet, and states of Sarawak and Sabah in their demand for greater autonomy for the two states. Malaysians want to know in particular why the 107 Ministers and Members of Parliament support the NSC Bill, which renders completely superfluous Article 150 as it would vest the Prime Minister with emergency powers without having to invoke Article 150 for a Proclamation of Emergency by the Yang di Pertuan Agong.

Finally, was the NSC Bill  presented beforehand to the Conference of Rulers, and if so, when.

                This entry was posted on Monday, 7 December 2015, 10:26 am and is filed under
Constitution
,
Human Rights
,
Najib Razak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.