Indelible ink scandal – spunky scrutiny-in-progress by Po Kuan

Together with other Pakatan Rakyat MPs, DAP MP for Batu Gajah

Fong Po Kuan grilled Nazri Aziz, Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department for the RM2.4 million indelible ink scandal by the Election Commission in the 12th general election.

Po Kuan has blogged about her spunky scrutiny-in-progress
, as evident from the two video clips here.

This parliamentary episode is reported by New Straits Times parliamentary report:

Spunky Scrutiny – Part 1 :

Spunky Scrutiny – Part 2 :

Hansard for Spunky Scrutiny – Part 1

Timbalan Yang di-Pertua [Datuk Ronald Kiandee]:
 Yang Berhormat Batu Gajah. Dia bagi Yang Berhormat Batu Gajah.

Puan Fong Po Kuan [Batu Gajah]:
 Terima kasih Yang Berhormat Menteri. Lagi

banyak Yang Berhormat Menteri cuba menjelaskan, lagi mengelirukan Dewan ini. Sekarang saya cuba cari dan orang ramai di luar juga hendak tahu sekarang siapa sedang berbohong dan tidak beritahu kebenaran.

Tadi Yang Berhormat kata tiada arahan ke atas SPR tapi pengerusi kata bahawa Kabinet tidak memberikan kelulusan penggunaannya. Perdana Menteri membalas pula bahawa hanya satu cadangan dan ini adalah satu jawapan kepada soalan Yang Berhormat Kuala Selangor 12 Mei. Terang-terang dia kata Jemaah Menteri telah menolak cadangan SPR untuk memperuntukkan cadangan penggunaan dakwat kekal di atas jari kuku.
[Tepuk]
 Ini jelas menolak cadangan SPR. Jadi sekarang ini siapa tidak cakap benar dalam Dewan ini dan di luar sana orang ramai sedang mahu tahu siapa sekarang cuba menipu di sini? Berbohong. Perkara kedua berkenaan Perlembagaan 119, hak untuk mengundi. Kalau pihak SPR ingat dan prihatin, minta nasihat Majlis Fatwa Kebangsaan untuk bertanya apakah penggunaan dakwat ini dibenarkan oleh hukum syarak. Kenapa boleh terlupa dari segi undang-undang perlembagaan dan akta pilihan raya ini? Jadi mesti ada anggota kena bertanggungjawab ke atas ini.

Timbalan Yang di-Pertua [Datuk Ronald Kiandee]:
 Baik Yang Berhormat.

Puan Fong Po Kuan [Batu Gajah]:
 Jangan cuba memusingkan fakta lagi. Beritahu kebenaran, siapa yang sedang berbohong di sini.

Dato’ Seri Mohamed Nazri bin Abdul Aziz:
 Tuan Yang di-Pertua, Pekan Pusing di Batu Gajah bukan tempat saya. Padang Rengas tak ada pusing. Batu Gajah ada Kampung

Pusing.

Tuan Yang di-Pertua, kita memang hendak bagi tahu di sini bahawa soalnya macam jawapan, kita menunggu fatwa. Itu bermakna bahawa kita dengarlah cakap SPR tetapi apabila Peguam Negara menasihatkan kepada kita iaitu selepas itu dua mesyuarat sebelum pilihan raya pihak Peguam Negara menasihatkan kepada kita mengatakan mungkin kita akan melanggar perlembagaan. Barulah kita bangkit. Sebelum itu tidak dibangkitkan oleh sesiapa. Jadi itu keikhlasan kita. Bermakna…

Puan Fong Po Kuan [Batu Gajah]:
 Jadi siapa tak buat kerja dia? Dalam aspek perundangan untuk memastikan cadangan penggunaan dakwat ini tak boleh dijalankan.

Dato’ Seri Mohamed Nazri bin Abdul Aziz:
 Yang tak buat kerjanya SPR lah. Sebab SPR…

Puan Fong Po Kuan [Batu Gajah]:
 AG di mana?

Dato’ Seri Mohamed Nazri bin Abdul Aziz:
 Ini apa benda ini? Duduklah dahulu.

Puan Fong Po Kuan [Batu Gajah]:
 Pejabat peguam di mana?

Timbalan Yang di-Pertua [Datuk Ronald Kiandee]:
 Yang Berhormat…

Dato’ Seri Mohamed Nazri bin Abdul Aziz:
 You mahu jawapan kah tak mahu

jawapan? Duduklah.

Timbalan Yang di-Pertua [Datuk Ronald Kiandee]:
 Yang Berhormat.

Dato’ Seri Mohamed Nazri bin Abdul Aziz:
 Duduk. Jadi macam SPR kita terima apa sahaja kalau jawapan yang ada berkaitan dengan SPR dalam Dewan Rakyat, mereka bagi kepada kita. Sebab itu pada waktu itu saya sekali Menteri bila ditanya berkenaan perkara ini saya terimalah dengan keikhlasan hati bahawa apa yang dilakukan itu adalah betul dan tidak ada salah.

Masalahnya SPR tidak rujuk kepada AG dan AG tidak berkesempatan untuk melihat perkara ini kerana tidak dirujuk kepada mereka. Akhirnya bila dekat dengan pilihan raya seperti biasa bila dekat pilihan raya kita akan duduk dan kaji apakah perkara yang boleh memungkinkan pilihan raya ini dibatalkan, rosak maka barulah dilihat ini bahaya. Kalau sekiranya diteruskan mungkin ada orang yang tak mahu dicalit. Itulah bangkit perkara ini sebelum pilihan raya yang berlaku baru-baru ini.

Dr. Haji Mohd. Puad Zarkashi [Batu Pahat]:
 Mohon penjelasan.

Dr. Dzulkefly Ahmad [Kuala Selangor]:
[Bangun]

Puan Hajah Fuziah Salleh [Kuantan]:

[Bangun]

Dato’ Seri Mohamed Nazri bin Abdul Aziz:
 Soal jawapan…

Dr. Haji Mohd. Puad Zarkashi [Batu Pahat]:
 Mohon penjelasan, Batu Pahat.

Dato’ Seri Mohamed Nazri bin Abdul Aziz:
 Yang Berhormat Kuala Selangor. Relax,

relax.

Dr. Haji Mohd. Puad Zarkashi [Batu Pahat]:
 Batu Pahat.

Dato’ Seri Mohamed Nazri bin Abdul Aziz:
Tak apa saya faham sudah. Sekilas ikan

di air…

Timbalan Yang di-Pertua [Datuk Ronald Kiandee]:
 Sekejap Yang Berhormat.

Dato’ Seri Mohamed Nazri bin Abdul Aziz:
 …jantan betina saya sudah tahu sudah.

Timbalan Yang di-Pertua [Datuk Ronald Kiandee]:
 Dia tengah habiskan jawapan.

Dato’ Seri Mohamed Nazri bin Abdul Aziz:
 Jadi dalam jawapan Yang Berhormat sebut ada perbezaan di antara soal menolak dan mengarah ini. Menolak dan mengarah. Kalau kita tidak bersetuju makna kita tolaklah, tapi soal sama ada SPR hendak ambil nasihat dan penolakan kita itu terpulang kepada dia. Kalau sebenarnya kita mengarahkan dia awalawal lagi sudah SPR sudah buat pengumuman bahawa tidak menggunakan inedible ink tapi kita serah pada dia. Sebenarnya tiga hari sebelum pilihan raya dia umum rugi kita. Barisan Nasional kalah kerusi banyak sebab apabila Pengerusi SPR umum…

Tuan Chong Chieng Jen [Bandar Kuching]:

[Menyampuk]

Dato’ Seri Mohamed Nazri bin Abdul Aziz:
 Ya, kalah kerusi banyak juga sebab orang memikirkan ini satu usaha lagi daripada pihak Barisan Nasional cuba hendak memenangkan pilihan raya dengan cara yang tidak betul dan jangan ada inedible ink. Kita tak sempat. Tak sempat hendak jawab. Ini jelas menunjukkan iaitu bahawa sebenarnya SPR…

Tuan Haji Mahfuz bin Omar [Pokok Sena]:
 Patut kami menang lagi banyak.

Dato’ Seri Mohamed Nazri bin Abdul Aziz:
 …bertindak bebas. Dia bertindak bebas. Jadi tidak ada kena-mengena. Kita bagi pandangan kita. Betul kita tolak tapi bukan untuk SPR menerima arahan itu.

Dr. Haji Mohd. Puad Zarkashi [Batu Pahat]:
[Bangun]

Dato’ Seri Mohamed Nazri bin Abdul Aziz:
 Terpulang kepada mereka dan saya sebut dua mesyuarat Jemaah Menteri sebelum pembubaran sepatutnya kalau di umum awalawal kalau kita arah you jawab juga sekarang, tolak. Selamatlah kita. Ada masa untuk kita membuat penjelasan tapi tiga hari sebelum pilihan raya. Sebab itu undi saya pun lari banyak pasal ingat saya hendak tipu. Jadi sebenarnya Yang Berhormat…

Dr. Haji Mohd. Puad Zarkashi [Batu Pahat]:
 Mohon penjelasan.

Dato’ Seri Mohamed Nazri bin Abdul Aziz:
 …saya tidak mahu menyalahkan sesiapa. Tidak baik dalam Dewan ini hendak mengatakan orang itu berbohong tapi terpulang kepada Yang Berhormat untuk menilai siapa yang cakap betul dan siapa yang menipu dalam hal ini.

===

Hansard of Spunky Scrutiny – Part 2

Timbalan Yang di-Pertua [Datuk Ronald Kiandee]:
 Ya, Yang Berhormat Batu Gajah.

Puan Fong Po Kuan [Batu Gajah]:
 Terima kasih Yang Berhormat Menteri. Apa yang kita mahu di sini adalah akauntabiliti dan ketelusan. Yang Berhormat mengaku atau tidak bahawa dalam insiden pembatalan penggunaan dakwat, telah timbul kelalaian oleh pihak tertentu. Jika ya, apa tindakan akan diambil untuk menunjukkan kerajaan sebuah kerajaan yang bertanggungjawab?

Perkara kedua, berkenaan dakwat tersebut. Ramai yang ingin tahu apakah dakwat tersebut ada dibeli? Jika ya, di mana dakwat itu sekarang kerana ia bernilai RM2.4 juta dan ada yang tanya dakwat itu dibeli dari siapa? Jadi mereka nak tahu siapakah akan bertanggungjawab? Saya mahu menteri mengaku kalau sudah silap, telah lalai, terlepas pandang undang-undang, mengaku dalam insiden ini.

Dato’ Seri Mohamed Nazri bin Abdul Aziz:
Saya tak tahulah. Tanyalah SPR sebab SPR yang buat keputusan itu semua, sebab dia bebas. Kalau kita bagi arahan pada dia jangan guna, nanti orang akan kata dia tidak bebas. Sebab itu ia memakan masa, ia fikir balik apakah benar yang Kabinet bangkit itu betul dan dia juga fikir RM2 juta lebih ink dah beli ini macam mana. Itu soal dialah. Kita nak buat macam mana?

