Moratorium on Syabas water disconnections which violate the fundamental human right of the poor to clean water

The Ministry of Water, Energy and Communications should issue an directive to Syabas to impose an immediate moratorium on water disconnections in the concession area of Kuala Lumpur, Selangor and Putrajaya which affect the poor.

Last month, the Coalition Against Water Privatisation (CAWP) and MTUC had spoken  up because they  were  appalled at the high levels of water supply disconnection in Kuala Lumpur, Selangor and Putrajaya since water privatization in the last two  years.

They had  consistently argued that organising water for profits would lead to high levels of disconnections, a notion that violates peoples’ rights and access to clean water. Poor and vulnerable communities might be at risk.

CAWP and MTUC have been proven right and the Ministry should instruct Syabas to develop a humane way of collecting water bills, one where peoples’ right to clean water is not violated.

In April 2007, the Minster for Water, Energy and Communications informed Parliament that  there were a total of 364,200 disconnections in the concession area, namely Selangor, Kuala Lumpur and Putrajaya.  It involved 257, 436 home disconnections; 106,100 industrial consumers; and 664 miscellaneous. The revenue from reconnection at RM 50 per reconnection fee is about RM 18.2 million in the last two years.  Between January 2007 — September 2007 there were about 136,000 disconnections given that there were approximately 506 disconnections per day in the previous two years. The revenue from disconnections fees for nine months in 2007 is about RM 6.83 million.

 In total since privatization there has been a total 500,820 disconnections with a revenue to Syabas at RM 25.04 million. More than 50 percent of all connections in the concession area have been disconnected.

 The high number of disconnections demonstrates that Syabas is more interested in making money as opposed to inculcating financial discipline among water consumers in the concession area.  Revenue from disconnections appears to be overwhelming.

Syabas had been busy disconnecting water even in the holy month of Ramadan. On one side, Syabas had been organizing buka puasa events and giving alms to the poor and orphaned children and on the other has been busy disconnecting water in homes including Muslim households. This is hypocritical.

Water disconnections during national holidays and religious festivities in a plural society like Malaysia  are highly insensitive and the private concessionaire should show greater corporate social responsibilities and respectful of the sensitivities of multi-racial and multi-religious Malaysia where the great religions of the world meet in confluence.

The  Water, Energy and Communications Ministry or SPAN should requests   Syabas to impose an immediate moratorium on all water disconnections during  festival periods such as Hari Raya and Deepavali as well as institute an immediate investigation on Syabas on-going disconnection exercise, to find out the reasons for the   high disconnections in the concession area;   and to instruct Syabas to develop a more humane approach in  collecting bills without penalizing the poor who already suffer from inadequate funds and families in high rise buildings.  This should be done in consultation with other stakeholders.

Finally, the regulator (Jabatan Kawalselia) should explain the basis of imposing RM 50 for reconnecting water.

(Speech on the Ministry of Energy, Water and Communications iduring the 2008 Budget committee stage debate in the  Dewan Rakyat oo Monday, 26th January 2007)

                This entry was posted on Monday, 26 November 2007, 1:35 pm and is filed under
Human Rights
,
Public policy
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Offensive Aljazeera interview on Hindraf demo – MIC MP Devamany owes public apology

MIC MP for Cameron Highlands Devamany a/l S. Krishnasamy should publicly apologise for his
Aljazeera interview
yesterday belittling the Hindraf demonstration and condemning the demonstrators when he should be deploring the police mishandling and  excessive use of force in firing tear gas and liquid chemicals against the defenceless and unarmed in Kuala Lumpur yesterday.

In the Aljazeera interview, Devamany joined the chorus of Barisan Nasional leaders in running down the Hindraf demonstration, condemning it as irresponsible with bad intention, making derogatory reference to the “type of people” who came to join the demonstration  — as if they were  the riff-raff and good-for-nothings when they in  fact represented  a fair  cross-section of the Malaysian Indian community from all over the country, including professionals and among the most  idealistic men and women for whom the Malaysian Indian community and the Malaysian nation have every reason to  feel proud.

I actually gave Devamany an opportunity during parliamentary question time this morning to apologise and  withdraw his offensive and derogratory remarks about the Hindraf demonstration and demonstrators, but he chose to be obstinate and unrepentant, trying to argue and justify his offensive Aljazeera interview.

As I had said during my supplementary question this morning that  the government failure to ensure equity has created the conditions for the Hindraf demonstration, which was “a cry of desperation” by the Indian community at their neglect and marginalisation in the  Barisan Nasional  nation-building policies which have made the  Malaysian Indians into a new under class in Malaysia after 50 years of Merdeka.

Never before in the past 50 years have Malaysian Indians felt so discriminated and marginalized in  the whole gamut of their citizenship rights –political, economic, social, educational, cultural and religious.

It is precisely because MIC leaders in Parliament and government are not prepared to give voice to the legitimate grievances of the Malaysian Indians that the frustrations of Malaysian Indians are  so deepseated and widespread — nurturing a grave sense of alienation  among the Malaysian Indians at being  cut off from the mainstream of development and full  recognition of their legitimate aspirations and rights as equal Malaysian citizens.

The refusal by Umno Ministers and Deputy Ministers in Parliament and government to concede the validity and legitimacy of the grievances of the Malaysian Indians which have led to the Hindraf demonstration is not surprising, as this is  part of the very serious denial syndrome of the Umno and Barisan Nasional political leadership.

However, the failure of MIC  leaders to recognize the factors that have led to the Hindraf demonstration yesterday or to have any good word for the Hindraf demonstration and demonstrators is most deplorable and must be condemned in the strongest possible terms.

The Cabinet on Wednesday must discuss the “cry of desperation” of the Malaysian Indians symbolized by the 30,000 Hindraf demonstration yesterday and the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi must “walk the talk” of his pledge to be Prime Minister for all Malaysians regardless of race, religion or political beliefs.

                This entry was posted on Monday, 26 November 2007, 2:36 pm and is filed under
Human Rights
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


RCI on Lingam Tape – test of whether Mahathir is right that Cabinet is “half-past six”

The Cabinet must prove Tun Dr. Mahathir wrong that it is “half-past six’ by establishing a wide-ranging and unfettered Royal Commission of Inquiry on Wednesday to deal with the root-and-branch problem of the crisis of confidence in the judiciary going back for 19 years and not just deal with the “tip of the iceberg” of the Lingam Tape.

International Islamic University constitutional law expert Professor Dr. Abdul Aziz Bari is right his interview with
New Sunday Times
 in describing the Lingam Tape as “just the tip of the iceberg” after the state of the judiciary after 1988.

This led to the question — “If the video clip is the tip, what is the iceberg?” and the following answer in

“Putting confidence back in judiciary”
:

“A: How the people are selecting the judges, how the judges are having behind-closed-door relationships with lawyers, and how lawyers manage to predict or determine the outcome of cases.

“This is something very serious when it comes to suits. If this is the case, then people won’t have confidence in the judiciary.

“The judiciary’s strength is the public’s confidence. In law, you don’t have to establish bias: if the person cannot convince you of his or her integrity, then he’s got to disqualify himself.

“The mere likelihood (of bias) is good enough to establish a real bias. The moment it (the confidence) is lost, it is difficult to get it back.”

Earlier in the interview, there was a specific Q & A on the “scope of the inquiry”, viz:

“Q: What should be the scope of the inquiry?

“A: Since the matter is very much connected to independence, integrity and corruption, then these are the things that should be looked at, not just to establish whether the video clip is authentic.”

The de facto Law Minister, Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz has stated his position many times that he saw nothing wrong with the judiciary apart from the isolated case of the Lingam Tape incident.

It would appear that Nazri had been sleeping for 19 years about the state of the judiciary in the country.

The question is whether all the other Ministers in the mega-Cabinet of 33 are of the same mind as Nazri, also sleeping through the past 19 years of the two-decade-long crisis after crisis over the independence and integrity of the judiciary, completely unaware or dared not be aware of the repeated plunge in national and international confidence in Malaysian judiciary?

Furthermore,  will the Cabinet on Wednesday  limit the Royal Commission of Inquiry just to the Lingam Tape instead of giving it completely unfettered powers to deal with the branch-and-root problem of the  19-year crisis of confidence in the judiciary, confirming beyond a shadow of doubt Mahathir’s condemnation of it as a “half-past six Cabinet”?

                This entry was posted on Monday, 26 November 2007, 4:23 pm and is filed under
Judiciary
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Wimax & penipuan SMS

1 ) Penipuan melalui kandungan SMS

Saya merujuk kepada kenyataan Menteri Tenaga, Air dan Komunikasi bertarikh 5 September 2007 di mana menteri berkenaan menyebut hanya terdapat 23 kes daripada 176 aduan orang awam yang telah melanggar Garispanduan industri pembekalan kandungan SMS, dan hanya 9 syarikat pembekal kandungan SMS tersebut dikenakan penalti secara pembayaran kompaun.

Dalam pada itu, menteri berkenaan juga berkata semua syarikat telekom selular telah diarah untuk melaksanakan satu ‘Preventive System’ untuk menbanteras kejadian penipuan yang seumpamanya — dan tarikh penamatnya (deadline) ialah 30 September.

The New Sunday Times bertarikh 4 November telah melaporkan bahawa sebanyak 712,676 pengguna telefon bimbit telah menjadi mangsa penipuan SMS sejak Januari 2006, melibatkan duit aniaya sebanyak RM377,411.60.

Kami perolehi maklumat dari sumber industri bahawa sebilangan daripada syarikat pembekal kandungan SMS yang dikenakan kompaun masih belum menjelaskan kompaun mereka setelah melebihi tiga bulan.

Malahan, kita juga diberitahu oleh sumber industri bahawa salah satu syarikat pembekal kandungan SMS yang berkali-kali melanggar Garispanduan industri — iaitu Macro Kiosk Bhd — telah dilantik oleh two syarikat telekomunikasi selular menerusi sebuah anak syarikat yang bernama Toprole Network Sdn Bhd, sebagai pembekal dan pengendali ‘Preventive System” yang Menteri berkenaan telah janjikan.

