Call for public inquiry on how the half-a-trillion ringgit contributed by Petronas to government past 33 years and the RM15.2 billion ringgit royalty to Terengganu from 2000-2009 have been properly spent and accounted for

Former Prime Minister, Tun Dr. Mahathir has raised a very pertinent question – where have the close to half-a-trillion ringgit, to be exact RM426.6 billion, of petro-ringgit from Petronas to the government in the past 33 years since 1976 gone?

Since 1976, payments by Petronas to the Federal Government are as follows:

 FY

Payment (in billion)

1976

0.3

1977

0.7

1978

0.7

1979

0.7

1980

1.8

1981

2.0

1982

2.6

1983

3.8

1984

4.3

1985

4.6

1986

5.0

1987

4.0

1988

4.4

1989

4.3

1990

5.5

1991

7.4

1992

7.1

1993

7.7

1994

7.3

1995

6.7

1996

6.8

1997

8.8

1998

9.6

1999

8.2

2000

12.0

2001

17.1

2002

14.0

2003

15.6

2004

19.0

2005

28.1

2006

37.8

2007

44.1

2008

56.8

2009

67.8

Mahathir wrote in his blog that during his 22 years as Prime Minister between 1981 and 2003, Petronas paid RM168.8 billion to the government.

However, that figure jump dramatically in recent years due to the sharp hike in global oil prices.  The total for the six years after Mahathir stepped down as Prime Minister  is RM253.6 billion.

Mahathir asked:  “I am sure the Government had spent the money wisely. It would be interesting to know what the RM253.6 billion was spent on.”

Mahathir was speaking tongue-in-cheek when he said  that he was sure that the government had spent the money wisely, when everybody knows that he is trying to make the point that prudence was the last consideration in the expenditure of the RM253.6 billion Petronas petro-ringgit to the government coffers after he stepped down from his 22-year-hold as Prime Minister in October 2003.

But Mahathir is right. Malaysians have a right to know how these RM253.6 billion paid by Petronas to the Federal Treasury in the past six years had been spent.

Malaysians have a right to go one step further, to demand how the half-a-trillion ringgit contributed by Petronas to the government in the past 33 years, made up of RM4.2 billion under the premiership of Tun Hussein, RM168.8 billion under Tun Mahathir and RM253.6 billion under Tun Abdullah had been spent and to demand a full accounting.

There is another item, how the RM15.2 billion ringgit royalty to Terengganu government from 2000 to 2009, but hijacked by the Federal government when the Terengganu state government fell to PAS, had been spent and to demand a full accounting – especially when there is such blatant and even criminal  wastage, ostentation and extravagance in the way the Barisan Nasional hijacked and misused the Petronas royalty money for Terengganu.

For this reason, DAP calls for a  public inquiry on how  the half-a-trillion ringgit contributed by Petronas to Federal Government in the  past 33 years and the RM15.2 billion ringgit royalty to Terengganu from 2000-2009  had been spent and to give a full accounting.

Such a public inquiry and full accounting of the RM426.6 billion of Petronas contribution to the Federal Treasury in the past 33 years and RM15.2 billion ringgit of oil royalty to Terengganu in the past nine years are urgent and imperative, especially as Mahathir had set many bad precedents of abuse and misuse of Petronas ringgit in his 22 years as Prime Minister.

This was why DAP MPs and I down the decades had demanded in Parliament for proper parliamentary accountability of the Petronas billions but which have fallen on deaf years.

Now, it would appear that the latest convert to the demand for proper public and parliamentary accountability of Petronas billions to the Federal Treasury is none other than Mahathir himself! I welcome him to our ranks.

When he was Prime Minister, Mahathir had not bat an eyelid to misuse Petronas billions to bail out dubious rojects, the most infamous being the RM2 billion bailout of his son Mirzan Mahathir’s then main public listed company, shipping concern Konsortium Perkapalan Bhd (KPB) in 1998 when KPB was floundering in billion-ringgit debts with Its share price falling to RM3.78 by February 1998, a fraction of its pre-financial crisis level of RM17 plus.

Other occasions when Petronas was used as a national piggy bank to bail out financial scandals were:

RM2.5 billion bail-out of Bank Bumiputra in 1986 as a result of the first financial scandal of the Mahathir premiership, the RM2.5 billion Bumiputra Malaysia Finance (BMF) scandal (now completely overshadowed by the RM12.5 billion Port Klang Free Zone scandal featuring the top MCA leadership);

Another RM1 billion bail-out of Bank Bumiputra in 1989 by Petronas;

Bail out of sick national projects, including MAS and Proton;

Fund extravagant billion-ringgit mega-projects like the Petronas Twin-Towers and Putrajaya;

Misuse of funds to secure the title sponsorship rights for the Malaysian Formula 1 Grand Prix and to sponsor the Sauber Petronas racing team.

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 4 July 2009, 12:53 pm and is filed under
Good Governance
,
Oil
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Kangaroo court in Parliament

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

Part 5

Part 6

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 4 July 2009, 10:30 am and is filed under
Parliament
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


When will Utusan Malaysia stop being a racist newspaper of untruths and falsehoods and honour the journalistic maxim “Comment is free but facts are sacred”?

When will Utusan Malaysia, which had such a illustrious place in the history of Malaysian journalism, end its descent into the gutter and stop being a racist newspaper of untruths and falsehoods, and honour the journalistic  maxim “Comment is free but facts are sacred”?

Utusan Malaysia today carried in its “
Sorotan Parlimen
” an article entitled “
Kit Siang terus ‘panaskan’ Dewan Rakya
t”, which among other slants and prejudices, wrote:

Pada minggu terakhir pula iaitu Selasa lalu, sekali lagi Kit Siang menunjukkan kehebatannya dengan menyerang peribadi Menteri Dalam Negeri, Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Tun Hussein semasa sesi penggulungan Rang Undang-Undang Suruhanjaya Integriti Agensi Penguatkuasaan (SIAP) 2009 yang disampaikan oleh Menteri di Jabatan Perdana Menteri, Datuk Seri Mohamed Nazri Abdul Aziz.

Sesi itu menjadi kecoh apabila Kit Siang bangun mencelah sambil menyifatkan Hishammuddin sebagai ‘menteri pondan’ kerana tidak hadir ketika sesi penggulungan rang undang-undang itu yang banyak menyentuh mengenai polis.

Mohamed Nazri yang berang dengan dakwaan Kit Siang itu menegaskan bahawa Hishammuddin tidak perlu hadir kerana SIAP akan diletakkan di bawah Jabatan Perdana Menteri dan bukan Kementerian Dalam Negeri.

“Bagi saya, Ipoh Timur yang pondan kerana bertanyakan soalan mengenai polis waktu menteri tidak ada. Depan saya ini semua (pembangkang) pondan-pondan belaka. Kalau betul jantan, tunggu menteri datanglah,” katanya.

That I started the war of words by attacking Hishammuddin as a “pondan Minister” is a downright lie.

This Utusan Malaysia article is based on the Utusan Malaysia’s parliamentary report of Tuesday’s parliamentary exchange, which appeared in Utusan Malaysia on Wednesday in its parliamentary report  “
Badan bebas siasat salah penjawat awam
” which among other things, read:

Dalam pada itu, sesi penggulungan itu kecoh apabila Lim Kit Siang (DAP-Ipoh Timur) bangun mencelah sambil menyifatkan Menteri Dalam Negeri, Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Tun Hussein sebagai ‘menteri pondan’ kerana tidak hadir ketika sesi penggulungan rang undang-undang itu yang banyak menyentuh mengenai polis.

Mohamed Nazri yang berang dengan dakwaan Kit Siang itu menegaskan bahawa Hishammuddin tidak perlu hadir kerana SIAP akan diletakkan di bawah Jabatan Perdana Menteri dan bukan Kementerian Dalam Negeri.

”Bagi saya, Ipoh Timur yang pondan kerana bertanyakan soalan mengenai polis waktu menteri tidak ada. Depan saya ini semua (pembangkang) pondan-pondan belaka. Kalau betul jantan, tunggu menteri datanglah,” katanya.

Again, the message of the Utusan Malaysia report was that I started the war of words by using the offensive and unparliamentary term  “pondan”, which I have said is a downright lie.

The position is not helped by having a most unfair Deputy Speaker, Datuk Wan Junaidi Tuanku Jaffar, who was in the Chair at the time, subsequently talking to Utusan implying that I had started the exchange on “pondans”, as reported in the Utusan report on Wednesday, entitled “
Kit Siang paling tidak beretika – Wan Junaidi
”, which read:

Beliau (Wan Junaidi) berkata demikian sebagai mengulas perkataan “pondan dan gemuk” yang digunakan dalam perbahasan pada sidang Dewan Rakyat hari ini.

Sebelum itu, Kit Siang terlibat dalam ‘perang mulut’ dengan Menteri di Jabatan Perdana Menteri, Datuk Seri Mohamed Nazri Abdul Aziz sehingga mengeluarkan perkataan ‘menteri pondan’.

Wan Junaidi berkata, perkataan seperti itu tidak sepatutnya dikeluarkan ekoran mereka yang dipilih merupakan mereka yang dihormati oleh rakyat.

That all these three Utusan reports alleging that I had started the war of words during the Ministerial reply on the Enforcement Agencies Integrity Commission Bill in Parliament on Tuesday are lies could be verified by the
30th June 2009 Hansard report up on Parliament website
, which showed very clearly that Nazri was the first to use the unparliamentary term of  “pondan” against another MP and provoke the ruckus in Parliament.

Nazri had resorted to the unparliamentary term “pondon” in response to a very legitimate question I raised as to why the new Home Minister Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Hussein was not in the House to answer questions about police failure to perform the three core functions recommended by the Police Royal Commission – to reduce crime, eradicate corruption and uphold human rights.