Puan Fong Po Kuan [Batu Gajah]:
 Yang Berhormat Menteri, Yang Berhormat…

Dato’ Seri Mohamed Nazri bin Abdul Aziz:
Bukan soal lalai kita sebab soalnya dia

tidak rujuk kepada kita…

Puan Fong Po Kuan [Batu Gajah]:
 …Yang Berhormat sudah silap dalam tanggungjawab. Yang Berhormat sekarang tolak kepada SPR saja. Mana betul!…

Timbalan Yang di-Pertua [Datuk Ronald Kiandee]:
 Mahu minta jalan Yang Berhormat?

Dato’ Seri Mohamed Nazri bin Abdul Aziz:
 …Oleh sebab itu dalam soal ini, kelalaian apa yang berlaku bukan di sebelah pihak kita kerana SPR itu adalah bebas dan…

Puan Fong Po Kuan [Batu Gajah]:
 …Yang Berhormat, Yang Berhormat Menteri, senang kerja…

Timbalan Yang di-Pertua [Datuk Ronald Kiandee]:
 Yang Berhormat Batu Gajah, kena minta jalan Yang Berhormat.

Puan Fong Po Kuan [Batu Gajah]:
…Minta penjelasan, Yang Berhormat.

Dato’ Seri Mohamed Nazri bin Abdul Aziz:
 …Kalau Yang Berhormat nak tahu berkenaan dengan soal di manakah dakwat itu sekarang berada, adalah lebih baik Yang Berhormat buat soalan secara khusus. Dalam Mesyuarat kedua saya boleh bagi jawapan yang akan datang daripada pihak SPR.

Tuan Haji Mahfuz bin Omar [Pokok Sena]:

[Bangun]

Dr. Dzulkefly Ahmad [Kuala Selangor]:

[Bangun]

Puan Fong Po Kuan [Batu Gajah]:
 Minta penjelasan.

Dato’ Seri Mohamed Nazri bin Abdul Aziz:
 Yang Berhormat Pokok Sena, sila.

Timbalan Yang di-Pertua [Datuk Ronald Kiandee]:
 Dia bagi Yang Berhormat Pokok Sena, Yang Berhormat.

Puan Fong Po Kuan [Batu Gajah]:
 Itu perkara saya telah bangkit masa perbahasan.

Timbalan Yang di-Pertua [Datuk Ronald Kiandee]:
 Yang Berhormat Batu Gajah! Sila Yang Berhormat Pokok Sena.

Puan Fong Po Kuan [Batu Gajah]:
 Ini mahu lari dari tanggungjawab Yang Berhormat Menteri.

===

NST Online 2008/05/23

DEWAN RAKYAT: Nazri grilled decision not to use indelible ink

Reports by V. Vasudevan, B. Suresh Ram, Eileen Ng, R.S. Kamini, Ili Liyana Mokhtar and Joseph Sipalan

THE government bore the brunt of the Election Commission’s decision to cancel the use of indelible ink by voters in the recent general election as opposition members repeatedly poured cold water on the reasons given by Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Datuk Seri Mohd Nazri Aziz yesterday.

Nazri, replying to points raised during the debate on the royal address, had said the decision not to use the ink was made by the Election Commission.

“The government did not order the commission. We merely told them there were concerns about the legal implications and it could create problems later,” he said of the decision, which was made three days before the March 8 polls.

Nazri said the Constitution provided that every citizen had a right to vote and the commission could not stop anyone from voting because they refused to be marked with the indelible ink.

He was repeatedly challenged by Opposition Leader Datin Seri Dr Wan Azizah Wan Ismail (PKR-Permatang Pauh), Fong Po Kuan (DAP-Batu Gajah), Khalid Samad (Pas-Shah Alam), Dr Zulkifli Ahmad (Pas-Kuala Selangor) and Mahfuz Omar (Pas- Pokok Sena), who fired a variety of questions at Nazri on the issue.

The common thread to the questioning was that the government had failed in not considering the legal implications of using the ink.

They also wanted to know who was responsible for the decision as the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, and Election Commissioner, Tan Sri Abdul Rashid Abdul Rahman gave different answers.

“Who is telling the truth here?” asked Mahfuz.

Nazri said the cabinet had alerted the commission two weeks before the decision to dissolve the House was made.

“We conveyed our legal concerns about the use of the ink to the commission.

“It did not mean we ordered them not to use the ink. It is up to the commission as to what it wanted to do,” he said.

Fong said it was strange that the cabinet thought about the legal implications two weeks before the dissolution of the House.

“Where was the attorney-general? Why did he not think about this earlier?” asked Fong, who had said it was strange as the Prime Minister’s Department had thought about the religious implications of using the ink but not the legal aspect.

Nazri said the religious aspects were raised as Muslims had demanded to know if the use of the ink would infringe on their religious practices.

“No one raised the constitutional aspect,” he said, adding that he was not going to reply to the question on what had happened to the RM2.4 million worth of ink bought by the commission.

“Submit it as a written question for the next session,” he said, while declining to answer another question from Fong on who was awarded the contract to bring in the ink.

Wan Azizah told Nazri the whole exercise to cancel the use of indelible ink was suspicious.

“We were told there were reports of people smuggling in the ink and that is why the use of the ink had to be scrapped.

“But after the election we were told it was not the case. Who do we believe then?” she asked.

Nazri said the authorities acted based on the information available at the time.

He said the Barisan Nasional also suffered because the use of indelible ink was cancelled three days before the general election.

“People thought the BN was behind the decision.

“It cost us, too, as there was no time to explain why the decision had to be made,” he said.

                This entry was posted on Friday, 23 May 2008, 11:56 pm and is filed under
Election
,
Parliament
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Kedaulatan Pulau Pisang

Letters

by
Azmi

      Salam sejahtera YB, saya adalah seorang anggota TLDM yang pernah ditugaskan untuk memantau kehadiran petugas rumah api warga Singapura di Pulau Pisang. YB,  Pulau Pisang adalah pulau yang tidak dihuni, dimana penduduk asalnya telah berpindah ketanah besar di Pontian, yang tinggal hanya dusun dan perkuburan yang tidak terjaga, Ia terletak di perairan Pontian Johor dan jauh daripada Singapura.

      Persoalannya mengapa kita yang telah 50 tahun merdeka masih memerlukan bantuan Singapura untuk mengawal selia rumah api tersebut, adakah Jabatan Laut tidak berupaya untuk mengawal selianya. Disini saya ingin memaklumkan kepada YB, selama penugasan saya di pulau tersebut, kami tidak dibenarkan memasuki persekitaran rumah api, malah menggunakan jetinya juga dilarang apatah lagi memasuki kedalam rumah api. Maka sepanjang penugasan kami di sana, kami hanya memerhatikan dari jauh warga Singapura keluar masuk, tidak lebih dari itu.

      Merujuk kepada kemenangan Malaysia keatas kedaulatan Pulau Ligitan dan Sipadan adalah atas dasar pembangunan dan kawal selia Malaysia di pulau tersebut, begitu juga kehilangan kedaulatan Pulau Batu Puteh kepada Singapura juga atas alasan yang sama.

      Tidakkah kerajaan Malaysia berasa risau dengan kedudukan Pulau Pisang yang mungkin akan dituntut haknya oleh Singapura pada masa akan datang (tidak sekarang, mungkin 50 tahun akan datang. Tuntutan keatas Pulau Batu Puteh pun dilakukan setelah puluhan tahun ia mengawal selia pulau tersebut). Ada atau tidak perjanjian antara Malaysia dan Singapura yang jelas menyatakan bahawa kehadiran Singapura di Pulau Pisang hanya mengawal selia rumah api sahaja.

      Apakah para penasihat Kementerian Pertahanan atau Panglima Angkatan Tentera tidak sedar akan perkara ini. Tidakkah PAT terfikir, sekiranya berlaku konflik antara Malaysia dan Singapura, dengan mudah mereka boleh menempatkan pasukan elitnya di pulau ini. Mahukah kita buah pisang berbuah dua kali? kehilangan kedaulatan wilayah kepada pihak yang berada jauh dua kali ganda jaraknya daripada kita.

      Saya amat berharap YB dapat memanjangkan persoalan ini kepada Menteri Pertahanan semasa persidangan parlimen.

                This entry was posted on Friday, 23 May 2008, 11:56 pm and is filed under
Letters
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


May 22, 2008 – Sad Day for Sabah (In video and Hansard)

This is the video clip and Hansard extract of the parliamentary proceeding yesterday – another sad day for Sabah.

It could be the  day for redemption for Sabah, the first step in the realisation of the  30-year dream of Sabahans to end the nightmare of illegal immigrants  which have made them and future generations  strangers in their own state.

Apologies for the defect in the  video clip of the parliamentary proceeding yesterday on the rejection of  my amendment to the Motion of Thanks for the Royal Address to set up a Royal Commission of Inquiry to resolve the long-standing problem of illegal immigrants in Sabah.

It is now uploaded together with the Hansard (official parliamentary report).

MEMINDA USUL-USUL DI BAWAH P.M 30

Tuan Lim Kit Siang [Ipoh Timur]:
         Tuan Yang di-Pertua, saya berdiri di bawah Peraturan Mesyuarat 30 dan 33 untuk kemukakan satu pindaan kepada masalah di hadapan kita, untuk meminda usul dengan menambahkan perkataan-perkataan “… dan memutuskan bahawa satu Suruhanjaya Siasatan Diraja ditubuhkan untuk menangani masalah berlarutan mengenai pendatang tanpa izin di Sabah sehinggakan timbulnya kekhuatiran yang berasas…”

Timbalan Yang di-Pertua [Datuk Ronald Kiandee]:
           Yang Berhormat tidak perlu baca, Yang Berhormat.

Tuan Lim Kit Siang [Ipoh Timur]:
 Ya, itu pindaan saya, “… bahawa bilangan orang asing kini melebihi jumlah bilangan rakyat Sabah di dalam negeri Sabah selepas perkataan-perkataan Penggal Pertama, Parlimen Yang Kedua Belas”. Dan saya kemukakan ini di bawah Peraturan Mesyuarat 31 dan 33(3). Bolehkah saya memberi hujah-hujah mengenai perkara ini?

Timbalan Yang di-Pertua [Datuk Ronald Kiandee]:
           Saya buat keputusan Yang Berhormat. Yang Berhormat, kita akan buat keputusan sekarang, usul ini perlu diputuskan oleh Tuan Yang di-Pertua dan saya akan buat keputusannya sekarang.

Tuan Lim Kit Siang [Ipoh Timur]:
 Pindaan, satu pindaan?

Timbalan Yang di-Pertua [Datuk Ronald Kiandee]:
 Ya, Sila duduk Yang Berhormat.

         Ahli-ahli Yang Berhormat, saya telah menerima satu cadangan pindaan ke atas Usul Menjunjung Kasih daripada Yang Berhormat Ipoh Timur pada 16 Mei 2008. Saya mendapati bahawa cadangan pindaan tersebut tidak berkaitan dengan Usul Menjunjung Kasih Ke Atas Titah Ucapan Seri Paduka Baginda Yang di-Pertuan Agong. Cadangan pindaan Yang Berhormat Ipoh Timur adalah melebihi, exceeding dari Usul Menjunjung Kasih. Cadangan pindaan yang dikemukakan oleh Yang Berhormat Ipoh Timur itu sepatutnya dibuat secara usul bersendiri.