Bukankah ini satu kompromi dan konspirasi yang bertentangan dengan hasrat “Good Corporate Governance”?

Kenapa sebuah syarikat pihak ketiga yang berkali-kali melanggar tata-tertib industri di beri kepercayaan untuk mengendalikan Preventive System yang melibatkan seluruh industri pembekal kandungan SMS?

Kenapa pula pihak SKMM (MCMC) tidak mengambil tindakan lebih ketat untuk membanteras syarikat-syarikat yang dikenakan kompaun dan berdegil tidak menjelaskan kompaun tersebut buat selama ini?

Adakah menteri berkenaan betul-betul taat kepada pegangan Perdana Menteri supaya sentiasa telus?

Adakah menteri berkenaan berani mengharamkan sama sekali industri Pembekalan Kandungan SMS ini samanya sekali jika ( 1 ) Preventive System tersebut terus diberi kapada syarikat yang melanggar tata-tertib kementerian tersebut; dan ( 2 ) pihak SKMM tidak berupaya mengutik kompaunnya sendiri?

Apa maksudnya perlinduangan pengguna jika penipuan sebegini terus bermaharajalela dan perosak-perosaknya dimanjakan begitu sahaja?

2 ) WMax, 3G dan Jalur Lebar

Pada 16 Mac, 2007, dengan persetujuan menteri Tenaga, Air dan Komunikasi, SKMM telah memberikan spectrum 2.3Ghz kepada 4 syarikat pilihan untuk dimulakan perkhidmatan WiMAX, iaitu:

1 ) Bizsurf (M) Sdn Bhd,

2 ) MIB Comm Sdn Bhd,

3 ) Redtone-CNX Broadband Sdn Bhd

4 )Asiaspace Dotcom Sdn Bhd.

Kini, lapan bulan sudah berlalu, tetapi keempat-empat syarikat tersebut masih belum memulakan perkhidmatan WiMAX yang dijanjikan. Habuk pun tak ada!

Bukan itu sahaja. Sebelum itu, di bulan Mac 2006, two lesen tambahan bagi perkhidmatan 3G telah diberikan kepada MiTV dan Time Dotcom, sebuah GLC. Tetapi, sehingga sekarang, kedua-dua syarikat masih lagi belum mula membekalkan perkhidmatan 3G yang dijanjikan.

Bukan terdapat syarat-syarat tertentu mengikatkan syarikat tersebut kepada jadual pelancarannya?

Apa gunanya Menteri tersebut melafaz mengenai perkembangan jalur lebar, tetapi kesemunya tidak menjadi kenyataan?

Ataupun kesemua ini hanya konspirasi Kementerian tersebut untuk melanjutkan “rent-seeking” dalam alam komunikasi dan teknologi — di mana spectrum microwave juga diguna sebagai simpanan tanah rizeab bagi kuncu-kuncu kerajaan barisan Nasional?

(Speech 2 on the Ministry of Energy, Water and Communications iduring the 2008 Budget committee stage debate in the Dewan Rakyat oo Monday, 26th January 2007)

                This entry was posted on Monday, 26 November 2007, 2:51 pm and is filed under
IT
,
Parliament
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Between a rock and a hard place (2)

Two YouTube  items here:

(1)	A
longer 8.23 minute video clip
 of the two parliamentary episodes during question time yesterday when  the 30,000-people  Hindraf demonstration in Kuala Lumpur on Sunday, 25th November 2007 was raised.  The
earlier clip
was 5.08 minutes. The longer video clip  has the supplementary question by the “one-eye closed”  BN MP for Jasin  who demanded to know what action would be taken against the “kurang ajar” Hindraf demonstration.  It also exposed the hollowness of the reply by the Internal Security  Deputy Minister, Datuk Mohd Johari Baharum that action would be taken against all political leaders who break the law without fear or favour.  Johari was stumped and speechless when I  riposted why no action was taken against Khairy Jamaluddin.

(2) The controversial
Aljazeera interview
of MIC Cameron Highlands MP, S.K. Devamany belitting “the type of people” who took part in the Hindraf demonstration, which he accused as having been “orchestrated” by “irresponsible” people.

The
Sagaladoola
 blog has not only volunteered a transcript of part of the Devamany Aljazeera interview, but posed several pertinent questions to the MIC MP who is now caught between a rock and a hard place.

This is from
Sagaladoola
:

Some important points from the fourth video:

Q: Why then if there is a democratic process in place, you do not allow protests to take place. These people have requested a permit but you turned it down. Why is it necessary?

A: I think the intention was wrong. I think because religion was used and religious issues are very sensitive in this part of the nation. We are a multi-religious nation and things can go out of place and emotions are flaring.

Q: Hold on a minute, you seem to be suggesting the protesters are causing the violence but in fact it was not the case. It was clearly the police that were taking the aggressive stance by firing tear gas and spraying chemicals through water cannons. They were not provoked by the protesters.

A: We have to see the type of people that came for the demonstration. I am not there but I wish that the demonstrators are matured and know how to handle themselves.

Q: Sir, what do you mean by the type of people. Are you referring to the fact that these people are of Indian ethnicity? Is that something that the government cannot accept : Indians taking to the streets?

A: No, No, I don’t think so. I don’t think so. The fifth prime minister has been giving tremendous allowances for openness and errh, feedbacks from the people, the press has been given freedom, legislatively freedom has been given the last four years.

Q: OK.

A: And the result of this response is because also of the openness. And I think the reactions could be instigated by one or two incidences which could have been overshot, overblown and there is a reason. A layman doesn’t exactly know what is being done.

Then, I have more questions to ask the MP from MIC:

1) If it is the openness of the current governance, why aren’t the protesters allowed to march?

2) If laymen do not understand “what is being done”, why didn’t the MPs or members explain it to the laymen and make sure they fully understand way back before the rally?

3) Dear me, are you sure it is only one or two incidences that caused such dissatisfaction? I wish the Indians good luck. I vow to all Indians to perform as suggested by Devamany, do it through the ballot boxes too.

4) Are you really sure the press and legal are really free? Hmmn.. wow… let’s see the newspaper tomorrow.

5) The person is still unable to convince me with his answer on “Why the protest is illegal when the country is supposed to be practising democracy ?”.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 27 November 2007, 8:53 am and is filed under
Human Rights
,
Indians
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Hindraf demo – Cabinet should offer olive branch and end all sabre-rattling

The Barisan Nasional leaders, led by Deputy Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak, should stop their truculent and confrontational responses to the Sunday  30,000 Hindraf demonstration in Kuala Lumpur, as  illustrated by the following:

	Saber-rattling and tough language like newspaper headlines,

“Kerajaan tidak gentar — Perhimpunan Hindraf jelas bermotif politik — Najib”

(Utusan Malaysia)
and
“‘WE WON’T BACK DOWN’ — We will meet the challenge — Najib”

(New Straits Times)
;

	warning of dire action by Umno leaders including the use of Internal Security Act; and

	Condemnation by Barisan Nasional MPs like the MP for Jasin Datuk Mohd Said Yusof branding  the Hindraf leaders as “kurang ajar” and demanding action to be taken against them.

Instead of threatening all sorts of dire consequences against the Hindraf organizers and supporters, the Cabinet should offer an olive branch to acknowledge the legitimacy of the long-standing grievances of the Indian community at becoming the most marginalized group after 50 years of Merdeka by taking the following measures:

	Unconditional release of all 136 Hindraf supporters arrested during Sunday’s demonstration;

	Withdraw all charges and proceedings against Hindraf organizers, including P. Uthayakumar, P. Waytha Moorthy and V. Ganabatirau.

	Establish a commission of inquiry into the police handling of the Hindraf demonstration on Sunday;

	Support the establishment of a parliamentary select committee on the marginalization of the Indian community which should be given three months to submit its first report by early March next year.

In my first parliamentary speech when I returned to Parliament after the 2004 general election, I had called for a Parliamentary Select Committee on the Marginalisation of the Malaysian Indian community, the new underclass in the country.

I  had quoted  the paper “Election 2004: New Politics for Indian Malaysians” presented by “Group of Concerned Citizens” which had summarized nine long-standing fundamental issues faced by Indian Malaysians, as proper agenda  to  constitute the terms of reference of the Parliamentary Select Committee on the Marginalisation of the Malaysian Indian community, viz:

	The number of Indian youth dying in police custody has increased;

	The socio-economic inequality between the Indian poor and rich and between other communities has worsened;

	The State has not responded effectively in addressing social ills in the community;

	The State policies towards and financial allocation for Tamil schools remains pitiful;

	The University intake policy has been a source of major distress for the community;

	The State has not stepped in to help resolve the MAIKA scandal;

	The Kampung Medan racially-motivated killings have not been brought to a closure. No public inquiry was instituted.

	Low cost housing needs of the Indian poor have not been adequately addressed;

	The negative consequences of the final breakdown of the plantation economy on the Indian rural poor have still not be regulated. Aggressive displacement of Indian Malaysians is a serious problem.

There will now have to be a tenth term of reference — the rampant  demolition of Hindu temples and disregard of the religious rights and sensitivities of the Malaysian Indian community.

On June 4, 2004  I had written  to the Works Minister and MIC President, Datuk Seri S. Samy Vellu, asking for his support in Cabinet for the establishment of a Parliamentary Select Committee to break the back of the problem of the marginalization of the Indian community, as the Indians in Malaysia had not  received commensurate benefits from decades of national development.

Although Samy Vellu expressed support for the proposal for the establishment of a Parliamentary Select Committee on the Marginalisation of the Indian Community when he received my letter, nothing has been heard on the matter in the past three years.

Will the Cabinet heed the “cry of desperation” of the Malaysian Indian community as symbolized by the Hindraf demonstration on Sunday — or will it remain, blind, deaf and mute to the growing sense of despair, disillusionment and alienation of Malaysian Indians?

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 27 November 2007, 11:35 am and is filed under
Indians
,
nation building
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


RM4.6 billion PKFZ scandal questions – why Kong Choy cannot give “yes or no” answers?