In fact, I had earlier said the main subject of the parliamentary debate should be on the police and the key recommendation of the Police Royal Commission to establish an Independent Police Complaints and Misconduct Commission (IPCMC) had been deflected, as this was the genesis as to why the Enforcement Agencies Integrity Commission Bill was before the House.

Instead of a rational answer, Nazri went into a fit with his “pondon allegation” which led to a pandemonium in the House, as recorded by the Hansard of June 30, 2009 (pp 40-41) as follows:

Dato’ Seri Mohamed Nazri bin Abdul Aziz
: Kalau SUHAKAM, human rights di bawah sayalah tetapi kalau spesifik tentang kementerian ataupun pegawai yang ada kaitan dengan kementerian lain. Jangan jadi pondan, tanya soalan waktu Yang Berhormat Menteri tidak ada, jadilah jantan.

Tuan Lim Kit Siang [Ipoh Timur]
: Kalau Yang Berhormat Menteri pondan macam mana?… [Ketawa]

Dato’ Seri Mohamed Nazri bin Abdul Aziz
: Yang Berhormat Menteri bukan pondan.

Tuan Lim Kit Siang [Ipoh Timur]
: Kalau Yang Berhormat Menteri pondan tak dating macam mana?… [Ketawa]

Dato’ Seri Mohamed Nazri bin Abdul Aziz
: …Yang nampak pada hari ini di khalayak orang ramai, yang pondan itu ialah kepada Yang Berhormat Ipoh Timur ……

Tuan Lim Kit Siang [Ipoh Timur]
: [Bercakap tanpa menggunakan pembesar suara]

Dato’ Seri Mohamed Nazri bin Abdul Aziz
: …Ialah kerana waktu Yang Berhormat Menteri tidak ada, dia tanya soalan. Dia sudah tahu bahawa Yang Berhormat Menteri tidak boleh jawab… [Dewan riuh]

Tuan M. Kula Segaran [Ipoh Barat]
: Suruh Yang Berhormat Menteri datang.

Tuan Lim Kit Siang [Ipoh Timur]
: [Bercakap tanpa menggunakan pembesar suara]

Dato’ Seri Mohamed Nazri bin Abdul Aziz
: Kepondanan ialah…, kepondanan, itu pondannya Yang Berhormat Ipoh Timur dan pada hari ini …

Tuan Lim Kit Siang [Ipoh Timur]
: [Bercakap tanpa menggunakan pembesar suara]

Dato’ Seri Mohamed Nazri bin Abdul Aziz
: …Ini semua pondan belaka depan saya, diketuai oleh Yang Berhormat Ipoh Timur sahaja. Selalu kemukakan soalan sewaktu Yang Berhormat Menteri tidak ada.

Tuan Lim Kit Siang [Ipoh Timur]
: Semua Yang Berhormat Menteri pondan, Yang Berhormat Menteri… [Bercakap tanpa menggunakan pembesar suara]

Dato’ Seri Mohamed Nazri bin Abdul Aziz
: Kalau betul jantan, tunggu dia datang dan tanya. Ini bukan waktu mereka menjawab, ini saya punya kementerian, saya jawab, saya anak jantan, saya jawab. Akan tetapi kalau perkara ini ada kaitan dengan kementerian mereka, merekalah jawab… [Dewan riuh]

Dr. Haji Mohd. Puad bin Zarkashi
: Yang Berhormat Ipoh Timur pondan rupanya.

Tuan Lim Kit Siang [Ipoh Timur]
: [Bercakap tanpa menggunakan pembesar suara]

Seorang Ahli
: Yang Berhormat Batu Pahat, jangan campur.

Dato’ Seri Mohamed Nazri bin Abdul Aziz
: Ini sudah lebih daripada pondan, gila ini, ini pondan gila, wayar sudah putus… [Dewan riuh]

Timbalan Yang di-Pertua [Datuk Dr. Haji Wan Junaidi Tuanku Jaafar]
: Saya ingat kita berhentilah cerita pondan Yang Berhormat, kita berhentilah cerita pondan.

Tuan Lim Kit Siang [Ipoh Timur]
: [Bercakap tanpa menggunakan pembesar suara]

Dato’ Seri Mohamed Nazri bin Abdul Aziz
: Ini bukan sahaja pondan, pondan tua yang gila, wayar putus. Waktu saya… [Ketawa]

Tuan Lim Kit Siang [Ipoh Timur]
: Tarik balik, tarik balik.

Dato’ Seri Mohamed Nazri bin Abdul Aziz
: Apa nak tarik balik?… [Ketawa] Yang Berhormat Menteri sama-sama tuduh.

Dato’ Haji Mahfuz bin Omar [Pokok Sena]
: [Bangun]

Tuan Tan Kok Wai [Cheras]
: [Bangun] [Menyampuk]

Beberapa Ahli
: [Bercakap tanpa menggunakan pembesar suara]

Dato’ Seri Mohamed Nazri bin Abdul Aziz
: Hei, Yang Berhormat Cheras gemuk, duduklah gemuk, jangan berdiri, gemuk duduklah gemuk. Gemuk pun nak jadi pondan macam ketua ni, ini pondan gemuk, pondan gemuk… [Dewan riuh]

Timbalan Yang di-Pertua [Datuk Dr. Haji Wan Junaidi Tuanku Jaafar]
: Baiklah, baiklah Yang Berhormat Menteri, minta tolong. Banyak sangat pondan sudah keluar, dari kiri dan kanan sudah keluar semua. Saya minta Yang Berhormat Menteri tak payah cakap tentang pondan lagi, saya tak mahu lagi cerita pondan. Bagi Yang Berhormat Pokok Sena sahajalah.

When Nazri used the unparliamentary term “pondan”, the normal parliamentary response is to stand up to draw the attention of the Chair and to demand he retract it as it is against parliamentary standing orders.

There could be two outcomes: firstly, he would refuse but keep repeating it and if one is persistent enough, with support from the Chair, he would reluctantly withdraw it but after using the unparliamentary term several times. Secondly, the demand for him to retract the term “pondan” would lead to pandemonium in the House and the Chair ending the ruckus, without any satisfactory solution to the use of the unparliamentary term.

Both outcomes were unsatisfactory. I instinctively decided to resort to “a tooth for a tooth”response and reciprocate the term “pondan” for the Ministerial front-benches, although it is a term I would never have used, and had never used since entering Parliament in 1969!

The point of the statement today however is to point out the lies and falsehoods of Utusan Malaysia in reporting on Wednesday that I had started the ruckus by calling Hishammuddin a “pondan Minister” followed by an article in Utusan Malaysia attacking me for something I had not done!

Is Utusan Malaysia prepared to admit its mistake and publicly apologise for its parliamentary report on Wednesday and the parliamentary commentary today?

When will Utusan Malaysia return to the tenets of responsible and truthful journalism, as pioneered by the founders and early editors of Utusan Malaysia.

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 4 July 2009, 2:33 pm and is filed under
Media
,
Parliament
,
UMNO
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


OTK fails in 108 PKFZ questions – like Shaolin disciples who cannot pass the gauntlet of the 108 movements of Shaolin Wooden-men Lane and 18 Lohans

My three questions (No.106 to No. 108) on the 36th day in the current series to Transport Minister Datuk Seri Ong Tee Keat on the
RM12.5 billion Port Klang Free Zone (PKFZ) scandal
 today are

Question No. 1: Four days ago, Port Klang Authority (PKA) Chairman Datuk Lee Hwa Beng announced deferment of payment of RM660 million  due to PKFZ turnkey developer  Kuala Dimensi Sdn. Bhd (KDSB) from the government’s soft loan of RM4.6 billion, comprising:

(i)                 RM130 million payable on or before 30th June 2009 under the Sale and Purchase Agreement dated Nov. 12, 2002 between KDSB and PKA;

(ii)               RM230 million payable on or before 30th June 2009 under the Development Agreement dated March 27, 2004  between KDSB and PKA;

(iii)             RM150 million payable this month under the supplemental agreement for additional development works dated Nov. 30 between KDSB and PKA; and

(iv)              RM150 million payable this month under the supplement agreement for new additional development works dated April 26, 2006 between KDSB and PKA.

The PKA is to pay the RM660 million to four companies which are special purpose vehicles created by KDSB and to which it had assigned the debts. The four companies created by KDSB are Special Port Vehicle Bhd, Transhipment Megahub Bhd, Valid Ventures Bhd and Free Zone Capital Bhd.

Lee announced that the RM660 million repayments would be withheld pending the review by the task force commissioned to take another look at PKFZ by 10th August 2009 and he defied KDSB to do what it wanted, including legal action against PKA.

On Thursday lunch-time, the KDSB CEO and Chairman of Barisan Nasional Backbenchers Club Datuk Tiong King Sing were seen in Parliament in an intense discussion with  the   Second Finance Minister, Datuk Seri Ahmad Husni bin Mohd Hanadzlah during a parliamentary briefing on the H1N1 epidemic. When DAP MPs saw them, they quickly broke up.

Only the two can tell what was intensely discussed between them. However, I understand that the outstanding RM360 million PKA payment to KDSB was paid yesterday and that the next payment of RM300 payment would be paid without any delay.

If so, this is one up for Tiong and one down for Ong.

Can Ong explain what is happening that he could lose out to Tiong in his macro and micro management of the PKFZ scandal? Is his position as Transport Minister and Lee’s  position as PKA Chairman any longer tenable?

Question No. 2: Tiong has reiterated in the media today that he would not turn up even when summoned by the Public Account Committee in its inquiry into the PKFZ scandal.

This is most shocking and completely unacceptable, as there can be no reason which could justify anyone committing  parliamentary contempt of not responding to a summon by the PAC – particularly coming from a Member of Parliament, and even more so, from the Barisan Nasional Backbenchers’ Club (BNBBC) Chairman.