         Oleh yang demikian, saya tidak membenarkan usul tersebut dikemukakan.
[Tepuk]

Tuan Lim Kit Siang [Ipoh Timur]:
 Tuan Yang di-Pertua, adakah Tuan Yang di-Pertua sedar bahawa ini adalah bercanggah dengan semua konvensi-konvensi Parlimen Komanwel.

Timbalan Yang di-Pertua [Datuk Ronald Kiandee]:
              Yang Berhormat, Yang Berhormat Ipoh Timur.

Tuan Lim Kit Siang [Ipoh Timur]:
 Ya, saya tahu saya tidak mahu masuk keputusan Peraturan Mesyuarat 44, tetapi bolehkah Tuan Yang di-Pertua ada buat satu kajian, oleh sebab sama ada di UK, Australia, India, ini adalah tradisi dan konvensi dan bukan sahaja oleh sebab usul menjunjung kasih ialah satu usul dasar.       Usul dasar di mana apa-apa perkara yang bersangkut dengan dasar boleh dibincangkan.

Timbalan Yang di-Pertua [Datuk Ronald Kiandee]:
          Baik Yang Berhormat, baik Yang Berhormat.

Tuan Lim Kit Siang [Ipoh Timur]:
 Keputusan Yang Berhormat dibuat, ini adalah extra ordinary dan tidak pernah ada berlaku dalam Komanwel Parlimen.

Timbalan Yang di-Pertua [Datuk Ronald Kiandee]:
            Yang Berhormat duduk, Yang Berhormat. Yang Berhormat tidak payah explain. Baik, Yang Berhormat. Saya akan respons kepada Yang Berhormat. Kalau kita baca Peraturan 31, yang berbunyi, “Pada sesuatu usul itu dalam timbangan Majlis Mesyuarat atau Jawatankuasa Majlis Mesyuarat, boleh dicadangkan pindaan-pindaan jika pindaan itu berkaitan dengan usul itu”.

         Kita ketika ini adalah untuk membahaskan usul Titah Ucapan Diraja. Maknanya Ahli-ahli Parlimen mengucapkan terima kasih ke atas Titah Ucapan Diraja dan adalah tidak sopan bagi kita untuk mengucapkan terima kasih, tetapi memberi syarat kepada raja untuk mengaibkan satu usul yang tidak berkaitan dengan ucapan terima kasih kita kepada raja.
[Dewan riuh]
 Itulah sebabnya Perkara 31 itu, tidak dipakai dalam penolakan ini kerana pindaan ini tidak berkaitan dengan usul yang sedang kita bahaskan. Inilah keputusan Tuan Yang di-Pertua.

Tuan Lim Kit Siang [Ipoh Timur]:
 Ya saya tahu itu..

Timbalan Yang di-Pertua [Datuk Ronald Kiandee]:
 Yang Berhormat Ipoh Timur, Yang Berhormat Ipoh Timur, nanti Yang Berhormat.

Tuan Lim Kit Siang [Ipoh Timur]:

[Bercakap tanpa pembesar suara]

Timbalan Yang di-Pertua [Datuk Ronald Kiandee]:
 Saya tahu Yang Berhormat Ipoh Timur, saya tahu Yang Berhormat.             Yang Berhormat Ipoh Timur, duduk dahulu Yang Berhormat. Saya belum habis lagi Yang Berhormat.
[Dewan riuh]
 Yang Berhormat, Yang

Berhormat..

Tuan Lim Kit Siang [Ipoh Timur]:
           Dahulu, saya ada kemukakan pindaan kepada Usul Menjunjung Kasih dan pernah dibahas sungguhpun ditolak. Sekarang nampaknya adalah melanggari precedent itu.

Timbalan Yang di-Pertua [Datuk Ronald Kiandee]:
 Saya tahu Yang Berhormat. Kita berpandukan kepada peraturan kita yang ada. Kita harus berpandukan jika peraturan berkata tidak berkaitan, kita tolak usul, kita tolak. Yang Berhormat Ipoh Timur, saya tahu Yang Berhormat Ipoh Timur prihatin terhadap masalah ini, tetapi saya ingin katakan bahawa Ahli-ahli Parlimen termasuk daripada Sabah termasuk saya adalah lebih prihatin terhadap isu ini dan kita melihat…

Tuan Lim Kit Siang [Ipoh Timur]:
 Kalau begitu…

Timbalan Yang di-Pertua [Datuk Ronald Kiandee]:
 …bahawa biarlah usul, kita ada tempat yang sesuai untuk kita membincangkan usul ini dan ketika ini adalah usul untuk mengucapkan terima kasih kepada Titah Ucapan Diraja. Maka kita tidak perlu meletakkan sebarang syarat terhadap ucapan terima kasih kita kepada raja.

Dato’ Seri Tiong King Sing [Bintulu]:
        Tuan Yang di-Pertua, dahulu kita bahas, dia tidak sokong!!

Timbalan Yang di-Pertua [Datuk Ronald Kiandee]:
              Ahli-ahli Yang Berhormat, sekarang saya kemukakan masalah kepada Majlis bagi diputuskan. Masalahnya ialah bahawa Usul Menjunjung Kasih ke atas Titah Ucapan Seri Paduka Baginda Yang di-Pertuan Agong, oleh Yang Berhormat dari Kulai itu hendaklah disetujukan,

         Usul dikemuka bagi diputuskan, dan disetujukan

      Diputuskan,

              Bahawa suatu ucapan yang tidak sepertinya dipersembahkan kepada Seri Paduka Baginda Yang di-Pertuan Agong, demikian bunyinya:-

              “Ampun Tuanku,

                        Patik, Yang di-Pertua dan Ahli-ahli Dewan Rakyat Malaysia di dalam Persidangan Parlimen, memohon ampun mempersembahkan suatu ucapan yang ikhlas daripada Majlis Dewan Rakyat mengucapkan berbanyak-banyak terima kasih, syukur dan menjunjung kasih kerana Titah Ucapan Tuanku semasa membuka Penggal Pertama Parlimen Yang Kedua Belas”.

Timbalan Yang di-Pertua [Datuk Ronald Kiandee]:
              Ahli-ahli Yang Berhormat, Mesyuarat pada hari ini ditangguhkan pada jam 10.00 pagi, hari Isnin, 22 Mei 2008.

22 May 2008 Hansard

                This entry was posted on Friday, 23 May 2008, 9:42 pm and is filed under
Parliament
,
Sabah
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


RCI on illegal immigrants in Sabah – substantive motion to overrule Robert Kiandee’s decision

I have faxed notice to the Speaker, Tan  Sri Pandikar Amin to move a substantive motion to review and overrule the decision of Deputy Speaker Datuk Ronald Kiandee in disallowing me from moving an amendment to the Motion of Thanks for the Royal Address yesterday in order to establish a Royal Commission of Inquiry into the 30-year problem of illegal immigrants in Sabah, reducing Sabahans into a minority in their own  homeland.

My substantive motion reads:

“That under Standing Order 43 the House reviews the decision of Deputy Speaker YB Datuk Ronald Kandee in disallowing MP for Ipoh Timor YB Lim Kit Siang from moving an amendment to the Motion of Thanks for the Royal Address on Thursday, 22nd May 2008 and resolves that the decision of the Chair was wrong and misconceived as it is contrary to parliamentary conventions and  practices in Malaysia and the Commonwealth.”

As a substantive motion under S.O. 43  shall not require more than two days’ notice, this means that it should be able to be debated by the Dewan Rakyat next week.

In the first parliamentary meeting after the 1982 general election, the first of the five general elections under the premiership of Tun Dr. Mahathir, I had moved an amendment to the Motion of Thanks for the Royal Address in the Dewan Rakyat on 12th October 1982.

The amendment, adding to to the Motion of Thanks, was to include the following:

“And noting the grave law and order problem created by the influx of illegal Indonesian illegal immigrants causing armed robberies and murders,  URGES the government to crack down on the illegal Indonesian immigrants by estsblishing a Special Task Force III (Indonesian  Illegal Immigrants) to stop the influx of illegal Indonesian immigrants.”

The amending motion to the Motion of Thanks was accepted by the Speaker at the time, Datuk Mohamed Zahir Ismail, who went on to be the longest-serving Parliament Speaker  for 22 years from 1982 to 2004.

The amending motion was defeated in a voice vote on 13rd October 1982 after a debate.

In the Indian Parliament, there would be scores of amendments to the Motion of Thanks to the Presidential Address every year.

Robert Kiandee cannot be more wrong when he said that it was not proper “tidak sopan” to amend the Motion of Thanks, as it is universally accepted parliamentary practice to amend Motion of Thanks for the Address by the head of state, as it is a debate on the government’s policy for the coming year, allowing for any policy proposal to be raised, whether in speeches or by way of amending motions.

Otherwise, there would be no need for the Dewan Rakyat to spend 12 days to debate the Royal Address, with 7 days for debate by MPs and  5 days for Ministers’ winding-up, as all that the MPs and Ministers should do is to stand up to express thanks to the Yang di Pertuan Agong for the Royal Address – which could be done in a matter of a few minutes each!

                This entry was posted on Friday, 23 May 2008, 4:35 pm and is filed under
Parliament
,
Sabah
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Don’t make Malaysian Parliament a laughing-stock at Commonwealth Parliamentary Conference in KL in August

(Media Conference Statement at Perak DAP Hqrs in Ipoh on Saturday, 24th May 2008)

The 54th Commonwealth Parliamentary Conference on “Expanding the role of Parliament in Global Society”  will be held in Kuala Lumpur from August 1 to 10, 2008 and it should be a matter of pride to Malaysian Members of Parliament that  the country has been given  the honour to play host to the annual conference for the Commonwealth’s 172 Parliaments and legislatures.

Malaysia spent about RM7 million to host a much smaller parliamentary conference last year – the 28th Asean Inter-Parliamentary Assembly (AIPA) in Kuala Lumpur last August involving nine ASEAN nations.

The cost for hosting the 54th Conference of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association will be many times more than  organising the AIPA Assemby and I will ask in Parliament on Monday how much the Malaysian taxpayers will have to bear for Malaysia hosting the August Conference – whether RM20 – RM30  million or even more.

Apart from the cost of the CPA Conference in August, another equally important question is its purpose.

This is because it would be shameful for Malaysia to host the 54th Commonwealth Parliamentary Conference  on “Expanding the role of Parliament in global society” on August 1 – 10 when the role of Malaysian MPs are being diminished  and cannot even move an amendment to the Motion of Thanks for Royal Address, as happened on Thursday when my amendment motion to establish a Royal Commission of Inquiry to resolve the 30-year problem of illegal immigrants in Sabah was disallowed by the Deputy Speaker, Datuk Ronald Kiandee on the ground of being “irrelevant” to the motion proper.