On the very first day of the current 45-day budget parliamentary session from August 27 to December 19, 2007, I had highlighted the scandal of the RM4.6 billion Port Klang Free Zone bailout in an emergency motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 18(1) for a debate on an issue of urgent, definite public importance as there had been no proper accountability to Parliament whether by the Transport Minister or Finance Minister despite the various exposes in the public domain, such as

	Hanky-panky in the purchase of the 1,000 acres for the PKFZ, despite objections by the Finance Ministry and the Attorney-General’s Chambers.

	Mismanagement resulting in the pull-out of Jebel Ali Free Trade Zone (Jafza) from the project, which could become a “white elephant”.

	Questionable cost-overruns of the PKFZ, ballooning to RM4.63 billion from the original estimate of RM1.1 billion.

	The unlawful and unauthorized Transport Ministry issue of four “letters of support” which were used by the turnkey contractor – Kuala Dimensi Sdn Bhd (KDSB) – to raise RM4.6 billion bonds and get an AAA rating from the Malaysia Rating Corporation Bhd. for the PKFZ project.

	Why the government and the 26 million Malaysians must now bear responsibility for a RM4.6 billion PKFZ bailout despite earlier assurances that the PKFZ project would be feasible, self-financing and would not involve a single ringgit of public funds.

	 Why the Prime Minister is breaching his undertaking of no bailout of mega-billion-ringgit “white elephant” projects — with the PKFZ bailout set to be the biggest financial scandal at the beginning of any Prime Minister.

However, my emergency motion on the first day of the current meeting of Parliament was rejected by the Speaker, Tan Sri Ramli Ngah as not urgent.

Since then, for the past three months, I had repeatedly sought to demand government accountability for the RM4.6 billion PKFZ bailout scandal but to no avail, as I came up against the wall of prevarication and evasion, with the ball kicked from one Ministry to another, namely the Transport Ministry, the Finance Ministry and the Prime Minister’s Department. Nobody wanted wanting to give a proper answer or accept accountability, with everyone either falsely claiming that it had already been answered or would be answered by another Ministry.

I had raised the RM4.6 billion PKFZ bailout scandal during the policy and committee stages of the debate on the 2007 Supplementary Estimates and the 2008 Budget but Parliament and the nation have still to get satisfactory answers.

When I raised the issue during the 2008 Budget committee stage debate on the Prime Minister’s Department, the Minister concerned, Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz said questions on the PKFZ scandal should rightly be answered by the Transport Minister.

When I again raised the issue three Mondays ago during the committee stage of the debate on the Finance Ministry, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Finance Ministry, Datuk Seri Dr. Hilmi Yahya said he would answer by way of written reply. I asked for the written answer to be given within a week. Hilmi was non-committal. More than two weeks have passed and I am still waiting. What has Hilmi got to hide about the RM4.6 billion PKFZ scandal?

It was precisely because of this record and background of prevarication and evasion of accountability that I strongly protested last week at a “government-on-the-run” when the Transport Minister, Datuk Seri Chan Kong Choy left for London to attend the 25th International Maritime Organisation (IMO) Assembly, which would mean another escape-act by the Minister from parliamentary responsibility and accountability over the RM4.6 billion PKFZ bailout scandal as the Transport Ministry was scheduled to be debated last Thursday.

At least the protest achieved the effect of ensuring that the Transport Ministry committee stage debate is put off from last week till today to enable the Minister to be back from London to come to Parliament to assume responsibility and accountability for his Ministerial portfolios.

I hope this will be the end of prevarications and evasions and a government on-the-run on the RM4.6 billion PKFZ bailout scandal.

I had in fact simplified the many questions on the RM4.6 billion PKFZ scandal which cry out for answer to five major ones, viz:

1. Was it true that when the Port Klang Authority and the Transport Ministry insisted on buying the 1,000 acres of Pulau Indah land for PKFZ at RM25 psf on a “willing buyer, willing seller” basis, in the face of strong objection by the Attorney-General’s Chambers and the Treasury which had recommended that the land be acquired at RM10 psf, the Cabinet had given its approval subject to two conditions: (i) categorical assurance by the Transport Minister that the PKFZ proposal was feasible and self-financing and would not require any public funding; and (ii) that every RM100 million variation in the development costs of PKFZ would require prior Cabinet approval.

2. In the event, the first condition was breached when the PKFZ project ballooned from RM1.1 billion to RM4.6 billion requiring government intervention and bailout while the second condition was breached with the original PKFZ development costs of RM400 million ballooning to RM2.8 billion without any prior Cabinet approval ever been sought for every RM100 million increase in development costs.

3. The Transport Minister had unlawfully issued four Letters of Support to Kuala Dimensi Sdn. Bhd (KDSB), the PKFZ turnkey contractor — to raise RM4 billion bonds, which were regarded as government guarantees by the market. The Transport Minister had no such powers to issue financial guarantees committing the government, as it could only be issued by the Finance Minister and only after Cabinet approval. The first Letter of Support was issued by the former Transport Minister, Tun Dr. Ling Liong Sik on May 28, 2003, which was Liong Sik’s last day as Transport Minister while the other three were issued by Kong Choy.

4. Whether it wasn’t true that in recognition that the four unlawful “Letters of Support” of the Transport Minister had nonetheless given implicit government guarantee to the market that the Cabinet had in mid-year to give retrospective approval for the unlawful and unauthorized four Letters of Support by the Transport Ministers in the past four years creating RM4.6 billion liability for the government in the bailout of PKFZ.

5. Why no action had been taken against the Transport Minister, both Liong Sik and Kong Choy, as well as the government officials responsible for the unlawful issue of the four “Letters of Support”. Kong Choy had said that he did not know that he had no power as Transport Minister to issue such Letters of Support. Was this acceptable explanation for getting the government embroiled in the RM4.6 billion PKFZ scandal?

I have raised these questions of accountability, integrity and good governance many times in the current meeting of Parliament, but I have not been able to get any clear-cut answers.

Why is it impossible for the Transport Minister to give a simple “yes or no” answer to these questions if he has nothing to hide in the RM4.6 billion PKFZ scandal?

The time has come not only for the Transport Minister but also for  the Prime Minister to end the conspiracy of denial-cum-silence about the RM4.6 billion PKFZ bailout as the largest financial scandal at the start of any Prime Minister in Malaysia — even bigger than the RM2.5 billion Bumiputra Malaysia Finance (BMF) scandal which led off the Mahathir premiership more than two decades ago.

If the Mahathir premiership could appoint a three-man Ahmad Nordin public inquiry into the RM2.5 billion BMF scandal, why is Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi not prepared to “walk the talk” of his pledge to lead a clean, incorruptible, accountable, transparent, trustworthy  and responsible administration by establishing a public inquiry into the RM4.6 billion PKFZ scandal?

There should be a public inquiry to find out who had been the beneficiaries of the RM4.6 billion PKFZ scandal –  whether  personalities from MCA, Umno as well as the BN MP for Bintulu, Datuk Seri  Tiong King Sing.

The issue of four “letters of support” by the Transport Minister for the RM3.8 billion bonds issued by KDSB, which were regarded as government guarantees, resulting in 3A ratings by Malaysia Rating Corporation Berhad (MARC) remains unanswered.

This is unlawful and gross abuse of power as only the Cabinet can authorize such government guarantee for bonds and which can only be issued by the Finance Ministry. The four letters of support had never been authorized by the Cabinet.

The first letter of support was issued by the former Transport Minister, Datuk Seri Ling Liong Sik and the three others by Chan Kong Choy.

I  had challenge any Cabinet Minister to deny that it was precisely because the government accepts that the Transport Minister’s “letters of support” were tantamount to government guarantees for KDSB’s RM4.6 billion bonds that the the Cabinet has recently given retrospective  approval to the unauthorized government guarantees to the KDSB bonds based on the four letters of support of the Transport Minister.

As a result,  the Cabinet also approved the RM4.6 billion bailout of the PKFZ scandal.

The  even more question is why no punitive action had been taken against the Transport Minister concerned who had unlawfully issued letters of support for KDSB’s RM4.6 billion bonds, which have forced the Cabinet to give them retrospective approval and the  RM4.6 billion PKFZ bailout.

The first letter of support for the first issue of RM1.31 billion bonds by KDSB was issued by the former Transport Minister, Datuk Seri Ling Liong Sik on May 28, 2003 which was his last day as Transport Minister before going on a month’s leave and resignation.

Was the signing of the unlawful letter of support fror KDSB’s first issue of RM1.31 billion bonds Ling’s last act as Transport Minister?  This raises grave questions about propriety and  integrity of Ling in his last day in office as Transport Minister  which must be thoroughly investigated.

Why has Liong Sik not been investigated and charged in court for gross abuse of power in his last day as Transport Minister, starting the process resulting in the RM4.6 billion PKFZ bailout scandal?

The same question applies to Kong Choy.   Is it acceptable that he did not know as Transport Minister that he did not have the power to issue such Letters of Support, which could only be made by the Finance Minister and after approval by Cabinet?

There is no better answer than the one given by one poster on my blog, Jeffrey, as follows:

“No, it is not acceptable. A Minister cannot plead ignorance regarding what he is authorised or not authorised to do as an excuse — and yet claim he is not half past six.

“It is ironical that if a bank officer exceeds his authority in a loan approval by a few hundred thousand Ringgit he can be prosecuted under Banking and Financial Institutional Act for jeopardizing public funds but where a minister exceeded his authority committing public funds measured in terms of billions of Ringgit he is not only not held accountable but the government ratified his unauthorized acts.”

There is another reason why it is completely unacceptable for Kong Choy to plead ignorance, for he was the Deputy Finance Minister for close to four years from Dec. 1999 to June 2003, before he was elevated as Transport Minister.

I am moving a RM10 cut motion not only because of the RM4.6 billion PKFZ scandal, Chan’s role as Transport Minister but also for the long record of prevarication and evasion of accountability and responsibility.