Tiong demanded his “pound of flesh” in demanding the punishment of  the five Pakatan Rakyat MPs who did not want to give testimony to the Parliamentary Select Committee inquiring into the harassment and obstruction of DAP National Chairman and MP for Gelugor, Karpal Singh in the precincts of Parliament from carrying out his parliamentary duties, as well as the punishment of three Pakatan Rakyat MPs who withdrew as members of Select Committee.

How could he justify his refusal to appear before the PAC under such circumstances.  Tiong should be referred immediately to the Committee of Privileges for any such parliamentary contempt so that when Parliament meets on the first day of the budget meeting on Oct. 19, there should be a motion from the Committee of Privileges recommending the form of disciplinary action that should be taken against Tiong.

My second question to Ong is whether as MCA President and Transport Minister, he would ensure that this is done?

Furthermore, can be explain why he had allowed MCA MPs to support Tiong as BNBBC Chairman when he should know that Tiong is a highly controversial character in view of his role as KDSB CEO in the PKFZ scandal?

My third question: This is my 108th question for  Ong Tee Keat on RM12.5 billion PKFZ scandal and his inability to answer marks his inability to pass as Transport Minister and McA President just like Shaolin disciples  who cannot pass the gauntlet of the 108 movements of Shaolin Wooden-men Lane and 18 Lohans.

He is getting MCA operatives and small fries to come to his defence but they have absolutely no credibility  or are of no use whatsoever even in trying to distract public attention from the RM12.5 billion PKFZ “scandal of all scandals”.

Ong should have realized that there is no way for him to run away from his Ministerial responsibility to give a full and proper accounting of  the RM12.5 billion PKFZ scandal – as demonstrated by the failure of  his escape to the Paris Air Show from the opening of Parliament to completely shirk responsibility from the PKFZ scandal.

I have been informed that Ong tried to go abroad on Tuesday and was stopped by the Prime Minister. Is this true?

However, what is important is whether Ong will sit down to give a detailed question-by-question answer to my 108 questions on the PKFZ scandal.

I will take a three-day break from the 36-day “three questions a day” session and 108 questions to decide whether to continue with the daily questioning on the PKFZ scandal, and if so, in what new form.

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 4 July 2009, 3:58 pm and is filed under
PKFZ
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


3-point formula to resolve the Kedah Pakatan Rakyat crisis – resolution of outstanding complaints by Kedahans, a committee headed by Dr. Goh Cheng Teik to resolve abbatoir problem and a PR trouble-shooting state mechanism

Yesterday, I had a 90-minute meeting with the Kedah DAP State Committee followed by a two-hour dialogue with the people of Kedah in the Kedah Chinese Assembly Hall, with overflowing capacity crowd, over the Kedah DAP State Committee’s decision on Wednesday to pull out of the Pakatan Rakyat Kedah state government.

I had my hands full in Parliament on Wednesday, with a host of burning issues such as the RM12.5 billion Port Klang Free Zone scandal; the urgent need to have a new Inspector-General of Police to provide new police leadership and vision to create an efficient, incorruptible, professional world-class police service which is regarded as friend and protector of the people and capable of performing the three core functions to keep crime low, eradicate corruption and uphold human rights; and Parliament becoming a kangaroo court to punish eight Pakatan Rakyat MPs when the subject is the punishment of Umno Youth leaders who had obstructed and threatened wheelchair-bound DAP National Chairman and MP for Bukit Gelugor Karpal Singh from discharging his parliamentary duties in the precincts of Parliament on February 26, 2009.

I was shocked when I heard the news about the Kedah DAP State Committee decision to pull out of the Pakatan Rakyat Kedah state government, subject to the final decision of the DAP Central Executive Committee.

At that time, it was alleged that Kedah DAP had acted very irresponsibly in pulling out of the PR Kedah state government over a trivial issue of pigs and the demolition of the abbatoir in Alor Star.

I would agree that Kedah DAP State would have acted most irresponsibly, heedless of the far-reaching  impact of such a decision not only in Kedah but also nation-wide when Malaysians are expectantly waiting for Pakatan Rakyat to spearhead political changes in the country  particularly in the next general election, if its  harsh decision was just over an abbatoir and pigs.

From my 90-minute meeting with the Kedah DAP State Committee and two-hour dialogue with the people of Kedah last evening,  I have been able to get a fuller picture of the reasons for the harsh decision for the pullout from Pakatan Rakyat Kedah state government –as the abbatoir issue was just “the last straw that broke the camel’s back”.

There was a host of issues over which the DAP Kedah state committee felt frustrated and marginalized in unable to get their views taken seriously by the state government, which is reflected by deep-seated grievances among the people of Kedah including those who had fully supported and voted for the Pakatan Rakyat parties in the general election last year.

I do not want DAP Kedah to pullout of Pakatan Rakyat Kedah state government for it would affect Pakatan Rakyat’s credibility nation-wide. However, if the legitimate grouses of DAP Kedah and the people of Kedah are not addressed, resulting not only in an ineffective DAP Kedah but also discontented Kedah electorate, this will also impact far and wide outside Kedah.

The Pakatan Rakyat Kedah crisis is best resolved at the Kedah state level, which is why I said at the public dialogue last night that I propose to meet with the Kedah Mentri Besar,  Datuk Seri Azizan Abdul Razak and that I was even prepared to meet with him today.  This had been communicated to Azizan last night.

 I have in mind a three-point formula to resolve the Pakatan Rakyat Kedah  crisis:

•	resolution of outstanding complaints by Kedahans such as the 50% housing quota for bumiputras, Kedah Buddhist centre controversy, pork selling in the Alor Star market, temple demolitions, etc.

•	a committee headed  Dr. Goh Cheng Teik to resolve the  abbatoir problem. Dr. Goh was formerly Deputy Agriculture Minister and had considerable  experience in resolving problems in this field when holding this portfolio. I have spoken to Dr. Goh and he is prepared to help if such a state committee is set up by the state government.

•	a Pakatan Rakyat trouble-shooting state mechanism to resolve all emerging issues, problems and controversies in Kedah.

Barisan Nasional parties particularly Umno, MCA, Gerakan and MIC are hoping that the Pakatan Rakyat Kedah crisis is the beginning of the end for Pakatan Rakyat and it is incumbent on everyone in Pakatan Rakyat, whether national or state, to prove Barisan Nasional wrong.

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 5 July 2009, 2:18 pm and is filed under
DAP
,
Pakatan Rakyat
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


“3 Tuns in Selective Amnesia” – Will Liong Sik undertake that he will not copy Mahathir’s example of selective amnesia when he appears before the PAC on the RM12.5 billion  PKFZ scandal?

Former MCA President and Transport Minister
Tun Dr Ling Liong Sik
has said  he has nothing to hide and is ready to appear before the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) to explain his role in the controversial RM12.5 billion Port Klang Free Zone (PKFZ) scandal.

Can Liong Sik undertake that he will not copy his former boss, Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad’s example of selective amnesia at the Lingam Videotape Royal Commission of inquiry when he appears before the PAC on the PKFZ scandal, so that Malaysia will not have “Three Tuns in Selective Amnesia”?

In January last year, Malaysians were treated to the sorry spectacle of the former Prime Minister and former Chief Justice Tun Eusuff Chin competing with each other in selective amnesia when they were summoned to give testimony by the Lingam Videotape Royal Commission of Inquiry.

Mahathir said “I cannot remember” or its equivalent 14 times during his 90-minute  testimony before the Royal Commission while Eusuff Chin said “I cannot remember” or its equivalent 18 times in his testimony.

Malaysians did not  believe that Mahathir had become so forgetful that he had to invoke the “I cannot remember” mantra 14 times in his short testimony especially as Mahathir was still famed for his poem, Melayu Muda Lupa.

The Malaysian public was really  aghast at Mahathir’s testimony because of the public perception that Mahathir had a reputation for remembering details others could hardly  recall as illustrated by his mastery to recall effortlessly details of Rafidah Aziz’s excesses in the AP scandal without any prodding.

Can Liong guarantee that the country would not be presented with a third Tun in selective amnesia when he is called to appear before the PAC to give testimony about the RM12.5 billion PKFZ scandal?

“Three Tuns in Selective Amnesia” will really be intolerable, insufferable, a great national shame and infamy.

In the past 36 days of “three questions a day” on the PKFZ scandal to the Transport Minister, Datuk Seri Ong Tee Keat, I have posed 108 questions.

Ong’s failure and inability to answer the 108 questions is akin to his failure  to pass as Transport Minister and McA President like Shaolin disciples in “fighting stories”  who could not pass the gauntlet of the 108 movements of Shaolin Wooden-men Lane and 18 Lohans to to leave the Shaolin Mountain to out into the world.

I am taking  a three-day break from the 36-day “three questions a day” session and 108 questions and will  decide whether to continue with the daily questioning on the PKFZ scandal, and if so, in what new form.

I note that Ong’s “hired guns” and “cultural assassins” in MCA Hqrs continue to pour  out attacks on me, which are issued in the name of MCA small fries and operatives from the various states, the latest emanating from Bukit Mertajam.

These “hired gun” attacks from MCA’s “cultural assassins” from the MCA

headquarters, purportedly to defend Ong from my persistent questions to get to the bottom of the RM12.5 billion PKFZ scandal, would support the decision that I continue with “three questions a day” as I have no problem in coming out with another 108 questions to Ong on the PKFZ scandal.

I will announce my decision in two days’ time.

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 5 July 2009, 12:36 pm and is filed under
MCA
,
PKFZ
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


A Pig in a Poke

by
G. Krishnan

High Chaparral, the pig abattoir, the race card, double standards…. What you see is not what you get. It seems as if many politicians – and I use that term to also include some activists – have gotten all hot under the collar about the DAP’s failings in the Kampung Buah Pala and for locking horns with PAS on the pig abattoir matter in Kedah.