Can Ronald Kiandee cite another Commonwealth Parliament which disallows amendments to the equivalent of Motion of Thanks for the Royal Address on the ground that it is “irrelevant”?

In the House of Commons, amendments to the Motion of Thanks to the Royal Address are routinely allowed every year, which are debated and then voted on. One such amendment to the Motion of Thanks for the Queen’s Gracious Speech, which was moved, debated  but rejected in the House of Commons in 2000, proposed an amendment to the original motion as follows:

‘But humbly regret that the Gracious Speech makes no mention of the decline in police numbers since 1997; note the continuing failure of many of the Government’s measures to combat youth crime and that the Government remains committed to the early release from jail of thousands of criminals; deplore the Government’s further attempt to restrict the right to trial by jury and its failure to put forward any measures to strengthen the rights of victims of crime, or to make prisons more purposeful, or sentencing more transparent, or to clear up the chaos in the asylum system; and further regret the absence of measures to halt the decline of inner cities and the failure to create a coherent programme of actions since 1997 to address the conditions that give rise to the growth of crime in deprived urban areas, notably poorly-maintained housing, rising homelessness, increasing numbers of empty houses and failing inner city schools, which have combined with the Government’s commitment to building on green fields to perpetuate migration from inner cities.’

If Ronald Kiandee had presided as House of Commons Speaker, he would have ruled the amendment as “irrelevant” which would be completely unthinkable in the British Parliament!

In Lok Sabha or Indian Parliament every year, there would be scores and in some years even over a hundred amendments to the Motion of Thanks on the President’s Address, and they would all be voted on by the MPs without anyone being ruled as “irrelevant” by the Speaker of Indian Parliament.

During  the 54th Commonwealth Parliamentay Conference in Kuala Lumpur in early August, another conference on parliamentary practice and administration  is being organised by the Society of Clerks-at-the-Table – and it would be mortally disgraceful if Malaysia proves to be the only Parliament in the Commonwealth where amendments to the Motion of Thanks for the Royal Address is not allowed, making the Malaysian Parliament a Commonwealth “curiosity” and laughing stock  at the 54th Commonwealth Parliamentary Conference!

What is even more shocking is that Ronald Kiandee had violated a very clear precedent by the longest-serving Speaker in Malaysia, Tun Mohamad Zahir Ismail, who had allowed me to move an amendment to the Motion of Thanks for the Royal Address in October 1982.

What grounds and authority have Ronald Kiandee as Deputy Speaker to violate clear parliamentary practices and precedents both in Malaysia and other Commonwealth Parliaments to disallow my amendment to the Motion of Thanks in Parliament last Thursday?

I have given notice to the Speaker of Parliament, Tan Sri Pandikar Amin, to review and overrule the wrong and misconceived decision of Ronald Kiandee in disallowing my amendment motion in Parliament last Thursday to establish a Royal Commission of Inquiry to resolve the 30-year problem of illegal immigrants in Sabah.

Such a motion under Standing Order 43 of the Dewan Rakyat is regarded as a “substantive motion” which does not require notice of more than two days – in other words, it is regarded as a “top priority” parliamentary business which must be given precedence for debate and decision by way of voting by MPs.

If my substantive motion to review and overrule Ronald Kiandee’s ruling last Thursday is not allowed to be debated before Parliament adjourns next week, then the Malaysian Parliament would have two reasons to become a laughing-stock in the 54th Commonwealth Parliamentary Conference in August,

•	Where an amendment to the Motion of Thanks for the Royal Address is not allowed; and

•	Where a substantive motion to review the ruling of the Chair is also not allowed to be debated and voted on.

If this is the case, then Parliament and Malaysians must decide whether any useful purpose could be served in Malaysia hosting the 54th Commonwealth Parliamentary Conference in August.

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 24 May 2008, 11:53 am and is filed under
Parliament
,
Sabah
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Kiandee owes a public apology to Parliament, Sabah and the nation

In her
Sunday Star
parliamentary roundup

“Lim stopped by Standing Orders”
 today, reporter  Elizabeth Looi quoted Deputy Speaker Datuk Ronald Kiandee as confessing that he did not know whether I had spoken the truth in  Parliament on Thursday when
objecting
 to his decision to disallow my amendment to the Motion of Thanks for the Royal Address to establish a Royal Commission of Inquiry into the three-decade long illegal immigrant problem in Sabah.

I had said that Kiandee had violated all parliamentary conventions, practices and precedents in Commonwealth Parliaments as well as the Malaysian Parliament in ruling my amendment motion as “irrelevant”, pointing out that I had previously amended a Motion of Thanks for the Royal Address  in the Dewan Rakyat and which was debated and voted upon, though rejected.

Kiandee made the confession when interviewed by Sunday Star for the  article, as evident in the following:

Kiandee defended the decision and said it was not in any way politically influenced.

He said he would not know if Lim was telling the truth when the latter said he had been allowed to table an amendment to a motion of thanks previously.

As Deputy Speaker, Kiandee should not have acted out of ignorance, as it could be no justification for  violating established parliamentary conventions, practices and precedents in Commonwealth Parliaments and the Malaysian Parliament itself, which could  easily be checked whether what I had said was true.

I was not “stopped by Standing Orders” but by Kiandee who misused and abused the Standing Orders.

I had amended such a Motion of Thanks for the Royal Address in the Dewan Rakyat on 12th October 1982 and it was voted and rejected on 13th October 1982!

Clearly, Kiandee owes a public apology to the people of Sabah, Malaysia and Parliament.

Is Kiandee prepared to publicly apologise for such ignorance resulting in an atrociously  bad and wrong ruling going against all parliamentary conventions, practices and precedents in the Commonwealth and  in Malaysia itself as well as  dashing the hopes of Sabahans and Malaysians who had dared to dream of the end of the 30-year  Sabah nightmare of illegal immigrants?

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 25 May 2008, 6:04 pm and is filed under
Parliament
,
Sabah
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


LKS to be  suspended from Parliament because of blog?

Part 1 of 3:

Part 2 of 3:

Part 3 of 3:

                This entry was posted on Monday, 26 May 2008, 10:10 pm and is filed under
Parliament
,
Sabah
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


UMNO’s Tuah-Jebat Dilemma

by
M. Bakri Musa

The furor over Tun Mahathir’s quitting UMNO cannot hide an increasingly obvious and ugly reality:  Abdullah’s incompetence as Prime Minister.  Ranting and raving against Mahathir will not alter this singular fact.

            Only an ardent few – his family members, closest advisors, and those beholden to him – believe that Abdullah has executed the duties of his office diligently.  These individuals will forever remain faithful to him even if he were to drive the country to ruins.  Consider that Saddam Hussein and Shah Pahlavi still have their ardent admirers today.

            For others, their only excuse for wanting Abdullah to stay is for “party unity.”

            Mahathir’s poser to Abdullah’s putative successor Najib Razak on whether he is loyal to UMNO or to Abdullah is a dilemma shared by all party members.  Najib as well as all UMNO members would do well to re-read our classic Hang Tuah-Hang Jebat legend, and in particular ponder the fate of not only the two protagonists but also the sultan and the Melaka sultanate.

            In 1987 when UMNO was split, a consequence of the Mahathir-Razaleigh rivalry, the party was weakened but it survived because it had a strong leader.  Early in its history when its first president Datuk Onn left the party, the impact was minimal as the party was strong and it had a cadre of capable young leaders like Datuk Razak.  This time however, both the party and its leader are weak.

            If party members were to shy away from doing the dirty but necessary job of removing Abdullah from the leadership of UMNO, and thus the Prime Minister’s office, then others would by default remove that office from him, and from UMNO.  With every delay, Abdullah (and UMNO) gets weaker while Anwar Ibrahim (and his Pakatan Rakyat) becomes stronger.

Seeing Through Abdullah

Like Mahathir, most Malaysians believed in Abdullah, at least initially as evidenced by his overwhelming electoral victory in 2004.  Barely four years later, they, like Mahathir, are sorely disillusioned.

            Some still believe (or more correctly, hope) that Abdullah could yet salvage his leadership.  This hope for a miracle is misplaced.  Incompetence cannot be readily remedied, especially in someone with a demonstrated flat learning curve.  Besides, the highest office in the land cannot be used as a training ground.  We cannot have an “intern” Prime Minister; the stakes are just too great.

            If Abdullah could not lead when he had a commanding mandate, what chance is there for him now that his hold is tenuous at best?  He is already consumed with putting out political brush fires, distracting him from his most important task of leading the nation.  Abdullah is now clearly damaged goods; Malaysia deserves better.

            Only a tiny minority saw through Abdullah and recognized his emptiness right from the very beginning.  It is more with sorrow than vindication that I admit to being in this group.  I would have preferred to have been proven wrong.

            I have never met Abdullah; my assessment of him is based entirely on his records and accomplishments, or lack thereof.  Perhaps because of this I am not swayed by the man’s put-on piety, seeming humility, or servile loyalty.  Those attributes are held in high esteem in Malay culture, which may explain why many, including the shrewd Mahathir, overestimated Abdullah’s ability.

            Abdullah was a longtime civil servant rising to Deputy Secretary-General in the Ministry of Culture, Youth and Sports before entering elective politics.  Respectable enough achievement, but then that ministry is not exactly the hotbed for super-achievers.

            Before being kicked out of the cabinet in 1987, a casualty of the Mahathir-Razaleigh rivalry of the time, Abdullah had served as Minister of Education, and later, of Defense.  One is hard pressed to discern his legacy in both positions.  A measure of his worth was that the best he could do outside of government was as a ticket agent … in his sister-in-law’s travel agency!  That was the private sector’s valuation of his talent and experience, despite having served in two most senior and prestigious portfolios.

            Later when he re-ascended the UMNO hierarchy, Mahathir invited him back to serve as Foreign Minister and later, Home Affairs.  In the latter position he was responsible for the police.  Our current inept and corrupt-ridden police force is his legacy.

Mahathir’s Mistake

You have to give credit to Mahathir.  Not only did he admit to his colossal mistake in selecting Abdullah back in 1998, he is also making a vigorous effort to undo it.  Admitting to or rectifying your error is a rare attribute among leaders.

            Abdullah has yet to learn this essential lesson.  Merely uttering that you are taking responsibility, as Abdullah did for his party’s routing in the last election, is not enough; you have to act on it.

            The current crisis in UMNO is not, as is widely commented upon, simply a battle between Abdullah and Mahathir.  The fundamental issue is Abdullah’s incompetence, and its impact on the nation.

            Winning an election is a partial measure of effective leadership; it is not the only or the full measure.  Abdullah’s predecessors Tunku Abdul Rahman and Hussein Onn were both successful at elections, yet when their leadership was found wanting they withdrew gracefully.  Britain’s Margaret Thatcher also had the grace to resign when support for her was declining even though she had led her party through three successive electoral victories.

            Abdullah has neither the grace nor the competence of Thatcher.  He is too syok sendiri (self indulgent) with the perks of his office, with its luxurious corporate jets and palatial mansion, to even contemplate resigning.  It is easy to be stubborn in such circumstances.  Like a dumb mule surrounded by lush hay, Abdullah will not move.  It will continue mindlessly chewing the cud, oblivious of the turmoil it caused.  It is well to remember that a mule with too much hay will inevitably succumb to lethal gas bloat.