[Speech on the RM10 salary-cut motion for the Transport Minister, Chan Kong Choy, over the RM4.6 billion Port Klang Free Zone (PKFZ) bailout scandal in the Dewan Rakyat on Tuesday, 27th November 2007]

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 27 November 2007, 5:10 pm and is filed under
Parliament
,
PKFZ
,
Transport
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Abdullah’s threat to use ISA – nadir in 4 years of broken pledges on democracy, human rights, accountability, integrity

The Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi returned from the Kampala Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM) and
threatened
 to use the nefarious law, the Internal Security Act (ISA), against peaceful demonstrators — marking a new nadir of the four-year broken pledges by the  Abdullah premiership on democracy, human rights, accountability, incorruptibility and preparedness to hear the truth from the people.

Yesterday,
Aljazeera
reported the controversy in Japan over the Education Ministry’s latest effort to revise school history textbooks on one of the most notorious wartime incidents in Japan, where the Japanese military ordered and sometimes forced the islanders to commit suicide during the US invasion of Okinawa in the closing days of the second world war. There was a peaceful demonstration of more than 100,000 people in Okinawa  to protest against the Japanese Education Ministry’s instruction to textbook publishers to edit out all references to the military’s role in the mass suicides.

Abdullah wants Malaysians to have “First-World Infrastructure, First-World Mentality” and not “First-World Infrastructure, Third-World Mentality” and it is time for the government to set the example of such “First-World Mentality” and mindset by accepting the important role of peaceful demonstrations in a first-world developed nation like Japan, United Kingdom, Australia and  United States for their citizenry to exercise their democratic rights on freedom of expression and assembly.

What chance and hope of Malaysia becoming a nation with “First-World Mentality” when the government is the worst culprit of having “Third-World” and even “Fourth-World” mindsets, as in threatening to invoke the notorious Internal Security Act?

Many have asked whether mass ISA arrests like the infamous Operation Lalang in 1987, which led to major assaults on the independence and integrity of the judiciary, the emasculation of press freedom and the suppression of a vibrant civil society, is possible under Abdullah’s premiership.

With Abdullah’s threat to use the ISA yesterday, such a scenario now appears more and more likely  – and I call on  Abdullah to make clear his real stand on democracy, human rights, accountability, incorruptibility and preparedness to hear the truth from the people.

DAP Deputy Secretary-General and MP for Bukit Mertajam, Chong Eng and I were at the Selayang magistrate’s court this morning where some 50 people who had been detained at the Batu Caves Temple on Sunday’s Hindraf demonstration and had been released on bail were waiting to be charged for an illegal assembly.

I met many of them and found that they are mostly respectable and law-abiding Malaysian citizens, business people, technicians, contractors, clerks and even executive and management  officers, a group of people who cannot be further from the term “penyangak” used by the Minister in  the Prime Minister’s Department, Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz yesterday.

Referring to the Hindraf demonstration,
Nazri
 said:

“Some 20,000 penyangak (crooks) who participated in the rally would not jeopardise our viewpoint of the entire community.”

I am shocked and saddened by Nazri’s language, condemning the 30,000 decent and respectable people who came from all over the country to peacefully and collectively express their cry of desperation for justice at the long-standing neglect and discrimination of their rights as Malaysian citizens.

Who is a
penyangak
? Kamus Dewan defines
“penyangak”
 as
“pencuri, penjahat”
.

Does the MIC President, Datuk Seri Samy Vellu and all MIC members of the administration, whether Deputy Minister, Parliamentary Secretary, MP or Senator, agree with Nazri that the 30,000 people who turned up for the Hindraf demonstration on Sunday are crooks and rogues, and that the Hindraf rally was a
“gathering of crooks”
?

Nazri should apologise unconditionally for this insult, not only to the 30,000 people at the Hindraf demonstration but also to  the entire Indian community and Malaysian nation.  Samy Vellu and the entire MIC team in the administration should insist that Nazri withdraw the term and apologise for it without any qualification whatsoever.

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 28 November 2007, 1:28 pm and is filed under
Human Rights
,
Indians
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


High-handed police action at Hindraf rally — Indian diaspora reacts

Monday’s press carried reports and photographs of a  foreign woman  tourist in the Kuala Lumpur centre on Sunday who was the victim of indiscriminate police tear gas attacks which aggravated her asthmatic condition.

In the era of globalization, the earth has become a global village and it is impossible for Malaysia to disregard international reactions to local events if we are to enhance our international competitiveness whether in attracting tourists or foreign investors.

Peaceful demonstrations do not scare tourists.  It is high-handed police actions and the  mishandling of peaceful demonstrations as happened with regard to the Hindraf rally in Kuala Lumpur on Sunday which drive away tourists and investors.

For example, in countries with a  very flourishing tourist industry like the United Kingdom, Australia and  United States,  peaceful demonstrations are quite common and do not have any effect in scaring away tourists.

During question time this morning, I had asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Foreign Ministry,  Datuk Ahmad Shabery Chik  whether there had been adverse reactions from the Indian diaspora or whether the Ministry is expecting any from the police mishandling of the Hindraf rally.

Although Ahmad Shabery replied in the negative, the truth is otherwise.  The Indian media have reported adverse reactions to the government handling of the Hindraf demonstration — media like
Hindu India
,
Hindustan Times India
,
Times of India
,
CNN-IBN India
,
Zee News India
,
News Today India
 and
The Tribune India
.

Malaysiakini
 has the following report:

Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has been urged to take immediate action concerning the state of the Indians in Malaysia.

The premier’s intervention was sought by Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M Karunanidhi and other politicians in the state following the mass rally held on Nov 25 in Kuala Lumpur.

According to the Hindu newspaper, Karunanidhi wrote to Manmohan on Tuesday asking him to employ the necessary measures regarding the “sufferings and bad treatment” of Tamils in Malaysia.

Karunanidhi said the people of Tamil Nadu were disturbed over the happenings in Kuala Lumpur.

If Malaysia is to optimize our potential to attract world tourists to Malaysia, the country and government must be prepared to adopt the best international practices on  democracy, human rights, accountability and good governance.

This morning, DAP MP for Bukit Mertajam, Chong Eng and I were at the Selayang magistrate’s court where some 50 people were waiting to be charged for an illegal assembly in connection with the Hindraf demonstration.

Yesterday, the Minister in  the Prime Minister’s Department, Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz labeled the Hindraf demonstrators as “penyangak” when he said:

“Some 20,000 penyangak (crooks) who participated in the rally would not jeopardise our viewpoint of the entire community.”

The people I met at Selayang Court awaiting to be charged for an illegal assembly in connection with the Hindraf rally on Sunday are  mostly respectable and law-abiding Malaysian citizens, business people, technicians, contractors, clerks and even executive and management  officers.

How can Nazri call them “penyangak” which according to  Kamus Dewan means “pencuri, penjahat”.

Nazri should apologise for his  language in  condemning the 30,000 decent and respectable people from all over the country to peacefully and collectively express their cry of desperation for justice as Malaysian citizens.

(Speech  on the 2008 Committee Stage debate on Ministry of Tourism in Parliament on Wednesday 28th November 2007)

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 28 November 2007, 4:03 pm and is filed under
Human Rights
,
Indians
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


RM4.6 billion  PKFZ scandal – Chan Kong Choy still Minister-on-the-run

MCA Deputy President and Transport Minister, Datuk Chan Kong Choy has confirmed that he is a Minister-on-the-run  from his  sheer inability to answer five simplified questions on the RM4.6 billion Port Klang Free Zone scandal in Parliament yesterday.

When moving a RM10 salary-cut motion for the Transport Minister yesterday, I tried to make things easy for Chan by reducing the public furore over the RM4.6 billion PKFZ scandal into five simplified questions, viz:

1. Was it true that when the Port Klang Authority and the Transport Ministry insisted on buying the 1,000 acres of Pulau Indah land for PKFZ at RM25 psf on a “willing buyer, willing seller” basis, in the face of strong objection by the Attorney-General’s Chambers and the Treasury which had recommended that the land be acquired at RM10 psf, the Cabinet had given its approval subject to two conditions: (i) categorical assurance by the Transport Minister that the PKFZ proposal was feasible and self-financing and would not require any public funding; and (ii) that every RM100 million variation in the development costs of PKFZ would require prior Cabinet approval.

2. In the event, the first condition was breached when the PKFZ project ballooned from RM1.1 billion to RM4.6 billion requiring government intervention and bailout while the second condition was breached with the original PKFZ development costs of RM400 million ballooning to RM2.8 billion without any prior Cabinet approval ever been sought for every RM100 million increase in development costs.

3. The Transport Minister had unlawfully issued four Letters of Support to Kuala Dimensi Sdn. Bhd (KDSB), the PKFZ turnkey contractor — to raise RM4 billion bonds, which were regarded as government guarantees by the market. The Transport Minister had no such powers to issue financial guarantees committing the government, as it could only be issued by the Finance Minister and only after Cabinet approval. The first Letter of Support was issued by the former Transport Minister, Tun Dr. Ling Liong Sik on May 28, 2003, which was Liong Sik’s last day as Transport Minister while the other three were issued by Kong Choy.

4. Whether it wasn’t true that in recognition that the four unlawful “Letters of Support” of the Transport Minister had nonetheless given implicit government guarantee to the market that the Cabinet had in mid-year to give retrospective approval for the unlawful and unauthorized four Letters of Support by the Transport Ministers in the past four years creating RM4.6 billion liability for the government in the bailout of PKFZ.

5. Why no action had been taken against the Transport Minister, both Liong Sik and Kong Choy, as well as the government officials responsible for the unlawful issue of the four “Letters of Support”. Kong Choy had said that he did not know that he had no power as Transport Minister to issue such Letters of Support. Was this acceptable explanation for getting the government embroiled in the RM4.6 billion PKFZ scandal?

After each question, I specifically asked Chan to give a “yes or not” answer — to  deny if the facts I had mentioned were untrue, and  to explain and justify what he and the government had done if what I had said was undisputed and true.