Get a grip people. First, Hindraf and Uthayakumar needs to cool-off; perhaps have some refreshing chendol and think through the High Chaparral matter a bit more constructively. Does he really think Lim Guan Eng is in bed with the developers? For a lawyer, he must know better the potential implications of a breach of contract – in this case, a contract the former state government – had undertaken – under the former chief minister’s watch. Yes, perhaps a stroke of the pen by the current chief minister may save the homes of the residents of Kampung Buah Pala. But at what cost to the rest of the residents of the state? Now that the current DAP state government finds itself in a dilemma like this, does it not matter what it might cost the rest of the residents of Penang to go back on their word?

As I’m sure we all – including Hindraf and Uthayakumar – surely understand, the former state government under Gerakan/BN was supposedly acting on behalf of the welfare and interest of the state when it undertook the agreement the developers. This is where Gerakan has put the residents of Kampung Buah Pala and the people of Penang. No, unlike what some might like to think, it doesn’t just take a stroke of the pen, to undo the BN’s mess. Indeed, Uthayakumar ought to know better. If he’s worried about the marginalised Indians in Kampung Buah Pala – as is understandable – just imagine the legal and financial bind a stroke of the pen by the current chief minister to undo the agreement with the developer may cost the state government. The multi-millions that this will cost the people of the state will inevitably impact lots of other marginialised people who again will have to endure the consequences of further depletion of the state’s resources.

Am I suggesting the residents of Kampung Buah Pala should therefore just become sacrificial pigs? No. They’ll have to accept the reality that the former Gerakan/BN state government did them in. And they have to be willing now to work with Lim Guan Eng and find a solution that can be a win-win situation for them, the developers (who now have a legal stake in the property), and the rest of Penangites who also have a big stake in the matter.

Probably much like the hullabaloo about the pig abattoir controversy in Kedah, what you see about the Kampung Buah Pala is not all that simple and straight forward as some would make it out to be.

So, Hindraf, sit down with your one hope – the DAP and Lim Guam Eng and find a compromise where the residents can be reasonably compensated and relocated while the rest of Penangites are also not unduly screwed by your intransigence due to a situation created by the DAP’s predecessor.

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 5 July 2009, 9:24 am and is filed under
DAP
,
Hindraf
,
Penang
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Is MCA so short of talents it cannot find different persons to hold the posts of MCA Secretary-General and Senate President?

Tomorrow DAP National Vice Chairman Tunku Abdul Aziz will be sworn in as a Senator, the first DAP Senator in the party’s 43-year history.

Tomorrow is also the last day for Tan Sri Dr. Hamid Pawanteh as two terms for six years as Senate President.

He was Deputy Speaker from 1983-1986 and I found him a level-headed, fair and just political leader who could distinguish between right and wrong, what are  national interests as distinct from party and personal interests – a rare quality among those who walk the corridors of power in Putrajaya.

Hamid, 65,  will be a loss to Malaysian politics as he is  retiring from Malaysian politics after 31 years, which have included two terms as Perlis Mentri Besar from 1985 to 1995.

Replacing Hamid as Senate President will be the Deputy Senate President, Datuk Wong Foon Meng, which is a surprise for three reasons:

Firstly, Wong is also MCA Secretary-General and he has announced that he will not relinquish this post.

This is against parliamentary convention and practice that  a front-line party official should not be appointed to positions like Speaker of Dewan Rakyat or President of Dewan Negara – which is why the present Speaker, Tan Sri Pandikar Amin Mulia resigned his post as divisional Umno Chairman on his appointment as  Dewan Rakyat Speaker.  Why is Wong flouting this parliamentary convention and practice that the Parliament Speaker or Senate President must not only be fair but seen to be fair by relinquishing all party positions?

Secondly, Wong will be appointed only to serve a mini-term of  eight short months from July 7, 2009 as Senate President as he is a second-term Senator whose term expires on 12th April 2010 and there will not be a third reappointment.

Wong will be the shortest-serving Senate President as compared to the two previous MCA Senate Presidents –  Tun Omar Ong Yoke Lin who served for more than seven  years from 1973 to 1980 and Tan Sri Michael Chen who served for more than two  years from 2000.

Hasn’t MCA another nominee who could serve as Senate President for two full terms of six years, such as former MCA Ministers, Dr. Ting Chew Peh or even Datuk Seri Ong Ka Ting (although this will mean a by-election in Kulai) or former Dewan Rakyat Deputy Speaker Datuk Lim Si Cheng?

Or is the MCA only allowed to “warm the seat” of the Senate President for a brief spell of eight months instead of two full terms of six years  before the MCA nominee has to vacate it because of the expiry of his term as Senator and the post of Senate President surrendered to another appointee from another Barisan Nasional component party, may be  MIC or Gerakan for another mini-term?

Ong Tee Keat should be more serious about such appointments and should even consider nomination of qualified and eminent Malaysian Chinese who need not be MCA members  to be appointed as Senate President

Where does it say in the Constitution that the Senate President must be members of MCA or other Barisan Nasional component parties?

Thirdly, is MCA so short of talents that the MCA President cannot find different persons to hold the posts of MCA Secretary-General and Senate President?  Or is the MCA President finding himself more and more isolated in his own political party that he has little trust for other MCA leaders?

Wong also told the press yesterday that MCA does not rule out the possibility of co-operating with DAP to establish a joint secretariat for “intellectual discourse” if the proposal come from the DAP and depending on the topics concerned.

I do not know what Wong is talking about. Is he saying that MCA is prepared to form a joint secretariat with DAP for “intellectual discourse” on anyone of the following subjects which constitute the burning national issues of the day:

1.	Why Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak was unable to start his premiership with public confidence in his credibility, integrity and legitimacy as was the case with previous five Prime Ministers, Tunku Abdul Rahman, Tun Razak, Tun Hussein, Tun Mahathir and Tun Abdullah as not to be able to have the political honeymoon of the “First 100 days”.?

2.	Why Najib’s 1Malaysia slogan failed to fire the imagination of Malaysians to foster great national unity, to the extent it has become “1Cracked Malaysia”?

3.	To demand for a new Inspector-General of Police who could end the sufferings of Malaysians, visitors and investors who have lost two fundamental rights in the face of galloping crime – the right to be free from crime and to be free from the fear of crime.

4.	To get to the bottom of the RM12.5 billion Port Klang Free Zone scandal so that the culprits are brought to book and it does not become another RM2.5 billion  Bumiputra Malaysia Finance (BMF) scandal of being a “heinous crime without criminals” though five times bigger!

5.	To demand full accountability as to how the half-a-trillion ringgit contributed by Petronas to the Federal government in the past 33 years, i.e. RM426.6 billion made up of RM4.2 billion under the premiership of Tun Hussein, RM168.8 billion under Tun Mahathir and RM253.6 billion under Tun Abdullah had been prudently spent or irresponsibily squandered.

Over to you, Wong.

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 5 July 2009, 10:53 am and is filed under
MCA
,
Najib Razak
,
Parliament
,
Tunku Abdul Aziz
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Reforms must be liberal, must promote a competitive and meritocratic society

By
Dr Chen Man Hin, DAP Life Advisor

REFORMS BY PRIME MINISTER NAJIB RAZAK ARE NOT LIBERAL OR MODERN ENOUGH TO PROPEL MALAYSIA TO BE COMPETITIVE TO MEET THE CHALLENGES OF A GLOBAL WORLD

 PM NAJIB RAZAK have introduced a series of reforms in an attempt to transform Malaysia to a high income country. He has slimmed down the NEP by reducing the 30% bumiputra equity quota to 12.5%. He has also curbed the powers of  the Foreign Investment Committee and substituted it with a smaller committee.

To reassure the bumiputras, he has retained the 30% bumiputra equity target, but will use different modes to achieve the objective.

It is a pity that the PM has not understood why the 40 year old NEP has failed to help poor Malaysians, whether Malays, Chinese or Indians. The average poor Malay household only earn about RM3,000 per household or only RM500 per person (in a family of 5). Admittedly, the NEP enriched Umno cronies who became obscenely rich, while the Malays in rural areas are still mired in poverty.

PM NAJIB SHOULD LEARN FROM THE NEP EXPERIENCE

The 40 year old NEP slowed down economic growth since it was implemented in 1971. In 1957 at independence, Malaysia had the second highest per capita income (PCI) in Asia, after Japan. The World Bank has statistics that showed the per capita income slowed down since 1971, and has fallen behind S Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong and Singapore. In 2008, Malaysia has a PCI of US$6,000, while S Korea has US$19,000, Taiwan US$17,000, Hong Kong US$30,000 and Singapore US$34,000.

It was Malaysia’s natural resources that saved the day, otherwise our pci would be much lower in the company of banana republics.

THE CAUSES

1.The NEP drove away foreign investors, and last year our FDI was only RM46 billion, and estimated to fall by half this year. Thailand has more FDIs than Malaysia.

2. The bumiputra quota system. Bumiputras have been showered with quotas from the day they were born, they were pampered in every field of personal endeavour. The quota system has engendered a dependent psychology which has affected their performance in education, in jobs and in business. In other words, the country is moving at 50% capacity, and resulting in a low per capita income. If all citizens have put their shoulders to the wheel, the per capital income (nominal) should be near US$20,000 as in a developed country.

THE OLD FORMULA OF QUOTAS AND BUMIPUTRAISM HAS FAILED TO BRING PROSPERITY

PM NAJIB has himself admitted that the NEP quota system is outdated and not productive any more. However he did not advocate a new philsophy for the country. Instead, he did say that in the future, the 30% target is still the objective, and a new model is contemplated to achieve that. This is unbelievable. What he is proposing would be equivalent to reviving NEP, in which case, he is condemning  Malaysia to another 40 years of economic stagnation and the plight of the poor will get worse.

TIME TO ADOPT A CULTURE OF MERITOCRACY AND COMPETITIVENESS

We live in new global age where race is neutral and where nations interact on the principle of  competitiveness, accountability and transparency. We must have good governance, because in the new era the investment climate must be liberal, open, corruption free and judicial independence.