            Many consider Mahathir’s resigning from UMNO an irrational act as that would only hasten the ascent of his old nemesis, Anwar Ibrahim.  To me however, Mahathir may be signaling something significant.  He must believe (or have reasons to) that Anwar’s chances are real and strong.  By resigning now, Mahathir would be spared the fallout from UMNO’s inevitable implosion.  He could then with a satisfied smirk remind us, “I told you so, this Abdullah is a disaster!”

            Many are wondering why Abdullah is not coming out swinging at his tormentor.  There is a reason for Abdullah’s reticence.  His entanglement in the UN’s Iraq Oil for Food Program scandal is only a hint and a glimpse.

            I am reminded of J. Edgar Hoover, the longtime FBI director who was the most feared and powerful man in Washington, D.C., simply because he held so many secrets of important people.  Nobody dared touch him for fear that he would spill the beans.

            Mahathir was Prime Minister for over two decades.  He is also a shrewd observer of human behaviors and a meticulous record keeper.  Think of the many shenanigans committed at home and abroad by our sultans, ministers, and other senior officials that were simply hushed up, let alone prosecuted.  Those who are tempted to sneer at the old statesman better have pristine personal and official backgrounds; otherwise they would be well advised to maintain their “elegant silence.”

            Notice Mahathir’s immediate stinging riposte to Shahrir Samad and Musa Hitam recently.  In so doing Mahathir sends a not-so-subtle message to his other detractors, including those on the Royal Commission on the Lingam Tape, that their stinking laundry too could be aired out for all to see and smell.  As Prime Minister, Mahathir must have had more than his share of favor seekers, shameless flatterers, and the outright corrupt who groveled before him.  He could easily expose them.  If that is blackmail or vengeance, so be it.

            I have a different take on Mahathir’s behavior.  Far from being blackmail or nasty vengeance, such ugly revelations could prove to be a necessary national catharsis.  Much as I hate to see what would be revealed, it would be good to have all the rot finally out in the open.  The hope is that the subsequent shame will effect some change.

            As a former physician Mahathir knows only too well that the best if not only remedy for a long festering abscess is to lance it wide and deep, letting all that trapped putrid pus out.  Only then could the healing begin.  If that were to happen, we can all thank Mahathir.  The man may yet make his greatest contributions after he retired.

                This entry was posted on Monday, 26 May 2008, 10:20 am and is filed under
Abdullah Ahmad Badawi
,
Bakri Musa
,
UMNO
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


All Malaysians have special rights

by
Dr. Azly Rahman

“Therefore, the rakyat must unite and never raise issues regarding Malay rights and special privileges because it is  quid pro quo in gratitude for the giving in of citizenship (beri-paksa kerakyatan) to 2.7 million non-Malays into the Tanah Melayu federation….Thus, it is not appropriate for these other ethnic groups to have citizenship, only (later) to seek equality and privileges,” said Tengku Faris, who read from a 11-page prepared text.

As a Malaysian who believes in a social contract based on the notion that ‘all Malaysians are created equal’, I do not understand the ‘royal statement’. I have a view on this.

If it comes from the Biro Tatanegara (BTN), I can understand the confusion. But this is from a royal house.

This statement was valid 50 years ago, before Independence.  This is an outdated statement that is not appreciated by the children of those who have laboured for this nation.

I believe we should look forward to institutionalising ‘special rights for all Malaysians’. The word ‘special’ is in itself special. Culturally it can either denote an enabling condition or a disabling one.

In the study of religion, one is bestowed a special place for living life well or for doing good deeds. In educational studies, ‘special education’ caters for the needs of those with a disabling physical, emotional or cognitive condition.

In all these, ‘special rights’ are accorded based on merit. One works hard to get special offers and into special places.

In the doctrine of the ‘divine rights of kings’, one’s special right is the birthright. Louis XVI of revolutionary France, Shah Jehan of Taj Mahal fame, Emperor Hirohito of Japan, Shah Reza Pahlavi of Revolutionary Iran, King Bumiphol Adulyadev, and the sultans of Melaka were ‘special people’ who designed institutions that installed individuals based on rights sanctioned through a ‘mandate of heaven’.

Such people use specialised language to differentiate who is special and who is not. Court language is archaic, terse, meant to instill fear and to institutionalise special-ness.

The language of the street or market is fluid, accommodating, meant to instill open-ness and institutionalise creativity at its best and further development of the ‘underclass’ at its worst.

This continuum of language, power, and ideology is characteristic of histories of nations. In Malay history, istana language is enshrined in the hikayat and in Tun Seri Lanang’s Sejarah Melayu. Street language used in Malay folklore and in bawdy poems, pantun and stories of Sang Kancil.

Class consciousness, many a sociologist would say, dictates the special-ness of people across time and space. Historical-materialism necessitates the development of the specialised use and abuse of language. One can do a lot of things with words. Words can be deployed to create a sustainable and profitable master-slave relationship.

A better argument

Let us elevate the argument so that we will have a better view of what race, ethnicity, nationalism and cosmopolitanism means.

I propose we review what “special rights of the Malays” mean in light of 50 years of Independence and post-March 8, 2008.

I agree we must give credit to those working hard to “improve the psychological well-being of the Malays” and for that matter for any race to improve its mental wellness. This is important. This is a noble act.

The question is: in doing so, do we want to plant the seeds of cooperation and trust – or racial discrimination and deep hatred? Herein lies the difference between indoctrination and education.

These days, the idea of Ketuanan Melayu is going bankrupt, sinking with the bahtera merdeka. It works only for Malay robber barons who wish to plunder the nation by silencing the masses and using the ideological state apparatuses at their disposal.

In the case of the BTN it is the work of controlling the minds of the youth. Its work should not be allowed any more in our educational institutions. It is time our universities especially are spared counter-educational activities, especially when they yearn to be free of the shackles of domination.

Over decades, many millions of Malays and non-Malays have not been getting the right information on our nation’s history, political-economy, and race relations. History that is being shoved into us or filter-funnelled down the labyrinth of our consciousness is one that is already packaged, biased, and propagandised by historians who became text-books writers.

History need not be  Malay-centric. Special rights for all Malaysians should be the goal of distributive and regulative justice of this nation, not the “special rights of a few Malays”. History must be presented as the history of the marginalised, the oppressed and the dispossessed of all races.

We toil for this nation, as the humanist Paramoedya Ananta Toer would say, by virtue of our existence as anak semua bangsa … di bumi manusia. Malaysia is a land of immigrants.

In this regard we can learn from the former British colony called America. Whatever its shortcomings, it is a land of immigrants and is still evolving. A black man or a woman can become president. This is what America conceives itself to be and this is what Malaysian can learn from. Can a non-Malay become prime minster if he/she is the most ethical of all politicians in the country?

No one particular race should stake a claim to Malaysia. That is an idea from the old school of thought, fast being abandoned. Each citizen is born, bred, and brought to school to become a good law-abiding and productive Malaysian citizen, is accorded the fullest rights and privileges and will carry his/her responsibility as a good citizen.

That is what ‘surrendering one’s natural rights to the state’ means. One must read Rousseau, Locke, Voltaire, and Jefferson to understand this philosophy. A bad government will not honour this –  and will fall, or will sink like the bahtera merdeka.

The history of civilisations provides enough examples of devastation and genocide as a consequence of violent claims to the right of this or that land based upon some idea of ‘imagined communities’. We must teach our children to make a history of peace among nations. This must be made into a new school of thought: of ‘new bumiputeraism’ that encompasses all and does not alienate any. Life is too short for each generation to fight over greed.

The eleventh hour of human existence and our emergence in this world has brought about destruction as a consequence of our inability to mediate differences based on race, colour, creed, class and national origin. Each ethnic group thinks that it is more socially-dominant than the other. Each does not know the basis of its ‘self’. Each fails to realise its DNA-make up or gene map.

Life is an existential state of beingness, so must history be conceived as such. Nationalism can evolve into a dangerous concept – that was what happened to Europe at the brink of the two World Wars. It happened in the former Yugoslavia, Rwanda, and in Indonesia when Suharto fell.

I argue that we must evolve in the historical presence of historical constructions. The past and the future is in the present. Let us no argue any more over this or those rights. Let us instead treat each other right.

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 28 May 2008, 11:02 am and is filed under
Azly Rahman
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Bandar Makhota Cheras violence and police connivance  – public inquiry warranted

The use of thugs to
assault
 residents of Bandar Makhota Cheras protesting against the barricade put up by the toll concessionaire, Grand Saga and the connivance of the police not only in its “hands-off” policy during the rampage by the thugs, but in going on a rampage of its own when some 20 police personnel armed assaulted an innocent bystander, Chang Jiun Haur, must be condemned in the strongest possible terms.

An independent public inquiry into the spate of  physical violence against the protesting public by thugs and police personnel is fully warranted.

DAP MP for Serdang, Teo Nie Ching will be raising the issue in Parliament tomorrow.

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 28 May 2008, 11:22 pm and is filed under
DAP
,
Parliament
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Extension of Suu Kyi’s detention – Malaysia should  lead ASEAN condemnation

During the committee stage debate of the Foreign Ministry in Parliament this morning, I called on the Malaysian government to lead the ASEAN condemnation of the Myanmar military junta for the extension of detention of Burmese Opposition Leader and Nobel Peace Prize Laureate, Aung San Suu Kyi.

Suu Kyi has been incarcerated for more than 13 years in the past 18 years, with the present five-year detention going back to the Depayin Massacre in May 2003.

At the time, the Malaysian Foreign Minister was in the forefront in publicly calling for her immediate release and the then Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Dr. Mahathir Mohamad had even warned that Myanmar might be suspended or expelled from ASEAN if the military junta continued to defy regional and international opinion.

The Myanmese military junta now appeared to have the upper hand, with no condemnation or protest from Malaysia or ASEAN for the extension of Aung San Suu Kyi’s detention, making a complete mockery of the ASEAN Charter and ASEAN’s “constructive engagement” policy with Myanmar to initiate democratization and national reconciliation in Burma, the reason given by Malaysia for spearheading Myanmar’s entry into ASEAN in 1997.

Together with the sham referendum on May 10 and May 24, held when the country was hard hit by the cyclone Nargis disaster, claiming over 100,000 dead, some 250,000 missing and  over two million victims, just to legitimize the undemocratic regime of the Myanmar military junta, Malaysia and ASEAN should lead instead of straggling behind international pressure to demand greater democratic change in Burma.

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 28 May 2008, 5:26 pm and is filed under
Burma
,
Parliament
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


On “egg-shell” reputation and Parliament as “kangaroo court”

Seven years ago in December 2001, when Fong Po Kuan, as first-termer DAP MP for Batu Gajah, was suspended for six months without pay for publicly criticising the Speaker, I was in Europe.

I issued an immediate statement in London  on Dec. 11, 2001 before the  motion to penalise Po Kuan was debated and another statement on my return to Malaysia.