In his reply, Chan completely ignored the five simplified questions on the core issues of the RM4.6 billion PKFZ scandal, as well as other questions which I had posed, including:

	How Chan could claim that he did not know that as Transport Minister he did not have the powers to issue Letters of Support which were tantamount to government guarantees in the issue of RM4 billion bonds by Kuala Dimensi Sdn. Bhd, as only the Finance Minister had such powers and also after getting prior approval by the Cabinet.  How can Chan claim ignorance of this  important financial principle when Chan had been Deputy Finance Minister for close to four years from Dec. 1999 to June 2003?  Did Chan completely waste his close to four years as Deputy Finance Minister and learnt nothing?

	Why Chan did not seek the advice of the Legal Adviser of the Ministry of Transport on whether he had the authority and powers to sign the Letters of Support but relied instead on advisers from outside the Ministry?

	Why for more than three years from May 2003 to December 2006,  the Finance Ministry was in the dark and completely unaware that four unauthorized Letters of Support involving RM4 billion  bonds had been issued by the Transport Minister as it was only in December 2006 that the Treasury was informed by the lead arranger for the bonds that such Letters of Support had been issued by the Transport Minister and that they constituted government guarantees for the bond issues?  Isn’t this shocking evidence of a shambolic government, with the right hand not knowing what the left hand is doing?

Chan spent all his time in his reply yesterday claiming that he was not running away from Parliament by going to London to attend the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) assembly, explaining how important it was for Malaysia.

I have no objections to Chan attending the IMO Assembly in London, but it cannot be used as an excuse for him to run away from his responsibility to be in Parliament to account for the biggest financial scandal in the Abdullah premiership — the RM4.6 billion PKFZ scandal –  which comes directly under his portfolio.

It was because I had publicly protested that Chan would not be present in Parliament to face my censure motion against him in the form of the RM10 salary cut motion over the RM4.6 billion PKFZ bailout scandal if the 2008 Budget committee stage debate on his  Ministry had come up as originally scheduled last Thursday that the debate on the Transport Ministry was postponed till yesterday.

However, although Chan was shamed into making his personal appearance in Parliament during the RM10 salary cut of his Minister’s pay by postponing the debate until his return from London, he remained a  Minister-on-the run in his refusal to give any answer to the five simplified questions or other issues relating to the RM4.6 billion PKFZ scandal.

As I said in Parliament yesterday, when Chan refused to give way for any clarification during his reply, with Chan in Parliament back from London, he is not on-the-run physically, but he continues to be on-the-run intellectually on the PKFZ scandal, continuing his prevarication and evasion of the many pertinent issues concerned.

This is a most shameful parliamentary performance for a Minister who is also No. 2 of MCA.

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 28 November 2007, 1:37 pm and is filed under
Good Governance
,
Parliament
,
PKFZ
,
Transport
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Hindraf, Communitarianism and the Made-In-Malaysia Dilemma

By
Farish A.Noor

Well, well, well… . Now it appears as if the proverbial chickens have come home to roost. Following the less-than-welcomed but to-be-expected reaction from some Indian politicians and political parties in neighbouring India in the wake of the recent demonstration in Kuala Lumpur organised by the Malaysian Hindu Rights Action Force (Hindraf), it would appear as if some of those who walk the corridors of power in Malaysia have gotten a little flustered and hot behind the ears. But are we really surprised by the global reaction that has come in the wake of the Hindraf rally, and should we be surprised if this spins into a regional, if not international issue that brings into the fray representative groups of the Indian global diaspora?

That the reaction of Hindu groups based in India was so fast should not be seen as novel by anyone. After all, similar reactions were seen when the Chinese minority were singled out in the bloody racial pogroms of Indonesia in 1998, when hundreds of Chinese homes and shops in cities like Jakarta were put to the torch by hordes of racist right wing Indonesians looking for a scapegoat to blame for the economic crisis on 1997-98. (The cause of which, we should remember, was the economic mismanagement and corruption of the Suharto regime between 1970 to 1998.) Then, as now, the minority that was persecuted and victimised turned to the global diaspora for help, and surely it came: Millions of Chinese from China to the United States join in a global campaign to defend the Chinese of Indonesia. Though what this did was offer only temporary respite for the victims of the race attacks then. What it really did was divide Indonesian society even further, pitting the Chinese against the indigenous Indonesians, and worse of all underlining the fiction that the Chinese were somehow a community distinct and apart that were ‘alien’ and ‘foreign’ to the norm. Sadly, what the reaction did was to add to the erasure of the long-term presence of the Chinese in the Indonesian archipelago, many of whom had been there for at least five generations and who were as Indonesian as the next person on the street…

Now to turn to what happened in Kuala Lumpur last weekend, we see some disturbing parallels at work:

It has been raised by others (in numerous blogs and articles available on-line) that the language used in the Hindraf memorandum was somewhat inflammatory and not exactly calculated to endear the group to the other communities of Malaysia. One is struck by how, yet again, a simplistic oppositional dichotomy of ‘Us’ against ‘Them’ was used to galvanise support and mobilise people on the street, on the basis of a singular theme: that the ‘Indians of Malaysia’ are ‘under threat’ from a host of factors that range from Malay supremacy to radical Islamisation. Understandably the hottest issues then appeared to be the recent controversial cases of marriages and divorces between Muslims and Hindus, and the shameful and wanton destruction of so many Hindu temples across the country.

One could, however, argue that there are deeper issues at stake, which are socio-economic, structural and institutional ones, and these should not be re-interpreted and twisted at will to present the matter in ethnic light with racial overtones. The fact remains that the community in question — Malaysians of South Asian origin — remain among the poorest and least represented in fields like education, the civil service, private sector, media and even advertising. It is the economic marginalisation of the community, made worse by structural imbalances in the system and compounded by the divisive communitarian politics of Malaysia, that has made their lot

a particularly sorry one.

But surely to correct these problems that are structural and institutional, we also need structural and institutional remedies? To call on greater Indian-Hindu solidarity may serve as the bonding capital needed to bring a political constituency together, but it also denies them the bridging capital that is vitally required to make theirs a national concern and goal for all of us.

Many prominent writers and activists who reside in cyberspace have stated their reasons for not supporting Hindraf or attending their rally. Primarily most of them have stated that they did not wish to endorse any campaign that further divides Malaysian society along sectarian religio-racial lines, and we can only concur with their opinion on the matter. No, Malaysia doesn’t need more racist politics of this sort, even if it is couched on a vocabulary of collective victimhood.

But let us all note one thing at least: While the leaders and supporters of Hindraf may have resorted to the politics of race and religious-based communitarianism to further a specific goal in mind, we should not really be surprised if they had done so. This is Malaysia, remember: the same multi-culti country that has been run and governed by the same tired and worn-out coalition of ideologically bankrupt right-wing communitarian race and religious-based parties for half a century. Those fellow Malaysians who marched on Sunday are the children of a nation-building project that has failed utterly and miserably, and they merely reflect the racialised mindset of so many Malaysian politicians today who are no better.

So while we may disagree with the tone and tenor of Hindraf’s communitarian political-speak, let us not miss the wood for the trees. Hindraf did not invent racialised communitarian politics in Malaysia, it was the component of the Barisan Nasional parties that did, and continue to do so.

Hindraf did not begin a new trend of race and religious-based political  association and collectivism in Malaysia: it was the older race and religious-based parties and movements like UMNO, PAS and ABIM that did, and continue to do so.

Hindraf did not invent the language of racial and religious identification in Malaysia, for these terms were already hoisted on them and the minority communities of Malaysia by the state, the mainstream media and the conservative reactionary forces in this country long ago. It was the politicians, political analysts, media commentators and communitarian activists who referred, for instance, to the Hindu temples of Malaysia as ‘Indian temples’; and who continue to refer to Malaysians of South Asian origin as ‘Indians’ or the ‘Indian community’.

For the information of all and sundry, those temples that were bulldozed were not ‘Indian temples’ but Malaysian temples, built on Malaysian soil, frequented by Malaysians, paid for by Malaysians and they were part of the Malaysian landscape. There are no ‘Indian Temples’ in Malaysia – Indian temples exist in India and if you don’t believe me then fly to India and check them out yourself. Likewise the only ‘Indians’ in Malaysia are the tourists, expats and workers who come from India and happen to be Indian nationals bearing Indian passports. Those Hindus who marched in the streets of Kuala Lumpur on Sunday happen to be Malaysians like you.

For the sake of the Hindu Malaysians, and all other minority communities in this country, one hopes that such simple ground rules and facts would be borne in mind as we try our hardest to win back this country for all of us, the Malaysian people themselves. The gallery of amateurs who make up today’s government may bemoan the fact that significant sections of the Malaysian public have lost all confidence and trust in the system that they have helped to create, but no amount of spin can alter the fact that the Hindraf demo was a symptom of what has gone wrong in this country. If Hindraf is to be accused of communitarianism and exclusivism in its politics, then we need only to look at the mould from which it emerged: a cauldron of racialised, divisive and exclusive politics that clearly bears the made-in-Malaysia stamp, a symptom of the ills of our times and the failure of the state.

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 29 November 2007, 6:51 am and is filed under
Farish Noor
,
Indians
,
nation building
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Hindraf demo – BN Ministers and leaders should have at least 30% of Toh Kin Woon’s sincerity and honesty

When Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi became the fifth Prime Minister  on 30th October 2003, he made the famous pledge to “hear the truth, however unpleasant”,  which he had infamously  dishonoured in the past four years.

Recently, Abdulah’s pledge to “hear the truth” was ignomiously revised by the  Information Minister, Datuk Seri Zainuddin Maidin as applying only to Barisan Nasional leaders and government officials but not  to the media , the civil society or the ordinary Malaysian public!

In the past four years, however, Barisan Nasional Ministers and leaders had  been afflicted by the “Dare not speak the truth to Pak Lah” syndrome.

This has resulted in the least hands-on Prime Minister in the nation’s history but with the most Ministerial portfolios (trebling as Minister for Finance and Minister for Internal Security) setting a new record in Malaysian political history  as a Prime Minister who has lost touch with the national pulse in the shortest time ever  since assuming the highest political office of the land.