The ability of the indigenous people, whether Malays, Dayaks or Ibans are as good as their Malaysian brothers and sisters. Statistics show that 50% or more are professionals, engineers, doctors, accountants and corporation executives, many are doing well in service industries.

Education is the key to success for all. The next is discipline and hard work. These are the same qualities of successful people in other countries, especially developed countries in the States, Europe, Japan, or India.

China is the classic example of success. from a poor communist country, she has become the third richest country of the world because a former premier, Deng Xiao Peng promulated four modern liberalisation policies of a free market economy. The people put in a lot of hard work and discipline. China, it is predicted that she will overtake Japan in 2010, and become the world’s second richest country.

Malaysia can be a developed country also, if it modernises like China and is united like one people as Malaysians, no ketuanan melayu and no bumi and non bumiputras.

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 5 July 2009, 8:54 pm and is filed under
Dr. Chen Man Hin
,
Economics
,
Najib Razak
,
NEP
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Integrity: What option for Malaysia?

By Tunku Abdul Aziz

THE UPSURGE of interest in integrity and ethics is not without a good reason. People all over the world have realized that human progress is unlikely to be sustainable without all of us adopting and embracing universal human values – values that transcend cultural, religious and political barriers.

In Malaysia we have the best legal framework, rules, regulations and procedures, but corrupt practices continue unchecked because those entrusted to serve the community are themselves morally and ethically deficient and devoid of ethical values and high standards of personal and public behaviour.

If we lose our competitive position because we are corrupt and lack integrity, we are putting our future as a nation at risk. Corruption kills competition, breeds inefficiency, distorts our decision making processes and promotes social and political instability in the long run. I believe that in societies where integrity is firmly entrenched, corruption can be kept firmly under control.

We have to refocus our vision and reshape our views and ideas on what can be done to fight unethical public behaviour, not only on our own turf, but equally important, on the international front because cross-border corruption represents a major source of social, economic and political instability and distortion, if not dealt with decisively.

In the globalised world in which we operate with its own set of demanding rules of engagement, with emphasis on transparency and accountability, we have to learn quickly to be adaptable or we will be marginalized.

However described, corruption exacts a heavy toll on a nation’s social, political, and economic development. Anyone trying to persuade you that corruption is a victimless crime is just being cynical.

There are victims out there all right, if only we care to open our eyes. As always, they represent the underclass, and are among the poorest, and the least informed and educated members of our society. They are men and women who because of their economic status do not even know their rights as citizens.

The recent Malaysian Indian demonstrations in Kuala Lumpur could well have been a manifestation of a sense of being excluded from mainstream economic and social development. There are large numbers of people in Peninsular, Sarawak and Sabah who are in the same boat, and the government must ensure that its service delivery meets their expectations.

I very much hope that we are not fighting corruption for its own sake, or just to feel good for that would be tantamount to abandoning a large part of mankind to perpetual misery and degradation in the face of the relentless onslaught of human greed. We fight corruption not only to be globally competitive, but more to the point, to bring about social justice and to make a difference to the lives of the poor, the real victims of corruption.

The long term, sustainable prosperity of any country depends entirely on good governance, a comprehensive, overarching system for managing the often complex social, economic and political needs of a modern state, underpinned by strong ethical principles.

The current financial crisis has many lessons for us. One is that there is really no substitute for international standards of business conduct; standards that are firmly grounded in transparency, accountability and integrity. Bad governance, whether private sector or government, contributes directly to inefficiency and corruption. Every financial crisis that has hit our nation has had elements of inefficiency, greed and corruption in the final equation. An absence of integrity is not good for business, especially international business.

Corruption in Malaysia is alive and well as revealed in survey after survey. The latest to confirm this is a report released by the World Bank. The economic strength and prosperity of our nation must begin with confronting and resolving our internal structural weaknesses, of which corruption is a serious impediment to global competitiveness.

We have to keep ourselves abreast of best international practices if there is to be a return of public confidence in the way we conduct our business affairs. We have to raise the ethical bar by putting ethics in the driving seat.

The international punishment for breaches of business ethics meted out to a country perceived to be corrupt such as ours can be swift and damaging in real terms.

Ethical behaviour is no longer the luxury of the virtuous; it has become a business necessity. Malaysia’s capacity to prosper must be predicated on the highest international ethical standards. The way forward for Malaysia is to embrace integrity and put it to good use in our fight for a place at the global top table of clean nations. Is the government up to the task?

                This entry was posted on Monday, 6 July 2009, 1:55 pm and is filed under
Corruption
,
Good Governance
,
Tunku Abdul Aziz
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Police Escort for Wedding Car?

Letters

by
Ganesh

It would be good for you to investigate an incident I saw. I was in Suabng Jaya, next to Taylor’s college roundabout this weekend, when I saw a wedding car pass by. What was ironic is that it had police escorts. They stopped traffic to let the wedding car pass by. In another car, there was a cameraman who was filming the wedding car.

I am quite shocked at this. The police got time to escort and give VIP treatment to a wedding car?

I do not know whose wedding it was but I am very sure it was not a Royal wedding, which is the only wedding that deserves a Police escort.

Here I am worried about my personal safety and my house getting robbed and suddenly I see several police outriders escorting a wedding car instead of patrolling my neighbourhood.

Whose wedding was this to deserve special police escort?

                This entry was posted on Monday, 6 July 2009, 4:25 pm and is filed under
Letters
,
Police
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


PTPTN issues – 1% interest rate?

Letters

SS

Let me first introduce myself, I am Tee from Klang, Selangor. I just graduate recently from Multimedia University with B.Eng(HONS) Electronics.

The PTPTN loan i had received is RM66,000. I wish to start my payment as soon as possible but i still very confuse about the current interest rate apply to all IPTA and IPTS students. From the statement i got from PTPTN, they said the old rate still applied, and when i phone them, they said that the conversion from old rate to 1% is still on progress, until then, we still have to follow the old rate.

Now the problem is, our PM announce that new rate which is 1% will start to take effect on June 2008. Why PTPTN still using the old rate? and it take so long to convert.

When i ask them when the conversion will finish, they say they cant give me exact date means we still have to wait and paying to old rate. i think that is not fair to all students in malaysia. At my opinion, PM should’nt make such announcement if it is not possible or take such long time to complete the conversion.

I hope Mr.Lim can help not just only me but all the students in malaysia about this matter. RM66,000 and the interest might be a small amount for government but it is a big amount for fresh graduates and those who have family to support plus with current economy slow down.

                This entry was posted on Monday, 6 July 2009, 10:02 pm and is filed under
Education
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Test Scores, Meritocracy, and a Dysfunctional Education System

by M. Bakri Musa

Three recent and apparently unrelated news items reflect our distorted view of merit and our dysfunctional education system.  We believe that merit is measured only by test scores.  As for our flawed education system, its current minister is seeking UNESCO’s help while his immediate predecessor commissioned the World Bank.  As in the past, there will be an expensive and voluminous report, and that will be the end of it.

            The first news item was the law lecturer who flunked over 97 percent of her students; second, the tragic death of a college dropout at UTM’s campus dormitory in Johor Baru; and third, Prime Minister Najib’s announcement of special ‘merit’ scholarships.

            That law lecturer is actually proud of the fact that only 4 out of her 157 students passed her test.  She is now a cause celebre among those who have legitimate misgivings of our education system.  However, I would gently suggest that perhaps teaching is not her calling.  That assessment would change of course had she approached her dean early in the academic term to discuss her classroom problems.

            For her to realize only at the end of the year that nearly her entire class was not prepared to undertake rigorous law studies is incredulous.  She must have been totally out of touch with her class.  If what she claimed were true, that should have been obvious within the first few weeks, not at the end of the year.

            The second, the death on UTM campus, was tragic in many ways.  This, together with the recent snafu over processing applicants at the supposedly ‘apex’ Universiti Sains Malaysia, reflects the quality of our campus management.  Her and her baby’s bodies were not found until two days later.  Where were her dorm mates?  Were they deaf and blind?  This is a pathetic reflection of the campus social environment.

            The university released a statement that she was a fourth-year unmarried ‘dropout’ who had been renting a room from the university.  No mention of condolence to the poor victim’s family.  I wonder if the campus Imam had performed the funeral rites on her and comforted her grieving family.  More than likely, he too had condemned her for her sins.  If I am wrong in my assumption, I unreservedly apologize to the Imam.

            A fourth-year student just does not ‘drop out.’  She must have had other than academic difficulties, most likely her pregnancy.  That undoubtedly was a mistake, but not a reason for dropping out.  The university could have granted her leave of absence.  To expel someone at that level is unnecessary.

            Nor should the UTM victim pay for her one mistake with her life, as well as that of her innocent baby.  That she felt isolated and without any help right on campus is an indictment of her university.  The campus should not have punished her or aggravated her problem by not offering her medical and counseling care.  The campus environment must be supportive such that students like her could readily seek help.

            The university should provide adequate sex education and the necessary medical services.  This is not just to prevent unwanted pregnancies but also the spread of sexually transmitted diseases like AIDS.  The moral qualms of the officials should not blind them to the needs of their students.

            The third news item is the giddiness that greets Prime Minister Najib’s announcement of special scholarships based only on ‘merit.’  This response is most pronounced from those who feel that awards where Malays would predominate, as with JPA scholarships, would by definition lack ‘merit.’

            Najib’s announcement followed an earlier controversy where students with 21 A’s in the SPM examination were denied the honor in favor of those with only 10 or 11 A’s.  Never mind the absurdity of sitting for so many subjects.  ‘Merit’ to these folks is a simplistic concept, something that can readily be measured by a paper and pencil (or pen) test.  If that were the case, there would be no need for selection committees or interviews, just use computers to select the candidates.