These two statements of December 2001 are reproduced below after the
Malaysiakini
 report
“Speaker warns Kit Siang over blog posting”
:

Speaker warns Kit Siang over blog posting

Fauwaz Abdul Aziz | May 27, 08 12:14pm

Dewan Rakyat speaker Pandikar Amin Mulia has warned Lim Kit Siang (DAP-Ipoh Timor) to correct remarks in his blog which lambasted deputy speaker Ronald Kiandee for rejecting his motion on Sabah illegal immigrants.

Should Lim fail to do so, he could be liable to disciplinary action similar to that instituted in the past against fellow DAP parliamentarians Karpal Singh (Bukit Gelugor) and Fong Po Kuan (Batu Gajah).

They had been suspended after being critical of the speaker outside the House in previous parliamentary sessions.

Pandikar also told Lim to make corrections to his press statement on the issue, which was similar to his blog posting.

“If you do not correct your blog (post) and media statement, I will be forced to bring attention to the actions taken (against Fong previously),” Pandikar said yesterday.

Last Thursday, Kiandee had rejected Lim’s motion for an amendment to the motion of thanks for the royal address by calling for the establishment of a royal commission of inquiry into the presence of illegal immigrants in Sabah.

In dismissing the motion, Kiandee said it was irrelevant and disrespectful to the King: “It is most inappropriate to table this motion now because it is rude to say thank you but with a condition at the same time.”

However, Lim argued there had been previous occasions in which such motions of thanks were amended.

“Kiandee cannot be more wrong when he said that it was not proper and ‘tidak sopan’ to amend the motion of thanks,” he said.

Lim argued that Kiandee had “acted out of ignorance” of established parliamentary conventions in rejecting the motion given that an amendment to a motion of thanks for the royal address had been made by him on Oct 12, 1982, although it was voted on and rejected the next day.

Kiandee ‘misused and abused’ Parliament rules

Lim further claimed that Kiandee had “misused and abused” the Standing Orders and that he owes a public apology to the people.

Yesterday, however, Pandikar told Lim that there is a significant difference between the motion he tabled in 1982 and the motion he sought to table last week.

While the earlier motion had begun with the words dan dengan ambil ingatan (while remembering that), last week’s motion had started with the words “by adding the following words to resolve”, Pandikar noted.

In other words, said Pandikar, while the 1982 motion was ‘subsidiary’ to the original motion that Lim sought to amend, last week’s motion was “substantive”.

Lim disagreed, saying that nothing in his motion was irrelevant to the original motion of thanks.

Sabahans reduced into a minority

Kit Siang’s motion to debate the illegal immigrants issue last Friday, if allowed, would have been an acid test for Sabah backbenchers.

It came in the wake of rumours that some of the 24 of the ruling Barisan Nasional MPs in Sabah would defect to the opposition over their unhappiness on a number of issues including the lack of action in curbing illegal immigrants in the state.

Incidentally, both Kiandee, who is three-term MP for Beluran, and former minister Pandikar are from Sabah.

According to Lim, the 30-year problem has reduced Sabahans into a minority in their own home state.

There has been serious allegations that illegal immigrants from neighbouring Philippines and Indonesia have been given identity cards by the authorities to enable them to vote in elections.

There are conflicting accounts from official and unofficial sources on the exact number of illegal immigrants in the state. Most, however, agree that the number is around 750,000, outnumbering the local Sabahans.

(1)
Media Statement in London, 11th December 2001
:

Rais’ motion against Fong most unreasonable and doubly discriminatory – political and gender – and should be an eye-opener to Malaysians why it is necessary to demand reforms and democratisation of Parliament

(London, Tuesday): The motion standing in the name of the Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, Datuk Dr. Rais Yatim against DAP MP for Batu Gajah, Fong Po Kuan, is most unreasonable and doubly discriminatory – political and gender – and should be an eye-opener to Malaysians why it is necessary to demand reforms and democratisation of Parliament if parliamentary democracy is not to degenerate into a farce. ,

Rais’ motion is most unreasonable and palpably the act of a bully because he has no intention to allow for a full investigation as to whether Fong had acted in a manner which was clearly a breach or abuse of parliamentary privilege – for if so, then the matter should be referred to the Committee of Privileges for a quasi-judicial inquiry and finding – as is the established parliamentary tradition and convention in all other Commonwealth Parliaments in such cases.

Instead, Rais is only interested in a contest of numbers in Parliament, supremely confident that the brute two-thirds parliamentary majority of the Barisan Nasional will bring him victory in his game of parliamentary numbers as the BN MPs can even declare black as white and injustice as justice – but this is not just law but the law of the jungle!

Rais’ motion is also unreasonable because he made two false claims that the lawful way which should be acted on by Fong (cara yang sah yang patut dilakukan) was to move a substantive motion under Standing Order 43 to review the Speaker’s motion and not to make “baseless” statements on the Speaker’’s ruling.

Firstly, the Speaker, Tun Mohamad Zahir Ismail has rendered Standing Order 43 irrelevant, null and void in his 19 years as five-term Speaker as never once before had he allowed a substantive motion under Standing Order 43 to be debated on the floor of Parliament. Zahir should present a report to Parliament on the number of times notices had been given for substantive motions under Standing Order 43 to review the Speaker’s decision – and why there had not been a single time in the past 19 years since 1982 when he was Speaker where permission had been given for such a motion to be debated?

As Standing Order 43 is a dead letter, completely obsolete and meaningless, this reason cannot be used and held against Fong – for it provides no meaningful remedy whatsoever to review the wrong rulings of the Speaker.

Secondly, Fong’s criticisms against the Speaker’s ruling was not “baseless” but sound, objective and fair.

Or is Rais seriously asserting that the Speaker enjoys an immunity which even judges do not have – that his decisions just cannot be criticised, even if the criticisms can be proved to be right, just and fully justified? If so, we are establishing not a parliamentary democracy but a feudal oligarchy.

DAP can make out an iron-clad case that Fong’s criticisms of the Speaker’s ruling to reject her motion of urgent, definite public importance on the Certificate in Practice (CLP) examination marks-tampering was 100 per cent correct and justified.

The Speaker had rejected Fong’s motion on 4th December 2001 on the ground that the DAP Secretary-General and MP for Kota Melaka, Kerk Kim Hock had already tried earlier to move a similar motion which was rejected, but the Speaker was wrong as Kerk’s motion was because of the CLP examination paper leak scandal while Fong was referring to a completely different scandal – that of marks-tampering.

In her statement, which is now being used by Rais to suspend her for six months without parliamentary allowances, Fong said the Speaker had abused his discretionary powers in rejecting her motion.

Have the Speaker, Ministers and government leaders developed “egg-shell” reputations which cannot stand up to robust and vigorous criticisms, that they must resort to the brute parliamentary majority of the Barisan Nasioal to silence the Opposition?

Rais’ motion is doubly discriminatory against the Opposition and women MPs – as Rais had showed no concern whatsoever when BN MPs abused their parliamentary privileges and dishonoured Parliament by using four-letter words and showed indecent signs – and worse still, against women MPs.

Why has Rais allowed BN men MPs to get away scot-free with such unparliamentary and disgraceful conduct, which were clear abuses of parliamentary privileges – while coming down so harshly and unfairly on Fongt?

Is Rais prepared to commission a public opinion poll as to whom the Malaysian people think more deserving of parliamentary censure and discipline – whether it is Fong or the Barisan Nasional men MPs who used tfour-letter words or showed indecent signs in Parliament?

All women MPs, whether Barisan Nasional, Barisan Alterrnative and DAP should unite to protest against Rais’ motion which is the most palpable form of gender discrimination against a woman MP in Parliament since the 1999 general elections.

(2)
Media Statement in Penang on 15.12.2001
:

Zahir should personally remedy the gross  miscarriage of justice in the Fong Po Kuan case where Parliament did not become the highest court but the highest kangaroo court of the land by taking steps to rescind the motion suspending Fong by six months without pay

(Penang, Saturday):  I have been  away from the country for the past nine days, in Oslo to attend the 10th anniversary celebrations of the award of the Nobel Peace Prize to Burmese opposition leader, Aung San Suu Kyi and the annual meeting  of PDBurma – the international network of political leaders promoting democracy in Burma – and in London speaking to the LSE Malaysia Club 2001/2002 at the London School of Economics and Political Science and meeting Malaysians and students in London.

When I was overseas, I had maintained contact with developments back home principally through the Internet, especially the online media – and the biggest development undoubtedly was the vindictive and petty-minded motion by the Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, Datuk Dr. Rais Yatim on the last sitting of the 2002 Budget meeting on Tuesday, December 11, 2001 suspending the DAP MP for Batu Gajah, Fong Po Kuan for six months without pay for publicly criticising the Speaker, Tun Zahir Mohamad Ismail, for rejecting her motion of urgent, definite public importance on the multi-layered Certificate in Practice (CLP) examinations scandal.

However, I was truly shocked when I came home yesterday and read the print media which proved beyond a shadow of doubt of the gross miscarriage of justice in the Fong Po Kuan case, and in particular, the gross impropriety of  Zahir in blatant breach of the most fundamental rule of natural justice of not being a judge of his own cause.

A day before Rais’ motion was debated in Parliament, and before MPs could independently and impartially decide whether the youngest, woman and opposition  MP in Parliament had committed any breach of parliamentary privilege,  Zahir had already prejudged the issue and  trumpeted to the world that Fong was guilty of insulting him as Speaker and should be punished.

The Star of December 11, 2001 carried a report with the following heading:”Motion against Fong to deter abuse of Chair” which quoted Zahir as saying that the motion against Fong was “to stop other members from disparaging the Dewan and the Chair”.

Zahir told reporters that Fong was not the only MP to have questioned the integrity of the Dewan and accused him of having “abused my power”. He said: “That’s why we have to put a stop to them abusing the Chair.  The position of the Speaker is equivalent to the highest court in the country and the Chair is like the judge.”

New Straits Times of the same day, under the heading, “Speaker defends motion to suspend Batu Gajah MP”, alleged that Fong’s criticism  of him as Speaker was tantamout to contempt and said that Fong should be suspended if she refused to apologise to the House.

From Zahir’s public  remarks, it was clear that he had stepped down from the Speaker’s chair and entered the parliamentary ring to accuse and pre-judge Fong of having committed breach of privilege which warranted an unprecedented six-month suspension without pay.

But Zahir has overlooked the fact that however elevated the position of Speaker, it does not confer on him the right, power or prerogative to be the prosecutor, judge, jury and executioner all in one.

It was precisely to prevent the tyranny of the Speaker that there is the parliamentary tradition, convention and practice to have a  Committee of Privileges to inquire into  any  breach of parliamentary privilege, whether alleged by a Member of Parliament or the Speaker himself, after a full and thorough hearing.

But in Fong’ case, the Speaker had not only stepped down from the Speaker’s Chair and entered the parliamentary ring to be a  “boxer” himself, he had arrogated to himself the powers of prosecutor, judge, jury and executioner all in one!

Rais’ motion did not allow for any  parliamentary inquiry as to whether Fong had committed any parliamentary privilege, but was to stage  a kangaroo court to show off the  brute strength of the mindless Barisan Nasional parlamentary majority to rubber-stamp  a decision which had been taken even before the parliamentary debate.