It is refreshing that in this ocean of  distortions, half-truths and downright lies passing off as “truth”,  Gerakan Penang State Executive Councillor,
Dr. Toh Kin Woon
has gloriously broken ranks in a letter to
Malayaiakini
yesterday declaring that it is the people’s “discontent and unhappiness that will be a greater threat to our country’s peace and stability, rather than the marches, pickets and demonstrations”.

I call on Barisan Nasional Ministers and leaders to have at least 30% of Toh Kin Woon’s sincerity and honesty to speak the truth to the Prime Minister whether about the “Walk for Justice” of 2,000 lawyers organized by the Bar Council for restoration of the independence and integrity of the judiciary; the 40,000-strong  Bersih rally in support of  electoral reforms for  clean, free and fair elections; the 30,000-strong  Hindraf demonstration on the socio-economic and cultural plight of the Malaysian Indians particularly the lower strata; or the numerous pickets by the Malaysian Trades Union Congress and trade unions for higher salaries to meet rising costs of living so burdensome to the workers.

So far, there is only one Barisan Nasional leader — a state Exco from Penang  -who is prepared to call a spade a spade and tell Abdullah the truth.

Are there no other Barisan Nasional leader, occupying higher and more important government and party positions whether at the national or  state level, who could back up Toh Kin Woon to start the process of telling the Prime Minister the truth?

What about MIC’s Samy Vellu, Gerakan’s Datuk Seri Dr. Lim Keng Yaik and Tan Sri Dr. Koh Tsu Koon, MCA’s Datuk Seri Ong Ka Ting and the other three MCA Ministers?  Is there none from the Barisan Nasional component parties in Sabah and Sarawak? Is there not a single Umno Minister or leader who could be relied upon to speak the unvarnished truth?

That the  syndrome of “Dare not tell Pak Lah the truth” is very advanced and even terminal is highlighted by the refusal of the  Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz yesterday to withdraw and apologise for his offensive and unwarranted slur of the supporters of the Hindraf demonstration in Kuala Lumpur on Sunday as “penyangak” when he said on Tuesday:

“Some 20,000 penyangak (crooks) who participated in the rally would not jeopardise our viewpoint of the entire community.”

Nazri not only compounded the offence he committed by repeating the slur of “penyangak” but also in claiming that  his action was vindicated by the Cabinet which discussed the Hindraf demonstration yesterday.

Are there no shadows of Toh Kin Woon among the Ministers and leadership of the Barisan Nasional component parties — or is Toh a completely lone voice in the Barisan Nasional wilderness?

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 29 November 2007, 10:22 am and is filed under
Human Rights
,
Indians
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Hindraf demo – Indian Parliament in uproar over Nazri’s outburst

Malaysian Ministers must get rid of the “frog in coconut shell” mentality and learn the first basic rule of global society — we must accept and withstand international scrutiny of national policies in the same way Malaysian leaders castigate  injustices of other countries like the Palestinian  and Iraq issues.

Only yesterday, the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi spoke up for the
 Palestinians
and criticized  oppressive Israeli policies — and rightly so.  Similarly, with the frequent Malaysian government criticisms of United States policy in Iraq.

However,  Malaysian leaders cannot demand double-standards in international society where they exercise  the right to criticize unfair policies of foreign governments like the hot-button  Palestinian and Iraq issues and yet claim the privilege of being spared from international scrutiny by foreign governments and leaders on Malaysian events and developments.

This is why the
outburst
of the Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz on Wednesday  telling off the Tamil Nadu  Chief Minister M. Karunanidhi to
“butt out”
 and not to interfere in Malaysian internal affairs for the Tamil Nadu leader’s comments on  Sunday’s Hindraf demonstration is so ridiculous and out-of-place, as if the Malaysian government is insisting on the  unilateral special rights of  not being subject to any international scrutiny for its national policies  while enjoying  the liberty to  speak out against international  injustices like those affecting the Palestinians and Iraqis.

Nazri’s outburst at Karunanidhi’s call to the Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh  to take immediate and appropriate action to end the “sufferings and bad treatment” of Tamils in Malaysia was given extensive coverage in the Indian media — just like the subsequent  Karunanidhi’s reaction to Nazri’s outburst.

For instance, the
Calcutta Telegraph
 in its report headlined

“Malaysian courtesy: Lay off – Karunanidhi’s plea on Tamil rights sparks war of words”
 said:

Karunanidhi today said it was his “duty” to “defend” Tamils and he was prepared to accept any “punishment” for doing so.

Told about the comments of Aziz, the chief minister said: “If there is any punishment for doing the duty, I am prepared to accept it.”

Karunanidhi pointed out that he did not criticise the Malaysian government. “I don’t want to reply to his (Aziz’s) remarks. I don’t want to get into a tit for tat. It is my duty to defend Tamils.”

The
Calcutta Telegraph
also reported on the Indian Parliament scene on the Sunday Hindraf demonstration in Kuala Lumpur –

Today, MPs from Tamil Nadu disrupted both Houses of Parliament, demanding that New Delhi pressure Kuala Lumpur to protect ethnic Indians there.

Some MPs raised slogans against Malaysia and demanded the Indian foreign minister make a statement on the issue, forcing proceedings in the Lok Sabha to be suspended briefly.

“We have expressed our concern over the condition of Indian-origin Tamils in Malaysia,” said CPI leader D. Raja, who hails from Tamil Nadu.

“They are subjected to repression and discrimination. They are fighting for equality with other sections of Malaysian people.”

The
Economic Times of India
  today  also reported the
“uproar”
 in the Indian Parliament caused by Nazri’s response  to Karunanidhi.

It said Nazri’s remarks “created a ruckus in Parliament, with parliamentarians demanding that the government, which has remained silent on the matter, take up the issue with Kuala Lumpur.”

It reported:

Lok Sabha members from Tamil Nadu, cutting across party lines, on Thursday came out in full force to denounce the reported discrimination of ethnic Indians. Their noisy protest, which also got support from some other sections of the House, prompted the Speaker to adjourn the proceedings for half an hour.

Led by Congress member SK Kharaventhan, the agitated MPs spoke about purported ethnic discrimination against Indians, mostly people of Tamil origin, in Malaysia, and demanded that New Delhi address this issue immediately. As the members urged the central government to take steps to “protect” the ethnic Indians in Malaysia, Speaker Somnath Chatterjee, cautious of the diplomatic sensitivity involved in the matter, asked them not to say anything that would affect relations with the friendly country.

As their protest gained momentum, some members from the BJP benches were heard referring to the alleged demolition of temples in Malaysia. On his part, the Speaker ordered some reference to the reported police attack on the Indians. “We are a very responsible democracy. We don’t discuss… any other country in such a manner,” he said. ..

In the Rajya Sabha, too, Tamil Nadu MPs registered their protest, prompting deputy chairman K Rahman Khan to come out with an assurance that the government would definitely take note of it.

The BJP asked the government to raise the issue before the UN and the Commonwealth while the CPI expressed concern over “discrimination and repression’ of people of Indian origin.”

The Malaysian Government and Cabinet  must be mindful of these international repercussions which must be fully taken into account in any decisions taken by the government and police in a proper handling of the Hindraf demonstration to ensure that they  can withstand international scrutiny from all viewpoints whether nation-building policies or international best practices on democracy and human rights.

                This entry was posted on Friday, 30 November 2007, 5:20 pm and is filed under
Foreign
,
Human Rights
,
Indians
,
nation building
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Hindraf demo – only two honourable options for Samy Vellu

The Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi kicking the ball back to the Malaysian Indian Congress (MIC) to set up another committee  on the plight of Malaysian Indians  is  a  great letdown after the 30,000-strong Hindraf demonstration — which was both a cry of desperation for justice of Malaysian Indians at becoming a new underclass and a powerful vote of no confidence in Datuk Seri S.  Samy Vellu after more than 28 years as MIC President and Cabinet Minister.

Samy Vellu’s
revelation
  yesterday that after meeting the Prime Minister on Wednesday, Abdullah had asked MIC to set up a special committee to analyse and address socio-economic problems faced by the Indian community is further proof of the advanced denial syndrome of the Barisan Nasional government.

It is also powerful vindication of the
critique
 by the Penang State Exco, Dr. Toh Kin Woon that the Abdullah administration had failed ordinary  Malaysians in the past four years in being impervious and insensitive to their  “grievances, frustrations and  unhappiness”, giving force to his contention that “it is this discontent and unhappiness that will be a greater threat to our country’s peace and stability, rather than the marches, pickets and demonstrations.”

The worst possible responses to the Hindraf demonstration by the government are two — one,  to persecute the organizers and supporters of the Hindraf demonstration as “bad hats” and “trouble-makers” and two, refusing to acknowledge the legitimacy of the “grievances, frustrations and unhappiness” of the Malaysian Indians which have transformed the Hindraf demonstration into such a powerful expression  of protest and alienation.

Both these “worst responses” have been adopted.

Firstly, organisers and supporters of the Hindraf demonstration are being persecuted and prosecuted.

Secondly, asking the MIC to set up another committee after three decades of neglect and marginalization of the Malaysian Indian community is no different from dismissing or treating flippantly  the root causes of the Hindraf demonstration.

It is also adding salt to injury as Samy Vellu and MIC must bear full responsibility for the relentless political, economic, educational, social, cultural and religious  marginalization of the Indian community in  the past 28 years (the period Samy Vellu was MIC President and Cabinet Minister) until they have become a new underclass in Malaysia.

The proper and responsible government response is for the Cabinet and Parliament to  heed the views of Toh Kin Woon and concede the legitimacy of the “grievances, frustrations and unhappiness” of the Malaysian Indians resulting in the 30,000 Hindraf demonstration and to adopt a new strategy to address and resolve them — by way of a new policy for a New Deal to end the Marginalisation of the Malaysian Indian community.

However, when the ball is kicked back to the MIC without Cabinet and Parliament acknowledging the legitimacy of the long history of “grievances, frustrations and unhappiness” leading up to the Hindraf demonstration, both the Cabinet and Parliament would have abdicated from their responsibilities to ensure that every Malaysian, regardless of race or religion, is entitled to an equal place under the Malaysian sun.