            These folks would be bewildered if told that even top universities have large admissions department to look out for potential talents that could have been missed from just looking at their test scores alone.  For its part, JPA has not seen fit to learn from the great universities on how they select their candidates, like having them write personal essays.  With JPA scholarships, I would have eligible candidates write personal essays in both Malay and English, in addition to separate interviews conducted exclusively in Malay and English.

            One company has interviews with a twist.  A day before the interview, the candidates were assigned a real-life problem.  During the interview the candidate would discuss his or her approach to solving it.  It is a revelation to see how candidates approach a problem.

            Those who view merit strictly as test scores obviously do not have the humility or capacity to understand the limitations of those tests.  There are at least three variables to a test.  One is the test itself, its validity and reliability.  Meaning, does it really measure ‘merit’ (however we define the term) and are its results reproducible?  Then there are the students.  The third would be the teacher and her teaching.  The students may be intelligent, willing and capable, but if her teaching skills are wanting, the results would also be poor.

            It is presumptuous if not outright arrogant for that law lecturer to assume that she is a superb teacher and that the fault lies entirely with her students.  Even if she is a superb teacher (or others have convinced her that she is), she still could not attribute her class failure entirely to her students.  She may have been inept in designing effective test questions.  The only way for her to prove that her tests were valid would be to administer them to two control groups:  one would be those who should pass her examination (positive control), and the other would be where you expect them not to do well (negative control).

            The first could be her senior students and the second, other than law students.  If the first group excelled on her test while the second did poorly, then she could rightly conclude that her examination questions were valid.  Short of that she is unjustified in assuming that her students were all duds and that her teaching and tests were blameless.

            If as she claimed that her students were totally unprepared to pursue law studies, a good or at least diligent teacher would have changed her emphasis and approach to bring them up to par.  There is no point piling on materials that the students could not absorb.  If need be she could have alerted her dean on the need for remedial instructions.  Perhaps she could have asked the dean to put the entire class in a year of preparatory instructions.

            Any or all of these approaches would have been more productive.  Had she done so she would have won the eternal gratitude of her students.  She would also make a national contribution by producing a class of competent lawyers.  More importantly, she would not have been fired.  Instead all she achieved with her strutting was to brand her entire class as failures, a stigma that will tag them for the rest of their lives.  In the process she also branded herself a failure as a teacher.

            On many American campuses, even at the most prestigious, there are preparatory summer classes before the new academic year where students could enroll to better prepare themselves.  Many students, even bright ones, avail themselves to such programs.  Even top MBA programs have similar summer programs so students could brush up on their mathematics, for example.

            It is amazing how once you have correctly identified the problems, it is remarkable easy to craft the needed solutions.  On the other hand, if you fail to identify or comprehend the problems clearly, then you are more likely to seek gimmicky solutions.  Najib Razak’s plan for ‘merit’ scholarships is one such example.

            Najib is frankly admitting that the current program is based on other than merit.  I wonder how those current JPA scholarship holders feel now that the awards they had worked so hard for had been trashed by no less than the Prime Minister.

            Like the USIM law lecturer, Najib Razak is confused on the meaning of education and learning, as well as the significance of tests, test scores, and merit.

                This entry was posted on Monday, 6 July 2009, 6:48 pm and is filed under
Bakri Musa
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Gobbledegook and regurgitation galore in the two written judgments of the Court of Appeal in Zambry v Nizar Jamaluddin

By
NHChan

Prologue

I shall start with
an
 aside on the dictionary definition of the two words which feature in the title of this article.

Gobbledegook means unintelligible language.

Regurgitate means repeat information without understanding it. Regurgitation is the noun.

 After you have read the article you should have an inkling of what I am trying to suggest with the words. You can then judge for yourself.

There are only two points that really matter in this appeal: Clauses (2)(a) and (6) of Article 16

Let us see if ordinary people like us can understand Clauses (2)(a) and (6) of Article 16 of the Constitution of Perak better than the judges of this Court of Appeal.

There are only two points that really matter in the appeal. They are Clauses (2)(a) and (6) of Article 16 and they read:

(2) (a) His Royal Highness shall first appoint as Menteri Besar to preside over the Executive Council a member of the Legislative Assembly who in his judgment is likely to command the confidence of the majority of the members of the Assembly;

And

(6) If the Menteri Besar ceases to command the confidence of the majority of the members of the Legislative Assembly, then, unless at his request His Royal Highness dissolves the Legislative Assembly, he shall tender the resignation of the Executive Council.

The language of these two clauses, Clause (2)(a) and Clause (6), is easy to understand. There is no ambiguity. Clause (2)(a) is definitive. It is only in this clause that the Ruler has been given the discretion to appoint a Menteri Besar which is based on his judgment.

On the other hand, it is only in Clause (6) where it is said that if the Menteri Besar ceases to command the confidence of the majority of the members of the Legislative Assembly then he would be able to ask the Ruler to dissolve the Assembly. If the request for the dissolution of the Assembly is withheld by the Ruler (who has the discretion to do so under Article 1 8(2)(b)), the incumbent Menteri Besar has to tender the resignation of the Executive Council.

It is important that we notice that there is no provision for the incumbent Menteri Besar to resign. In fact, in the present case, the incumbent Menteri Besar Nizar had refused to resign even though he was ordered by the Ruler to do so. Of course, all of us know that the Ruler has no such power to order anyone to do anything. It was unconstitutional of the Ruler to do so.

While members of the Executive Council hold office at the pleasure of the Ruler, it is not so with the Menteri Besar. Clause (7) of Article 16 states:

(7) Subject to Clause (6) a member of the Executive Council other than the Mentri Besar shall hold office at His Royal Highness’ pleasure,

That said, I return to the first part of Clause (6) which I am going to discuss below.

The proper duty of the conjunction “if” is to introduce a conditional sentence

The operative word in Clause (6) is the conjunction “if’. I refer to
Fowler‘s Modern English Usage,
 Second Edition, where it says:

if
. To avoid possible ambiguity it may be prudent to confine
if
 to its proper duty of introducing the protasis of a conditional sentence, and not to use it as a substitute for
though
 or
whether
 or (with
not
) to introduce a possible alternative.

In case you do not know the meaning of the word “protasis”, it means the clause that states the condition in a conditional sentence. In English the protasis is generally introduced by
if
 or
unless
. But don’t trust Microsoft’s word processor because it suggests the word “protasis” does not exist in the English language. Of course, Fowler is the authority on the usage of the English language (Churchill wrote to the Director of Military Intelligence about the plans for the Normandy landings, “Why must you use
intensive
 here?
Intense
 is the right word. You should read Fowler’ s
 Modern English Usage
 on the use of the two words”). Or you may use a good dictionary, not a condensed one, and you will find the word.

The dictionary meaning of the conjunction “if’ means “on condition that, whenever” or “supposing that, in the event that”. In the present context, if is used to mean “on condition that, whenever”. So that Clause (6) is to read like this: On condition that “the Menteri Besar ceases to command the confidence of the majority of the Members of the Legislative Assembly, then,” he can request the Ruler to dissolve the Assembly. This sentence means that “whenever” a Menteri Besar has ceased to command the confidence of the majority of the Assembly, he can request the Ruler to dissolve the Assembly. As stated in Fowler, the proper duty of “if’ is to confine the word to introducing the protasis of a conditional sentence. The condition in the sentence is that the MB’s loss of confidence in the Legislative Assembly has to be established first before the MB can request the Sultan to dissolve the Assembly.

Therefore, it is only on the condition that a Menteri Besar has lost (ceased to command) the confidence of the majority of the Assembly before he can request the Ruler to dissolve the Assembly.

Definitely, it is not up to Nizar the incumbent Menteri Besar to say that he has lost the confidence of the Assembly. How could he be sure of that without a vote being taken at the Assembly? At best, Nizar could only be guessing. Obviously, the only way in which it could be shown with any degree of certainty that Nizar had lost the confidence of the majority of the members of the Assembly is to go to the Assembly itself for a vote to be taken.

But what happens when an MB had lost a formal vote of confidence in the Assembly and still refused to resign?

But then, one may ask the hypothetical question (because this is not the case here), what happens when an MB knows by a vote being taken in the Legislative Assembly that he has lost the confidence of the majority of the Assembly? Can he refuse to resign? Professor Kevin YL Tan in his essay which appears on the web portal
LoyarBurok
 (
www.loyarburok.com
) tells us that:

This happened in Kelantan in 1977 when its MB, Datuk Mohamed Nasir refused to resign even though he had lost a formal vote of confidence in the Kelantan LA, been sacked by his own party, and had his request for dissolution of the LA refused by the Sultan of Kelantan. The impasse led to the declaration of a state of emergency by the Federal Government that lasted three months, after which the LA was dissolved for fresh elections.

Alas, this single precedent is not particularly instructive. No legal solution was possible and ultimately, the situation was resolved politically by the Sultan dissolving the LA and allowing fresh elections to be called. Perhaps, all rulers and governors should, as a matter of course, accede to requests by their respective MBs to dissolve the LA for fresh elections to be called unless the ruler has a premonition that a calamity might befall the state if he so acceded. That way, new mandates are quickly determined and the business of government can proceed once a new leadership is established. Indeed, the Sultan of Perak supported this view of a ruler’s powers when he was Lord President. In his 1992 essay, “The Role of Constitutional Rulers”, he opined:

“… under normal circumstances, it is taken for granted that the Yang diPertuan Agong would not withhold his consent to a request for dissolution of Parliament. His role under such a situation is purely formal.”

This point was picked up by counsel for Nizar and cited with approval by the High Court.

The Sultan has no explicit power to dismiss an MB under the Perak Constitution. Indeed, neither is the Yang di-Pertuan Agong empowered to dismiss a Prime Minister under the Federal Constitution.