Zahir should ponder and personally remedy the gross  miscarriage of justice in the Fong Po Kuan case where Parliament did not become the highest court but the highest kangaroo court of the land.

He should have the humility to admit his grave error in misusing his powers as Speaker, actuated by his own personal feelings,  which has made December 11, 2001 a day of shame and dishonour for the Malaysian Parliament, as well as sullied his five-term Speakership, review what he had done and undertake to remedy the grave miscarriage of justice to Fong by ensuring that the first item of business when Parliament reconvenes in March is to restore  justice and fair play to Fong by  rescinding  the December 11 motion  suspending  Fong by six months without pay.

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 28 May 2008, 12:30 am and is filed under
DAP
,
Parliament
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


RCI for Sabah illegal immigrants crisis – Sabahan support

INQUIRY A NECESSITY

New Sabah Times

28th May, 2008

KOTA KINABALU: A Parliamentary Select Committee on illegal immigrants is no substitute for the Royal Commission of Inquiry, said UPKO secretary-general, Datuk Wilfred Madius Tangau.

“Our call for the setting up of a Royal Commission of Inquiry on illegal immigrants is actually to address a very specific issue and that is, to determine the truth behind the Project IC, which is also the mother of all illegal immigrants-related problems in Sabah.

“There is no compromise in this matter. A Royal Commission of Inquiry is no longer an option but a necessity. That is if the government is serious in putting things right on the award of citizenship in this country,” he stressed.

He said this in a statement issued here yesterday, in support of the statement by Sabah Progressive Party (SAPP) president Datuk Seri Yong Teck Lee, who called for a concerted effort to act on illegal immigrants.

He argued that just like the setting up of a Royal Commission on the Lingam video clip, which was to address the concern on the independence of the judiciary in the country, the call for the setting up of RCI on illegal immigrants in Sabah is equally, if not more important as it involves the security and sovereignty of this country.

To better illustrate his concern on the illegal immigrants issue, he cited the recent news report where the Prime Minister’s Department disclosed in Parliament through a written reply to a question from the Sepangar MP, Datuk Eric Majimbun, that during the period 2002 to 2008, there was a 12% increase in the Sabah population, that is an increase of 333,500 from 2,730,100 to 3,063,600.

“We need the Royal Commission to investigate what causes the extraordinary increase in the Sabah population. Perhaps the proposed Royal Commission could also look into the apparent inaction to deal with various police reports lodged against various statements on the Project IC. I myself was asked by police to assist in the investigation but, up until this point in time nothing has come out of it.

“One cannot help but to attribute the extraordinary increase in the population of Sabah to the existence of the so-called Project IC. There is no credible explanation but this factor,” he said.

He added that the threats paused by the presence of illegals in possession of dubious identity card, especially those form the Philippines are real.

He thus urged the government not to delay the setting up of the commission on the Project IC, as soon as possible.

“The government must continue to uphold the rule of law and protect the integrity of the National Registration Department (NRD). Failure to set up the RCI into the Project IC, will render the persistent negative perception that the NRD, is one Department that is untrustworthy,” he said.

The former Tuaran MP also called on the government to start investigating the claim made by former ISA detainee Hassnar Ibrahim, who during the Likas election petition trial testified that he was directly involved in a government sanctioned project to award identity cards to aliens in Sabah with the main intention to tip the demographic balance in the state.

The testimony of Hassnar was collaborated by Fuad Arif, (a Filipino from Pulau Tawi-Tawi, Philippines, and now resides in a village in Menggatal with his family), who claimed to have received his IC from the Project IC in 1984.

There was also a news report dated 24 January, 2007 in a local English daily (not the New Sabah Times) quoting Fuad for saying that he still remember the middleman who went to every house in the village to fill up forms for the IC and collected fees of about RM10 for a stamp duty.

He added that one of the documents used to support the IC application was the late birth certificate registration letters.

Commenting on Datuk Ronald Kiandee’s action of rejecting the motion by the MP for Ipoh Timur, Lim Kit Siang to amend the vote of thanks to the Royal Address, Madius said he would give Ronald the benefit of the doubt.

“I have done that myself when I was serving as MP, last year, but it was also rejected by the Speaker,” he highlighted.

He concluded that, to be serious about it, MPs should move a motion under Standing Order 18 (1) that is to move an Adjournment Motion to get Parliament to direct the government to set up the RCI.

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 28 May 2008, 10:06 pm and is filed under
Sabah
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


“All we want is just that road”

DAP MP for Serdang, Teo Nie Ching failed in her attempt this morning to adjourn Parliament to debate as a definite matter of urgent public importance “the thug and police violence” against residents of Bandar Makhota Cheras (BMC) following the rebuilding of the barricade by the toll concessionaire, Grand Saga.

I spoke briefly at the gathering of BMC residents outside Parliament House this morning, where a long-standing BMC resident, “Mas”, recounted how she fractured her left arm during the “rampage” by thugs on Tuesday night when she and her two young children merely wanted to show support and solidarity for the cause to open the road for public use. (See YouTube)

Another group of BMC residents, together with DAP MPs including Nie Ching, Fong Kui Lun M. Kulasegaran and Lim Lip Eng (also present were Selangor State Exco members Ronnie Liu and Ean Yong Hian Wah) held a media conference at the Parliament lobby to condemn the violence perpetrated against the defenceless public, including press representatives as three were assaulted by the “samsengs” in the Tuesday night rampage.

This outrage must be placed on the agenda of the  Cabinet meeting tomorrow for it raises the question whether the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, has the political will to deliver his various promises of reform, whether judiciary, the battle against corruption or the police.

Was the Royal Police Commission, which was established when Abdullah first became Prime Minister more than four years ago, a complete waste of time and money when its recommendation to create an efficient, incorruptible and professional world-class police service proves to be such a mirage as highlighted by the “thug and police violence” at the BMC on Tuesday?

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 29 May 2008, 3:31 pm 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.


Ordeal of foreign spouses in Malaysia

Letters

by
B.R.

It is almost unimaginable the daily trauma that is faced by them, some of them are born overseas but were unable to get registered at the Malaysian high commission or embassy within the stipulated time. They are faced with daily trauma, which includes inability to attend local schools, universities, long waits at immigration to get a visa, when in actual fact they are Malaysians.

I, for one, am a spouse of a Malaysian citizen and 15 years down the line, I am accorded worse treatment than an illegal for at least illegals, after a while, do get amnesty, not spouses. There are many of us here, for 12-20 years still on a dependent pass or on an employment pass and still waiting for years and even decades, not for citizenship but for a mere Permanent Resident status.

Foreign spouses find life in Malaysia really difficult because of inadequate measures for good governance. The laws, if any, are so grey that it varies in interpretation from immigration officer to officer.

Many of us even have to resort to merely doing volunteer service, though it is a necessity to be an income earner. Some of us lucky ones manage to get an employment pass on the spouse visa but not many employers are prepared to employ a foreign spouse due to the tedious paperwork. Only employers with a paid up capital of over RM200K can employ us. Many even exploit us and pay some measly sum as token salary. When we wish to change jobs, there is a cooling off period to cool our heels for six months. Life in Malaysia is near traumatic for us and here’s more..

This is not ‘Ripley’s Believe it or Not’ but it is faster to get an employment pass for a domestic maid than for a foreign spouse in Malaysia! Similar is the case for extensions of our visa, long waits that stretch from hours to days though yes, we are the spouses of Malaysian citizens.

We have to pay double charges at government hospitals even when we are delivering Malaysian citizens. We have to pay fees as foreigners to study in a public university. Even a visit to KLCC’s Aquaria would require us to pay tourist rates while the rest of our family pays differently even though we are more Malaysian than most Malaysians.

We have to carry our passports wherever we go but students, foreign workers and (if I am not mistaken) even domestic maids get an I-card. A foreign spouse housewife cannot even open an account in some of the Malaysian banks, we cannot deposit money through the ATM because our bank account is called an external account – such is the poor treatment for foreign spouses of Malaysian citizens.

Oh wait, we forgot to mention the yearly visits to the Immigration Department – in fact, it is a joke of sorts amongst spouses, that the ‘Immigration Department is our Second Home programme’! Long waits, irrespective of infants in our hands and some have to travel from various states to Putrajaya just to get a spouse visa.

By the way, we have to be accompanied by our spouses to the Immigration Department when the submission is being done and this process can take up to 6-7 hours. More often for submission and approval, it takes several visits, never mind that the spouse has just given a declaration that we are still married in front of a commissioner for oaths.

Why are we so neglected? We take care of our Malaysian families, the future Malaysian generations, yet we are a forgotten segment of Malaysian society.

Husbands of Malaysian women have it even worse and we understand that Chinese spouses from China are not even allowed to apply for PR status. Many Malaysians with foreign spouses have left the country in sheer frustration. Many of us are highly-educated and are professionals, and we cannot even get jobs here, so why would we undergo so much hardship for so many years? Only for our families. So stop treating us like criminals.

The home affairs minister is the only approving authority for PR, and only a few approvals are given per month – is this a fair deal when there are a few thousand still waiting? Something is very wrong in the system then. We also know that priority is given for those applying for the more lucrative ‘Malaysia My Second Home’ programme.

So now it boils down to the fact that only money talks. If in Sabah and Sarawak, foreigners have easily been given MyKads, why can’t this be done for foreign spouses?

In this is a global environment, where travel is so much easier and national boundaries are getting more seamless, the Home Ministry and Immigration should be looking into its policies and engage themselves with practises that reflect good governance. It is only appropriate that spouses of Malaysians should be given fair status and that there be rational rules and regulations.

I have not touched on what happens in cases where there is separation or divorce. Do the children have to relocate to the non-Malaysian parent’s home country because that parent’s visa in Malaysia will not get extended?

What needs immediate attention is the immigration law itself for foreign spouses of Malaysian citizens. Today in countries such as UK, the US, Australia and nearer home in Singapore, no more than two years of living together is required to secure PR status – marriage is not even a necessity in these countries.

What you have just read is not a work of fiction but the reality of life faced by foreign spouses of Malaysian citizens.

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 29 May 2008, 6:54 pm and is filed under
Good Governance
,
Letters
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


The Perils of Assimilationist Politics

By
Farish A Noor

A quick look at the troubles in the predominantly Muslim-Malay provinces of Southern Thailand – which has been a troubled spot for the past four years at least – would point to a fundamental flaw in the line of thinking of the powers-that-be in Bangkok. Having disregarded the historical factors that make the four provinces of Patani, Jala, Satun and Narathiwat unique compared to the rest of the country, successive governments in Thailand have tried to make the Malay-Muslims of the south think of themselves as Thais, who are an ethnically different people with a language, culture, religion and history of their own.

Since the late 19th century following the conquest of Patani, Jala, Satun and Narathiwat by the Thais, and compounded by the Anglo-Siamese treaty of 1909, the four provinces have experienced what can only be described as a policy of cultural assimilation. During the 1930s and 40s Thai leaders like Phibun Songkram have tried to force Thai culture and cultural norms on the Malays by any means possible: From forcing them to speak Thai to adapting Thai dress and manners as their own.