There can be no denial that the 30,000-strong Hindraf demonstration was a public vote of no confidence in Samy Vellu for his failure in the past three decades  to check and reverse the relentless marginalization of the Malaysian Indians into a new underclass in the country.

Samy Vellu has two honourable options before him as his response to the Hindraf demonstration — firstly, to admit his failures as MIC President and Cabinet Minister in the past 28 years and submit his resignation as both MIC President and Cabinet Minister.

Option Two — to get Cabinet and Parliament to concede the legitimacy of the “grievances, frustrations and unhappiness” of the Malaysian Indians resulting in the 30,000-strong Hindraf demonstration by adopting a new national policy on a New Deal to end the Marginalisation of the Malaysian Indian community, failing which, he should resign as MIC President and  Cabinet Minister for three-decades of failure to protect the legitimate rights and interests of the Malaysian Indians.

There is no third honourable  option available to Samy Vellu.

                This entry was posted on Friday, 30 November 2007, 11:41 am and is filed under
Indians
,
Politics
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Boycott the newspapers!

(Turned off by the mainstream media treatment of the Hindraf demonstration on Sunday, 25th November 2007, Malaysiakini columnist Helen Ang has made the following  call for boycott of the newspapers.)

by
Helen Ang

Malaysiakini
Nov 29, 07

I feel like I’ve just been slapped, kicked and punched. And I’m neither Indian nor Hindu.

The way mainstream media (MSM) have painted our fellow Malaysians black makes me thoroughly sick. MSM have assaulted Indians through their derogatory portrayal of the community and it stings me.
Aliran
 Media Monitor’s Diary has effectively dissected MSM spin on the Hindraf rally to show up how unconscionable their coverage has been.

When a community with its back to the wall takes to the street, I sympathise. I do not mock the melodramatic form of their lawsuit and petition. I understand that the massive turnout on Nov 25 was a cry of distress. Nathaniel
Tan’s
 ‘Why I will walk this Sunday’  is an eloquent peroration on why all Malaysians must wake up, now.

I wish I had read Nat’s piece earlier but it was only uploaded on his blog Saturday — a mere day before the gathering was to take place. His exposition is something to turn over in our heads and help us in our soul-searching because Nat spoke straight from the heart. Mighty MSM, I’m afraid, speak from the pay pocket.

There was a dearth of information in the public domain running up to the Hindraf rally, and later contradicting accounts of what really happened. Which only indicates MSM have long since lost any right to call themselves ‘newspapers’. A fortnight earlier, the Star had quoted police on a crowd segment of 4,000 at the Bersih march. This small number is deliberately misleading.

And again with Hindraf, MSM deliberately omitted an accurate depiction of the massive turnout. They failed to credit why Indians streamed into KL from all over the country. All they did was spin for their political masters.

What’s important to MSM

The Star peddles itself as the People’s Paper. This People’s Paper gave the Bersih rally all of a single page’s coverage, reflecting how much The Star thinks of the Malaysian people — us. It did not carry any picture of the crowds or of human beings. It had one photograph of motorcars stuck in a jam.

When casino magnate Lim Goh Tong died, he was front page news. Bersih on the other hand was hidden away in the middle pages. The Star devoted seven pages to the late tycoon. And it talked about the Tan Sri for days after, to the extent of telling us how much his funeral wreaths cost.

Lim is not ‘people’, he’s one person. Instead of the People’s Paper, the Star might want to consider tagging itself ‘the Very Important Person or VIP’s Paper’.

Then there was that
column
 in The Sun headlined “Not everybody needs to demonstrate, please”  which implied the tens of thousands of Malaysians at the Bersih rally had turned out in support of “a group whose acronym could be mistaken for a Clean Toilet campaign”. Jacqueline Ann Surin wrote: “All I wanted to do last Saturday was go for a facial … ”

Almost everyone took Surin’s flippant column at face value. She’s a well-known journalist who has advocated working within the system. However, her own take on the Bersih march is surely an indictment of the system’s limitations. ‘Proper channels’ serve only to restrict the reporter and his report becomes equivocal. Surin is an assistant news editor no less; how would foot soldiers fare in trying to get their stories past the gatekeepers?

Meaningful access to the public is ever so precious in these our turbulent times; Surin wasted hers talking about her irrelevant Saturday. I am going to fight for the public space which will enable a write-up like blogger Nat Tan’s unflinching Sunday to get the widest possible airing.

Call for Hartal

‘Do we, the people, have it in us to bring the falsehood mongers to their knees?’

The above question was tossed by civil rights lawyer Haris Ibrahim in The People’s Parliament. What Haris asks is urgent in view of the general election coming up.

We need credible information. The public knew too little about Hindraf before last week and hence couldn’t make up our minds whether to support the march or not. So we don’t want to be confused by MSM lies when the election comes around.

We need credible reporters to seek and speak the truth, even if these are citizen journos in pyjamas. There have been three street walks, all of them ‘illegal’. The authorities have criminalised the freedom to assemble peacefully — a right guaranteed us in our Constitution. MSM is in denial by making out participants of the walks to be the bad guys.

Newspapers are nothing more than errand boys delivering warning telegrams from Umno and its lackeys: May 13, ISA, sack teachers who support Hindraf and other innumerable threats.

These newspapers do not have many credible news editors, only some incredible spinmeisters.

Not only does MSM keep us in the dark, they spooked us with Hindraf’s alleged sedition, left us wondering whether the gathering would proceed, and if another Ops Lalang was underway.

We buy newspapers with the expectation of reading reliable reports but if these are not forthcoming, why waste money? Or pay to have our intelligence insulted. The act of saying ‘No’ to newspapers is hardly taxing for those of you reading this now. The harder task is to spread it as a national message and convince others.

A cause everyone can support

We are not breaking any law by making a personal decision not to buy newspapers.

We are not causing trouble by refusing to read newspapers.

We are not promoting racial disunity by boycotting newspapers.

Religion is not in this picture frame.

We’re doing good by saving money, close to RM1,000, in fact, if we cancel two annual subscriptions.

Why do this? Because we are Malaysians with conscience and our conscience is troubled.

We’d like everybody — anyone who reads online — to hop aboard and join in our demand for an end to MSM spinning and spinning webs of deceit.

Connect with us on how to break the mighty MSM monopoly of the Malaysian mind. We’d like your participation at
People’s Parliament
.

Cyberspace is as real as you care to make it. We can do more than talk. We can act.

We will.

Hartal!

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 1 December 2007, 7:26 am and is filed under
Human Rights
,
Media
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Crime – increase by leaps and bounds and mutate  to new criminality

In the past 30 months since the Royal Police Commission Report and its 125 recommendations in May 2005 to create an incorruptible, efficient, professional world-class police service to reduce crime, eradicate  corruption and protect human rights, the scene on the crime front has taken a turn for the worse.

There has not only been  a big jump in the crime index, new forms of criminality have been created striking fear among law-abiding citizens, tourists and would-be investors making Malaysia even more unsafe for people and property compared to four years ago.

The Royal Police Commission in its May 2005 Report had referred to the “alarming” and “dramatic increase” in the crime index from 121,176 cases in 1997 to 156,455 cases in 2004, an increase of 29 per cent in eight years, and recommended a reduction by 20% in the crime index in the first 12 months.

In actual fact, the reverse has  taken place with  the crime index set to create a new record in crossing the 200,000 mark this year — a hefty increase of some 30% of the crime incidence  in three years from  2004!

Yesterday, Datuk Dr. Maximus Ongkili, Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department and Chairman of the Crime Prevention Foundation, admitted the worsening of the crime index this year with nine reported cases of rape a day in the first nine months of this year as compared to four cases a day in 2003 and 6.7 cases a day in 2006!

A recent public opinion survey found that crime and public safety was rated as the second biggest concern of Malaysians — coming after price hikes and economic concerns.

What must be a matter of grave concern is the creation of new forms of criminality compounding the fear and trauma of Malaysians that they have lost the fundamental and precious freedom from crime and the fear of crime.

This week alone there were two cases of abduction — not of the rich and wealthy but ordinary people.  A 28-year-old woman, fashion designer, was abducted in broad daylight in Shah Alam when she was walking to her office to report for work after parking her car at an open carpark nearby, and was taken on a 22-hour terror ride to force her to withdraw RM6,000 from her  bank ATM account.

Last week also saw baby-abduction in the Kajang Hospital by  a 16-year-old girl  who ran away with  a new-born baby she had  snatched — although the mother Norimah Tantalih, 31, was fortunate that the baby was rescued subsequently.

Snatch-thefts have not only increased by leaps and bounds, but have mutated to new criminal forms of smashing cars to snatch hand-bags and valuables inside — not only in broad daylight but in the presence of the woman drivers.

The Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, Datuk Nazri Aziz has confirmed that the long-delayed Independent Police Complaints and Misconduct Commission (IPCMC) Bill would be presented  to Parliament in the current meeting.

The parliamentary debate on the IPCMC bill will be a major debate on the state of crime in Malaysia.

However, up to now, the IPCMC Bill has not been made available to MPs although the  Dewan Rakyat has been extended for three days till  Dec. 19.

The IPCMC is the key proposal of the Royal Police Commission to undergird its police reform recommendations to achieve the three core  police objectives to keep crime low, eradicate corruption in the police force and uphold human rights.

The question is whether the IPCMC proposed in the forthcoming Bill will be by-and-large the external oversight mechanism to monitor and check police abuses of power as recommended by the Royal Police Commission or whether it would be a different creature altogether, without teeth and credibility.

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 1 December 2007, 2:28 pm and is filed under
Crime
,
Police
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Hindraf demo – Pak Lah’s “Big Ears” hearing problem

The Star’s
front-page headline

“PM: I hear you”
is symptomatic of the grave hearing problem  of  the Abdullah premiership which is entering into its fifth year.

Abdullah should ask why despite  his  pledge from the first days of becoming the fifth Prime Minister that he wanted  to “hear the truth however unpleasant” and his claim that he has “big ears”, Malaysians are convinced that he is not hearing anything?