It seems that ordinary people are better than these judges because they could understand what the two clauses mean

Now that you are apprised of the meaning of the two clauses that really matter in the appeal, you should be in a better position than the appellate judges who have missed the points to come to their decision.

We all know that whenever there is a situation when there is no Menteri Besar, such as when the incumbent MB dies or resigns or has been disqualified as an assemblyman (because Nizar is an assemblyman) or has been removed from office by the assembly, then the Ruler “shall first appoint as Mentri Besar to preside over the Executive Council a member of the Legislative Assembly who in his judgment is likely to command the confidence of the majority of the members of the Assembly”: so says Article 16(2)(a). This is the only occasion in which a Ruler can use his ‘judgment” to select and appoint a Menteri Besar.

We also know that a Menteri Besar, once he has been appointed by the Sultan under Clause (2)(a), cannot be removed by him. The MB does not hold office at the Sultan’s pleasure. The Sultan has no power to dismiss the incumbent Menteri Besar Nizar Jamaluddin or to declare the office of Menteri Besar vacant: so says Article 16(7), “Subject to Clause (6) a member of the Executive Council
other than the Menteri Besar
 shall hold office at His Royal Highness’ pleasure (the emphasis is mine)”. So that when Nizar refused to resign after the Sultan has declined to dissolve the Legislative Assembly, the Sultan has no power to dismiss him nor has he the power to appoint another Menteri Besar when Nizar is still the Menteri Besar as he has not resigned his office.

So then, how are we to determine a loss of confidence in the Assembly? Certainly not by an outsider like us. Not even Nizar himself was in any position to say that he did not command the confidence of the majority of the Legislative Assembly. Only the Assembly can determine if Nizar has lost the confidence of the majority of its members.

Therefore, the reality of the situation is that Nizar is still the Menteri Besar when he refused to resign and the Sultan has no power to dismiss him or to deem the office of Menteri Besar has fallen vacant. The Sultan has no discretion or power to appoint a second Menteri Besar when the incumbent is still in office. The Perak Constitution does not provide for two Menteri Besars. Any decision of the courts otherwise is a perverse one because such a decision is not made according to the Laws of the Constitution of Perak.

Don’t you think all of you ordinary people are better judges than these recalcitrant judges of the Court of Appeal? At least (now that you are informed of the constitutional provisions) you know how to apply the relevant law which is applicable in the present case, whereas the judges don’t seem to know how to do it.

Now that you know the law which applies, you are in a position to judge the two judges

So far the Court of Appeal has issued two written judgments. Let us see if the judges who wrote them come up to your expectations.

Raus Sharif JCA who sat as the chairman of this Court of Appeal meandered through 43 tedious pages of his 48 page judgment before he came to the conclusion that Article 16(6) makes no reference to a motion of loss of confidence to be passed by the Legislative Assembly and therefore he concluded that the High Court judge had erred in law. This is what Raus JCA said, p 43:

For the above reasons, I find that the learned judge had erred in law in concluding that the only manner in which the loss of confidence of the majority of members of the Legislative Assembly could only be ascertained by way of motion to be passed in the Legislative Assembly. Such a finding is contrary to the provisions of Article XVI(6) of the Perak State Constitution which makes no reference to such a motion having to be tabled.

Remember my explanation above about the conjunction “
if
’? In the instant case the use of the conjunction
if
 means “on condition that” or “whenever”. So that the opening words of Article 16(6) should read, thus: On condition that “the Menteri Besar ceases to command the confidence of the majority of the members of the Legislative Assembly, then,” he can request the Ruler to dissolve the Assembly. In other words, the loss of confidence in the Legislative Assembly must be established first before the MB can make his request to the Ruler for a dissolution of the Assembly. Obviously the only way to establish that Nizar has lost the confidence of the majority is to ask the members of the Assembly themselves. It would be incorrect to ask Nizar because he could only guess at his own popularity. Undoubtedly, you must never ask the Ruler to determine the loss of confidence of a Menteri Besar in the Legislative Assembly as he has no power to determine on the status of the MB’s popularity in the Assembly. And if the Court of Appeal were to confer such power on the Ruler, then it is a blatant refusal of the court to administer justice according to the Laws of the Constitution of Perak.

Of course, in Article 36(2) the Sultan is given a general power “to prorogue or dissolve the Legislative Assembly”.

Yet, the judge has relied on the Ruler’s determination that Nizar no longer commands the confidence of members of the Assembly. This is what Raus Sharif JCA said, at p 40 of his 48 page judgment:

It is an undisputed fact that His Royal Highness interviewed the 3 independent members separately in order to ascertain whether they were really supporting Barisan National. They informed His Royal Highness that they no longer supported Nizar as the Menteri Besar. Instead they declared their support to Barisan Nasional. At the end of it, His Royal Highness was satisfied that with the 31 members of the Legislative Assembly supporting the Barisan Nasional, Nizar no longer command the confidence of the majority of the mambers of the Legislative Assembly.

This is a trashy piece of reasoning coming from an appellate judge. Raus Sharif JCA seems not to know that the Ruler is only a constitutional monarch with no prerogative power to do anything but that which the law allows him.

Plainly, the use of the conjunction
if
 in Clause (6) speaks volumes. The loss of confidence of the MB in the Legislative Assembly must be established first before the MB can make his request to the Sultan to dissolve the Assembly. In this case Nizar requested the Sultan to dissolve the Legislative Assembly before it could be established that the MJ3 has lost the confidence of the majority in the Assembly.

Without doubt, it must not be left to interested parties – neither Nizar nor Zambry and his cohorts – to determine the loss of confidence of a Menteri Besar in the legislature. Not even a constitutional monarch could determine the loss of confidence of a Menteri Besar in the Legislative Assembly because he has no power to do so. Not even the judges can confer on themselves a power which does not exist to determine the loss of confidence in the Legislative Assembly of a Menteri Besar except the Assembly itself. It would be unfair and unjust to do so.

The judgment of Ahmad Maarop JCA

Ahmad Maarop JCA arrived at the same conclusion as Raus Sharif JCA except that Ahmad Maarop JCA is more long-winded. At page 42 of his 76 page convoluted judgment Ahmad Maarop JCA said:

In conclusion, I hold that there is no mandatory and1or express requirement in the Perak State Constitution that provides that there must be a vote of no confidence passed in the Legislative Assembly against Nizar before he ceased to command the confidence of the majority of the members of the Legislative Assembly. The fact that he ceased to command the confidence of the majority of the members of the Legislative Assembly under Article XVI(6) could be established by other means. Thus, His Royal Highness was right in making enquiries to satisfy himself as to whether Nizar had in fact ceased to command the confidence of the majority of the members of the Legislative Assembly, in considering Nizar’ s request for the dissolution of the Legislative Assembly.

It took this judge 42 pages to reach this conclusion. At the recent launch of my book,
How to Judge the Judges
, on 29 June 2009 Mr. Justice Gopal Sri Ram FCJ remarked, “But where a judgment is tainted with intellectual dishonesty there is nothing much you can do except to expose the fallacy of the grounds put forth to justify a conclusion already reached”. Now let us expose the fallacy of the finding of this judge.

The judge said that whether Nizar had ceased to command the majority in the Assembly could be established by other means. One may ask, what other means could there be? He could only give one example. He said, “Thus, His Royal Highness was right in making enquiries to satisfy himself as to whether Nizar had in fact ceased to command the confidence of the majority of the members of the Legislative Assembly, in considering Nizar’s request for the dissolution of the Legislative Assembly”. But, all of us know that the Sultan has no power to do anything except that which the law allows him. As professor Andrew Harding has correctly said in his essay
Crisis of Confidence and Perak‘s Constitutional Impasse
 dated June 8 2009 which is featured on the web portals Malaysian Insider and loyarburok.com:

…. the issue seems to become, who was empowered to make the judgment as to whether the MB still had the confidence of a majority? The Judge gave a correct answer to this question by saying it is the legislature, not the head of state.

…..

But, as the Judge also said, it is in any event clear that the head of state is not given the power under Article 16(6), as he is under Article 16(2)(a), to make a judgment as to matters of confidence

The Judge in Professor Harding’s essay is the much respected Mr. Justice Abdul Aziz of the High Court.

Conclusion

I trust we have exposed the fallacy of the grounds put forth by the two judges of the Court of Appeal. All of you, (the ordinary people) who have been informed of the relevant provisions of the Laws of the Constitution of Perak by reading this article, knew that there are only two clauses of Article 16 which apply to the points that really matter before the Court of Appeal. In Clause (2)(a) the head of state is empowered to make a judgment as to matters of confidence. Whereas in Clause (6) he is not given the power to do so but the legislature is.

Mr. Justice Abdul Aziz in the High Court gave the correct answer by saying it is the legislature, not the head of state, who is empowered to make the judgment as to whether the MB still had the confidence of a majority. And, I trust, all of you would agree with him.

Raus Sharif and Ahmad Maarop JJCA are wrong. They are wrong because there is no empowering provision in Article 16(6). They did not apply the law as it stands. Indeed they have blatantly refused to apply the Laws of the Constitution of Perak. They should be ashamed of themselves for not administering justice according to law. The common people of this country can now judge them for what they are.

The full text of the two judgments can be found on the internet. If you have difficulty in finding the cases, try
www.loyarburok.com
. If you, as a layman, find the judgments unintelligible then that is what the word gobbledygook means. On the other hand, if you find the lengthy judgments merely repeating information which is unnecessary to the two points that matter in the appeal then that is precisely what regurgitation means. So now you can appreciate the title of this essay.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 7 July 2009, 7:51 pm and is filed under
Court
,
Judiciary
,
NH Chan
,
Perak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Kong Choy should answer in the PAC the five questions I asked him in Parliament in November 2007 on the PKFZ scandal but which he had been evading for two years

An online MCA website, malaysianmirror.com, has reported on the willingness of former Transport Minister Datuk Seri Chan Kong Choy to appear before the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) on the
RM12.5 billion PKFZ scandal
.