Needless to say, this has alienated the Malay-Muslims even further, and has only helped to fuel the resentment they feel against the Thai political elite. Over the past four years this resentment has boiled over to the point of violence, leading to the needless and senseless slaughter of innocent Malays and Thais all over the south.

But looking further to the other countries of Southeast Asia we see a similar pattern at work too. The government of Indonesia tried, in the 1950s and 1960s, to force the Chinese minority of the country to adapt and adopt Indonesian cultural norms as well. The Chinese language was cast as a foreign language, Chinese culture was deemed alien and the Chinese were forced to assimilate by taking on Indonesian names and thereby losing their identity. This was done for the sake of national unity and integration, but it was well known that the driving factors behind this were really the conservative and racist elements of the ethno-nationalist right who wished to eliminate all traces of difference in the country. Sukarno was not able or not willing to defend the cultural identity of the Chinese minority, and the net result was the denial of the fact that the Chinese (like the Arabs, Indians and other migrant communities) had settled in the Indonesian archipelago for at least five hundred years.

In Malaysia the elites of the country have likewise been hard at work promoting the ideology of Malay dominance following the racial clashes of 1969. Time and again successive Malaysian politicians have harped on and on about the racial violence in May 1969 and used that as the leitmotif for a cultural assimilationist policy that has only alienated the other communities and which has denied them the right to make their cultural mark on the country.

But while successive generations of right-wing Malay-Muslim politicians in Malaysia have talked at length about the race riots of May 1969, they conveniently overlook that Malaysia has always been a nation of migrants and itinerant communities, and that the so-called ‘foreign’ Indians and Chinese have likewise settled in the land for at least five hundred years. So how long does a migrant have to stay in any country before she or he is accepted as local?

The simmering ethno-cultural and ethno-religious tensions that threaten to rip apart the countries of Southeast Asia thus all have the same factor in common: The desire on the part of the dominant group to impose their cultural-ethnic-religious stamp on all other minorities. Hence the dominance of Burmese culture in Burma, where the Burmese are in fact one of many communities; and the dominance of the Thais in Thailand where there are other communities too. Likewise in Malaysia and Indonesia the nation-building process has been overtaken by the exclusive agendas of the dominant communities despite the fact that these are really multiracial and multi-religious polities that are plural and diverse.

How do we get past this impasse of our own making then? Perhaps the biggest failure of the postcolonial states of Southeast Asia is the fact that most of them took off on an integrationist, assimilationist footing and were foregrounding a national agenda that was sectarian and divisive from the outset. In Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand and Burma, the concept of universal citizenship remains a distant abstract notion when in fact it ought to have been the foundational pillar to the nation-building process itself.

But nations are all works in progress and thankfully it is never too late to change tack and take on a new trajectory. Part of the solution to the woes of Southern Thailand would be to recognize that the four provinces of the south have a history of their own that demands and requires respect and recognition. The plight of the Malay-Muslims in Southern Thailand is no different from the appeal of non-Malay and non-Muslim minorities in Malaysia and Indonesia: ‘Listen to us, respect us, recognize our culture, language and identity. And then we will be citizens like any other.’

But can the political elite of Thailand, Malaysia and Indonesia listen to the appeals of the marginal and the minorities? Or will the same cycle of denial, assimilation, forced integration and ultimately violence and rebellion continue to repeat itself, and become the defining feature of the failed nation-building process in all these countries?

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 29 May 2008, 7:44 am and is filed under
Farish Noor
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Good news for BMC controversy

During the debate on the last ministry  – Home Ministry – on the 2007 Supplementary estimates  in Parliament late yesterday evening, DAP MP for Serdang, Teo Nie Ching and I questioned police conduct in the  Bandar Makhota Cheras (BMC) “thug and police violence” following public protest at the rebuilding of the barricade by the toll concessionaire, Grand Saga.on  Tuesday night.

I had earlier met  the Works Minister, Datuk Mohd Zin Mohamed at the MPs’ lounge and I asked why his Ministry could not resolve the long-standing BMC access road issue.

Mohd Zin said he has a formula to resolve the issue which he would be bringing to the Cabinet today.

I understand there is good news for the long-suffering residents over the BMC controversy.

                This entry was posted on Friday, 30 May 2008, 2:33 pm and is filed under
Parliament
,
Police
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Sabah –  Cinderella   after March 8 “political tsunami”

All eyes are on the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, as Santa Claus with “goodies” for Sabah in his visit to the State tomorrow.

As reported by the Star yesterday, among the “goodies” for Sabah expected from the Prime Minister are announcements:

•	Abolishing the controversial Department of Federal Development Sabah (JPPS) set up when the state was ruled under the then-opposition Parti Bersatu Sabah (PBS) in 1991 and to channel federal development funds through the Sabah Development Office;

•	More federal funding for projects in the state.

•	A high-powered Cabinet panel to work on the framework of a long-term solution to Sabah’s complex migrant problem; and

•	Immediate standardization of the prices of subsidized goods nationwide.

What about 20% oil royalty for Sabah?

Lets wait until tomorrow to see what are the goodies Abdullah has in store for the people of Sabah. The March 8 political tsunami in Peninsular Malaysia has a Cinderella-effect on  the people of Sabah in transforming them from among the most marginalized to “king-maker” holding in their hands the very survival of the Barisan Nasional federal power.

Hence the “goodies” in Sabah tomorrow!

                This entry was posted on Friday, 30 May 2008, 2:07 pm and is filed under
Sabah
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Abdullah’s “goodies” on Sabah/Sarawak grouses – satisfied?

May 31, 2008 20:32 PM

Fed Devt Dept Scrapped, Cabinet Committee On Illegal Immigrants Formed – Abdullah

KOTA KINABALU, May 31 (Bernama) — The 17-year wait by state government leaders to scrap the Sabah Federal Development Department ended Saturday when Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi announced the good news.

Following the abolition with immediate effect, Sabah State Development Office would handle the Prime Minister’s special allocations and monitor implementation and progress of federal government projects.

Abdullah, who met state government leaders and senior state government officials, also announced the formation of a cabinet committee on illegal immigrants to be chaired by Deputy Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak to discuss and solve the perennial illegal immigrants’ problem in the state.

The committee, comprising several Sabah leaders, would seek solutions to the problem, particularly foreigners holding the “IMM13” a document in lieu of passport issued by the Immigration Department to Filipino refugees which permits them to remain in Sabah, he told a media conference.

The prime minister also announced a RM1 billion allocation from the prime minister’s special allocation to be distributed according to development requirements in Sabah and the appointment of Sabah-born Professor Datuk Kamaruzaman Ampong as the new vice-chancellor of Universiti Malaysia Sabah would take effect on June 18.

Yusuf Saringgit, another Sabah-born was appointed to an important post. He was named the new Sabah Federal Financial Officer effective Sunday.

He also announced that a 300MW (Megawatt) power station would be built in Kimanis, Papar, under a joint venture with Petronas and Sabah Foundation.

State Barisan Nasional (BN) component party leaders, who met Abdullah here on April 17, had unanimously asked for the abolition of the Sabah Federal Development Department and its operations be placed directly under the state government’s supervision.

The department was set up in January 1991 under the Implementation Coordination Unit in the Prime Minister’s Department when Sabah was governed by Parti Bersatu Sabah (PBS) which was then in the Opposition.

PBS pulled out from BN in July 1990 but was readmitted into the coalition on Feb 23 2002. The department was established to plan, coordinate and monitor implementation of federal government development projects in Sabah.

At the press conference Saturday, Abdullah explained that he decided to abolish the department after considering the state government’s request.

With the abolition of the department, the Sabah State Development Office has been established with the same roles and functions with that of the state development offices in other states.

With the abolition, officers and staff, about 70 per cent of whom are locals, would be transferred to district offices, with their emolument totalling RM1.69 million a year, borne by the federal government, he said.

The Sabah Federal Development Department has four divisions — administration and finance, planning, coordination and implementation and technical.

Besides the head office in Kota Kinabau, it has branch offices in Kudat, Sandakan, Tawau, Kota Belud and Beaufort and a sub-office in Keningau under the administration of the Beaufort office.

From 1996 to 1999, the department received allocations totalling RM770.83 million from several ministries and federal departments to implement various development projects in the state.

Under the Ninth Malaysia plan, Sabah has been allocated RM20.1 billion to carry out various infrastructure and social development projects including eradicating hardcore poverty by 2010.

The allocation was supposed to be channelled through the Sabah Federal Development Department.

Following scrapping of the department and increased roles and functions of the district offices in Sabah, Abdullah said district officers and assistant district officers would be given additional management training by the Public Service Department in efforts to strengthen the district offices.

On the illegal immigrants’ problem, the prime minister said the setting up of the higher-level committee was necessary as it was a major problem and was not easy to settle.

Local political leaders and opposition parties had voiced concerns over the illegal immigrants’ problem and they wanted the federal government to set up a royal commission of inquiry to get to the bottom of the issue and come up with the best solution.

The illegal immigrants’ issue was the main campaign material of the opposition parties in the last general election.

On Wednesday, Chief Minister Datuk Seri Musa Aman said arrests of illegal immigrants were continuing and last year alone, a total of 26,332 of them were rounded up and 18,707 deported.

Between January and March this year, 5,256 illegals were detained and 4,089 were sent back to their country of origin.

Musa estimated that there are 440,000 illegals in Sabah, of whom 230,000 are foreign workers, 80,000 Filipino refugees and 130,000 illegal immigrants.

To address the illegal immigrants’ issue, the National Security Council had increased the number of temporary detention centres in Sabah from three to five — in Papar and Sandakan.

Abdullah, who is also Finance Minister, said the additional RM1 billion allocation for Sabah was approved by the Cabinet to expedite development in rural areas with infrastructure projects for parliamentary constituencies.

The prime minister also said a masterplan for the development of downstream petroleum and petrochemical industries would be drawn up for Sabah.

Abdullah also reminded the state government to speedily approve big-scale agriculture development projects especially projects associated with the food security plan and projects for renewable energy sources.

Asked on his aspirations following abolition of the Federal Development Department, he said: “I hope with this change what the Sabah people wanted with regard to channelling of funds will benefit them.”

“I also hope district offices will increase their efficiency,” he said, referring to the additional workload shouldered by the offices with the channelling of funds for development projects through the offices.

Meanwhile, the Implementation Coordination Unit (ICU) said a panel, jointly chaired by the state secretary and Sabah Federal Secretary, had been set up to streamline functions said to be overlapping with the federal and state agencies.

It also explained that the “Focus Group” on poverty established by the government in efforts to wipe out abject poverty and reduce poverty rate would focus on poverty eradication in Sabah and Sarawak.

The census on hardcore poor and poor families is expected to be completed in June.

To ensure balanced distribution of allocations, the government through ICU would use a new distribution formula based on population, size of state/district, level of development of a state and poverty rate.

This formula would be used for development allocations to be disbursed, the ICU said in a statement.

— BERNAMA

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 1 June 2008, 12:28 am and is filed under
Sabah
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.