Is this  because his gatekeepers have erected an unprecedentedly high wall as compared to the four previous Prime Ministers cutting him off from ordinary Malaysians — I have for instance given up attempts to ask for a meeting with the Prime Minister because it is just impossible to get through  his handlers — or is it because he could not hear anything even with his “big ears” if what he is told just enters one “big ear” only to exit the other “big ear” without leaving any impressions?

The very fact that Abdullah must start his fifth year as Prime Minister to shout “I hear you”, “I have big ears”, are the most eloquent proofs that Abdullah is having a grave hearing problem and  had not been listening to the people despite having “big ears”!

The letter to Malaysiakini by Penang State Exco
Dr. Toh Kin Woon
 breaking ranks with the top Barisan Nasional leadership dissociating himself from its condemnation of  marches, rallies and pickets which were “centred on their illegality, potential threat to peace, the possible destabilization of the economy including frightening away foreign investors” is further proof of Abdullah’s “Big Ear” hearing problem.

When will Abdullah “walk the talk” of his pledge to “hear the truth” and listen to Dr. Toh Kin Woon instead of to the sycophantic top Barisan Nasional leaders whether Datuk Seri Ong Ka Ting of MCA, Tan Sr. Dr. Koh Tsu Koon of Gerakan or Datuk Seri S. Samy Vellu of MIC that Barisan Nasional leaders “should have been more concerned over the grievances, frustrations and disappointments that have brought so many thousands to the streets in the first place and to seek fair and just solutions to them”?

Dr. Toh had referred  in particular to the “Walk for Justice” of 2,000 lawyers organized by the Bar Council for restoration of the independence and integrity of the judiciary; the 40,000-strong Bersih rally in support of electoral reforms for clean, free and fair elections; the 30,000-strong Hindraf demonstration on the socio-economic and cultural plight of the Malaysian Indians particularly the lower strata; and  the numerous pickets by the Malaysian Trades Union Congress and trade unions for higher salaries to meet rising costs of living so burdensome to the workers.

When will Abdullah hear the unvarnished truth that it is these “discontent and unhappiness” that have brought thousands to the streets over the last several months which “will be a greater threat to our country’s peace and stability, rather than the marches, pickets and demonstrations”?

Although Abdullah claimed yesterday,
“I hear this. I hear all this… I hear a lot of things, and my ears burn when I hear them”
, this is not borne out by events in the past four years of his premiership.

Abdullah has yet to hear the message of the Walk for Justice of Sept. 26, 2007 wasting two full months in establishing the three-man Haidar Panel on the authenticity of the Lingam Tape with the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Lingam Tape and the restoration of the independence and integrity of the judiciary still to be announced.  Why is the Haidar Report not yet made public — although this was the implicit undertaking of the government when the Haidar Panel was formed?

Abdullah has yet to hear the message of the 40,000-strong Bersih rally for electoral reforms for clean, free and fair elections on November 10, 2007. Is the Prime Minister prepared to support the initiative of an all-party conference on electoral reform to make the 12th Malaysian general election the most free, fair and clean since Merdeka, with a mandate to complete proposals within two months so that the necessary legislative and regulatory amendments could be effected to put them into force for the next general election?

Abdullah has yet to hear the message of the 30,000-strong Hindraf demonstration on 25th November 2007.  Is the Prime Minister prepared to introduce a  new national policy on a New Deal to end the political, economic, educational, social, cultural and religious marginalisation of the Malaysian Indian community for the past three decades?

Abdullah has yet to hear the message of the MTUC pickets for fair wages. Is he prepared to hold his first meeting with MTUC leaders which they  had been asking since he became Prime Minister?  When the Prime Minister is too busy to even have one meeting with MTUC leaders after more than four years, Abdullah is indeed suffering from a very severe “Big Ear” hearing problem.

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 1 December 2007, 12:09 pm and is filed under
Abdullah Ahmad Badawi
,
Election
,
Human Rights
,
Indians
,
Judiciary
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Indians on the march, ignore at own peril

by
P Ramasamy

Last Sunday, more than 10,000 Indian Malaysians converged in the heart of Kuala Lumpur to raise concerns about their religious, ethnic and democratic rights.

The gathering organised by the Hindu Rights Action Force (Hindraf) was meant to draw the attention of the government to their socio-economic plight.

There have been demonstrations by Indians in the past. Workers in plantations and urban areas have periodically demonstrated against employers over living and working conditions.

However, demonstrations against the government were hardly seen until last Sunday – and it was the biggest every organised by Indians.

The fact that Hindraf, a coalition of more than 30 Indian groupings, could mobilise so many Indians from all over the country is testimony to the general unhappiness and frustration among the community.

They demanded an end to ethnic discrimination, for better employment prospects and for respect of their religious institutions.

Since political independence in 1957, Indians whose forefathers came from south India as labourers in plantations and urban centres have felt that they have been marginalised by the policies and programmes of the Umno-controlled government. Indian marginalisation and discrimination became a big issue after the New Economic Policy (NEP) was introduced in the 1970s to address Malay socio-economic grievances in the aftermath of the 1969 racial riots.

Over the last two decades or so, the government’s vigorous implementation of the NEP has invariably resulted in Indians not getting decent employment in the public sector. It has resulted in a lack of opportunities in the private sector and, with growing emphasis on Islam, has affected the religious and cultural practices of Indians, the majority of whom are Hindus.

The demolition of temples on grounds of these are illegal structures has contributed to alienating the community. Indians think this is related to over-zealousness on the part of state Muslim officials to emphasise the Islamic aspect of the administration.

It is on record that some of the temples that were removed or destroyed were built more than 50 years ago. Earlier this year, two days before Deepavali, a Hindu temple in Shah Alam, Selangor, was destroyed by the combined force of the police and city officials [as part of a wider exercise that saw a settlement and a surau also torn down]. Even the MIC’s intervention could not save the temple.

Watershed reached

While the Indian community’s complaints stretch back a few decades, it was the removal of temples by state authorities in recent years that have inflamed ethnic and religious sentiments. Moreover, the MIC’s inability to articulate and rectify the grouses has meant that Indians have sought to support other Indian-based organisations such as Hindraf.

The formation of Hindraf was basically to address the community’s plight. To attract wide publicity for the cause, the coalition filed a US$4 trillion legal suit against the British government for abandoning the interests of the community in the aftermath of political independence.

Hindraf might not think it possible to win the legal suit, but is using it as a grand strategy to raise the profile of Indians and to embarrass the Malaysian government.

In essence, this demonstration by Indians was an expression of pent-up frustration over ethnic and religious discrimination. The general sense of alienation needed just a trigger and the destruction of the Shah Alam temple, two days before Deepavali, galvanised Indians to express their dissatisfaction in the form of a mammoth demonstration.

This indicates that Indians have reached the stage where they are not prepared to listen to the MIC leadership. The party has lost some of its credibility as the voice of the community. By being too dependent on Umno, it has strayed from articulating the serious political, economic, social and cultural concerns of Indians.

Indians seem to have sent a message to the government that they are prepared to defend their rights. During the demonstration, many of them carried pictures of Mahatma Gandhi to emphasise the peaceful nature of their struggle.

While demonstrations in the past centered around the struggle of the working class, Sunday’s rally was composed of Indians from all classes – the working class, petty middle class, professionals and business community.

It appears therefore that Indians Malaysians have finally awoken from their long slumber. Unless and until the government genuinely addresses some of their grievances, Indians might be inclined to further their agitation.

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 1 December 2007, 10:29 am and is filed under
Human Rights
,
Indians
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Review NEP before its too late

by
Richard Teo

This govt would be foolish to ignore the pleas of the silent miniority. Any ill-conceived policies that benefit only one segment of the population cannot prevail over a length of time.

   First and foremost the govt must realise that every right-minded Malaysians would still want the NEP to continue but not in its present form.

   The NEP must adhere to its stated goals of eradicating poverty irrespective of race. It must be need-based and not race-based.There are still many pockets of poverty that exist across every racial divide.

   I have seen poor Malays, poor Indians, poor Chinese families living only on two scanty meals a day. I have also seen poor Indian children, poor Chinese children and poor Malay children struggling to have money to attend school. This only serves to reinforce the perception that poverty does not respect race or

creed. It is a common thread among many of our fellow Malaysians irrespective of race who sadly still live on this poverty line.

    Yes, thess are the classes  of people who deserve to enjoy the fruits of NEP and not the well-heeled, rich Malays who are least deserving.

     How can the govt despite numerous protest from the housing fraternity justify a policy of giving discount to rich Bumis to buy high-end houses at a discount when a more appropriate policy would be to extend a housing discount for all races for houses

costing $100,000 and below?

    To continue with such a racist, discriminatory policy would in effect means that the non-Malays would have to subsidies the rich Malays for every purchase they made. Such a policy defies logic and is an abuse of the NEP.It was never intended for the NEP to help the rich Malays getting richer. If the govt cannot even see the fallacy of such a policy then we can only conclude that it has simply lost its moral right to govern.

    The non Malays have never, ever objected to the govt building mosques for their Muslim subjects. We accept that Islam is the official religion of our country but in return we only ask for a little space for non-Muslims to practise their faiths.

     For every 10 mosques that you build give the Hindus one shrine , the Christians one church  and the Buddhists one temple. Is that not a reasonable request? If you give space for these  faiths to worship then there would not be any need to have illegal places of worship.

    If our leaders are true Muslims they will never allow their religion to suppress the followers of other religions. Islam has always allowed other religions to exist and flourish. History is resplendent with many examples and modern Turkey is a living proof that Islam, Christainity and Judaism can exist side by

side without any antagonism.

    This govt must review and reflect on their discriminatory polices which have marginalised a large section of their miniority population. It is still not too late for them to realise that not only  are there poor Malays but also by the same token there are poor Indians and poor Chinese who also need help.

Let us not forget they are also Malaysians. A govt that ignores

this realty is doing so at their own peril. The signs are already there. Dont let it reach a point of no redemption.

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 1 December 2007, 9:38 am and is filed under
NEP
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.