Like his predecessor Tun Dr. Ling Liong Sik, Chan should give clear-cut assurance that he will not emulate their former boss, former Prime Minister Tun Dr. Mahathir in succumbing to a sudden attack of selective amnesia when appearing before the PAC in the way Mahathir succumbed to selective amnesia when appearing before the Lingam Videotape Royal Commission of Inquiry in January 2008, where he had to say “I cannot remember” or its equivalent 14 times during his 90-minute testimony.

In his appearance before the PAC, Kong Choy should answer the five questions I posed to him in Parliament in November 2007, but which he had been evading for two years, viz:

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:

categorical assurance by the Transport Minister that the PKFZ proposal was feasible and self-financing and would not require any public funding; and

that every RM100 million variation in the development costs of PKFZ would require prior Cabinet approval.

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.

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.

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.

Why no action had been taken against the Transport Minister, 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 in Parliament, Chan completely ignored the five questions on the core issues of the RM12.5 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? Doesn’t this shocking evidence of a shambolic government, with the right hand not know what the left hand is doing?

I look forward to Chan answering these questions after evading them for two years when he appear before the PAC on the PKFZ scandal.

It is reported today that Port Klang Authority (PKA) has been overruled by the Finance Ministry and had been directed to resume payment of RM660 million to PKFZ turnkey developer,  Kuala Dimensi Sdn. Bhd (KDSB) companies, for the PKFZ land and development.

Last Tuesday, PKA Chairman, Datuk Lee Hwa Beng had announced deferment until outcome of review by the task force commissioned to take another look at PKFZ by 10th August 2009.

I had received this information on Saturday, which was why it was my No. 106 question to Transport Minister Ong Tee Keat last Saturday.

Despite Ong’s silence, Lee’s admission of the payment of RM330 million yesterday and another RM300 million by end of the month is confirmation of the truth of the veracity of the questions I have been posing to Ong in the past 36 days.  What has Ong got to say for his losing out to KDSB’s Datuk Tiong King Sing in this “test of will” between the two?

Although I had announced a three-day break of my daily “three questions a day” to Ong on the PKFZ scandal, Ong’s “cultural assassins” have continued their attacks on me.

The latest statement by Ong’s “cultural assassin” accused me of trying to deflect attention from the Penang issue of Kampong Buah Pala and Kedah Pakatan Rakyat crisis, which is so ridiculous to any Malaysian following daily news – as I started my daily “three questions a day” on PKFZ to Ong on 30th May 2009, many weeks before the two controversies in Penang and Kedah.

However, with these baseless attacks by Ong’s “cultural assassins”, I am inclined to continue my daily questioning of Ong on the PKFZ scandal. I will announce my next move on Friday.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 7 July 2009, 2:14 pm and is filed under
Parliament
,
PKFZ
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


PPSMI – Are the shoes of an Education Minister in Malaysia too big for Muhyiddin?

Umno Youth Leader, Khairy Jamaluddin admitted in an interview with Sin Chew Jit Poh yesterday that Malaysia should be a A+ country but it could only manage a C!

This is because of decades of Barisan Nasional bad governance and misguided policies which fail to fully exploit the human and natural resources of the country for the national good so as to be able to continuously upgrade our international competitiveness to better position the country to face the challenges of globalization, liberalization and information and communications technology.

A good illustration is the disastrous PPSMI (Teaching Science and Mathematics in English) decision making guinea pigs of some four million Malaysian pupils whether in the national, Chinese or Tamil primary schools in the past six years  for “a cure which is worse than the disease”!

Have we got in Deputy Prime Minister Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin a new Education Minister who has the political will and professional competence to undo the six-year damage from these unprofessional educational experiments to lead the Malaysian education system to a new era of professionalism, excellence and global status?

Muhyiddin has to convince Malaysians that he has these qualities to be a  better Education Ministers than his predecessors, particularly the Education Ministers responsible for the PPSMI programme, like former Education Ministers Datuk Seri Hishamuddin Hussein and Datuk Musa Mohamad or even former Education Ministers in the past four decades which included three former Prime Ministers Tun Hussein Onn, Tun Mahathir and Tun Abdullah and the present Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak.

Are  the shoes of an Education Minister in Malaysia too big for Muhyiddin?

I ask this question because of the shocking self-admission by Muhyiddin in May that he did not know that English is not a “must pass” subject for SPM – which shows that education had never been very close to his heart, although he was not an Education Minister until the Najib Cabinet reshuffle!

Furthermore, Muhyiddin was one of the leading advocates of UMNO for PPSMI in 2002, defending the proposal with the half-baked argument  that  many countries in the world, including China, Japan, Korea and France were turning to English as it could help them to progress – showing his inability to understand the reasons for the opposition to PPSMI in national, Chinese and Tamil primary schools by parents and teachers from all the major races in the country.

In 2002 I had asked whether PPSMI was meant to raise English fluency or maths and science proficiency among Malaysian students – and I contended that PPSMI was not the answer to the challenges of either raising English standards or uplifting  maths and science proficiency among Malaysians students.

Muhyiddin has proved critics of PPSMI since 2002 right, as he said last month that a study conducted by the Education Ministry and researchers from local universities revealed that the teaching of maths and science in English in the last six years had not improved the performance of students in those subjects.

There have been changes but the difference is “nominal” – a two to three per cent change since the policy was implemented in 2003!

Can such “nominal” change, not to mention the downside of the experiment, the money, time and national energy (particularly in the national divisiveness it creased in the country) expended on PPSMI in the past six years?

The Barisan Nasional has taken 30 years to find out that its ill-considered abolition of the English stream of education has undermined Malaysia’s international competitiveness and jeopardized the country’s future prosperity and welfare. It has taken 20 years to discover that its 3M system had failed ensure that school schoolchildren could all acquire the three basic educational fundamentals of 3Rs – reading, writing and arithmetic.

Do we have to take a decade for the policy makers to concede that PPSMI is a disastrous educational experiment which failed to achieve the objectives of raising English fluency as well as maths and science proficiency among national, Chinese and  Tamil primary schools?

The challenge before Muhyiddin and  the Najib Cabinet is whether they are capable of undoing the damage of the six-year PPSMI experiment and come up with  a new educational approach which could achieve the dual objectives of raising English fluency as well as maths/science proficiency of Malaysian students, regardless of race or educational stream.

This new educational package must contain the following elements:

Admit that the educationally unsound PPSMI is a failure because educational experience on bilingual education worldwide in the past three decades have shown that using a second language as a medium of instruction from too early stages can impede the development of thinking skills of children resulting in low achievement in mathematics, science and languages – powerful educational arguments against the use of English to teach maths and science from Std. One.  This argument does not apply for children whose home language is the English language or a total immersion education system is adopted with English as medium of instruction.

Flexibility in dealing with the problems of the different-medium primary schools. National and Tamil primary schools face the problem of student attainment in all three subjects, i.e. English, maths and science while Chinese primary school pupils face the problem of English proficiency. There should not be a “One Size Fits All” solution, which is why I had suggested in 2002 that the nine additional periods prescribed for Chinese primary schools should all be devoted to teaching the English language, which would have resulted in higher attainments of Chinese primary school students in all three subjects – which clearly was not what the Education Ministry wanted.

One important approach to raise English proficiency among Malaysian students is to make English a compulsory subject for SPM. If this had been done in 2002, with the Education Ministry working backwards in the past six years to build up on the infrastructure of teaching and learning English in all primary schools, students would have acquired greater fluency in English today.

In keeping with a flexible approach which is not tied down to a “One Size Fits All”, there should be choice for parents to pick the type of education they want for their children – including having classes or schools using English as medium for instruction for mathematics and science.  Six years ago, Mahathir broached the idea of the possibility of the government re-introduction of the English-medium school system to arrest the decline of the standard of English. This proposal should be seriously revisited by the Cabinet, Parliament and the Malaysian public.

The Cabinet should not delay any further to undo the six-year “cure worse than disease” PPSMI using four million schoolchildren as guinea-pigs by substituting it with an educationally sound, professional and acceptable programme to raise standards of English, maths and science of all students to pave the way for Malaysia to regain our international competitiveness in the global arena.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 7 July 2009, 1:00 pm and is filed under
Education
,
Good Governance
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


PTPTN and MARA updates

Just spoken to Chairman of Perbadanan Tabung Pendidikan Tinggi Nasional (PTPTN), Dr. Mohamad Shahrum bin Oshman, who is also MP for Lipis, on the complaint in this blog on PTPTN loan interest  by
Tee
 from Klang who just graduated from Multimedia University and wanted to begin payment for his RM66,000 PTPTN loan.

However, he was told that the old interest rate of 3% still applies although Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak had announced that the new rate of 1% would take effect from June 2008.

Mohamad Shahrum confirmed that the PTPTN interest is 1% and those who had paid 3% from June last year would have the excess credited to their account.

Thanks Mohamad Shahrum for the instant clarification which should put the issue to rest.

If Tee and other PTPTN borrowers have problems with the 1% loan interest, they are welcome to raise them here.

Other posters should be more indulgent with the English standard of posters, as they are victims of a system which saw the plunge of English language  in Malaysia from global standards.

If posting their views and grievances on this blog can help in raising their English standards, this blog is glad to be of service.

(2) Re the June 2, 2009 post by a IPTS student
“Have MARA run out of funds leaving hundreds stranded without their bumiputera student loans – and how can such a financial scandal happen?”
, its all’s well that ends well.

I had raised the issue in the recent Parliament and I had written to the student whether he would want me to raise funds for him.

This is the email from the IPTS student which I received yesterday:

“Thanks for the offer YB Lim,

“I was busy with my final examination and i just got back from penang recently. For your information, i will be receiving Mara loan from next semester onwards. Thank you for your help YB Lim”

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 7 July 2009, 4:00 pm and is filed under
Education
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.