Emergency MCA GA to decide whether MCA should make public apology for producing MCA President /Deputy President charged for  the RM12.5 billion PKFZ scandal?

The assertion by the MCA President Datuk Seri Dr. Chua Soi Lek that there was no reason to apologise for the two top MCA leaders who were Transport Ministers, Tun Dr. Ling Liong Sik and Tan Sri Chan Kong Choy as whatever happened was the personal conduct of the leaders concerned and his strident denial that “MCA is a cheating party” have raised eyebrows nation-wide, even in Barisan Nasional parties including his own MCA!

Firstly, let me clarify that I had not asked Chua as MCA President to apologise over Ling and Chan on the ground that they were guilty of “grand corruption” as their trials have not even started – and I go along with the legal maxim that a person is innocent unless found guilty by the courts.

I had however asked Chua whether as MCA President he would apologise to Umno, Barisan Nasional and all Malaysians for producing a MCA President and MCA Deputy President who are charged in court for corruption in the RM12.5 billion Port Klang Free Zone scandal based on
Chua’s own comments
 as published by the Star on Tuesday (1.3.11), viz:

Dr Chua said anyone who had committed an offence in the eyes of the Attorney-General’s Chamber should face the music.

“This shows that the Government is fair because it doesn’t just go after the small fish but also the big fish,” he said.

Since Chua as MCA President fully supported the Attorney-General’s prosecution of the two top MCA leaders for corruption in the RM12.5 billion PKFZ scandal, isn’t his next logical and responsible action (regardless of the outcome of the trials) should be to make a national apology for a MCA President and MCA Deputy President being charged for corruption in the PKFZ scandal when they were Transport Ministers?

Chua yesterday made another three more  contributions  to Malaysia’s lexicon of Political “Quotable Quotes”.  On Monday, Chua  had said that the charges against Chan will not affect the MCA.

Chua’s three new “Quotable Quotes” contributions are:

•	MCA is not a cheating party.

•	Corruption charges against Ling and Chan concerned their personal conduct.

•	No need to apologise.

Let me comment on Chua’s latest three “Quotable Quotes”.

Firstly, on Chan’s assertion that MCA is not “a cheating party”:  the  MCA President is not the most qualified person to give such an answer, which  should come from the  Malaysian Chinese whom the MCA claims to represent as well as the Malaysian people.

Secondly, on the pathetic attempt to dissociate Ling and Chan from MCA for their corruption charges by claiming that they concerned their “personal conduct”, the simple retort from ordinary Malaysians is whether Ling and Chan would have become Transport Ministers in their “personal capacities”!

Thirdly, is Chua speaking for himself or is he speaking on behalf of the entire MCA Central Committee that there is no need for an official MCA apology for producing a President and a Deputy President who have been charged for the RM12.5 billion PKFZ scandal – when no personalities from the other Barisan Nasional parties have been charged?

I do not think Chua can really speak on behalf of all MCA leaders and all levels of the MCA membership when he made the infamous quotes of “Charges against Chan will not affect MCA”, “Charges against Ling and Chan are their personal conduct” and “No Need to Apologise”, as I believe there are still many MCA members of honour and integrity in their rank-and-file.

If Datuk Ong Tee Keat is still MCA President, for instance, I think he would tender such a national apology on behalf of MCA to Umno, Barisan Nasional and the Malaysian public if asked to do so without qualification whatsoever.

May be, Chua should convene an emergency MCA General Assembly to allow the MCA delegates to decide whether MCA should tender a public and national  apology to Malaysians for producing a MCA President and Deputy President who betrayed public trust and are charged for the RM12.5 billion PKFZ scandal!

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 3 March 2011, 3:07 pm and is filed under
MCA
,
PKFZ
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


NEP overwhelming Najib’s reforms, say reports

By
Shannon Teoh

The Malaysian Insider

March 04, 2011

KUALA LUMPUR, March 4 — New York-based business newspapers took aim at the Najib administration’s reform policies today, claiming that a “phony war on affirmative action” has failed to overcome pessimism in the local market.

The Wall Street Journal said in an opinion article that the government’s failure to speed up economic reforms while racial tensions increase have slowed productivity as the country labours under the legacy of the New Economic Policy (NEP).

“The risk now is that political parties representing the three races will be steered by extremist groups that exacerbate conflict for their own gain,” the Wall Street Journal said today.

Malaysia reported a 7.2 per cent economic growth last year, after a 1.7 per cent dip the year before.

However, its tiny southern neighbour Singapore registered a 14.5 per cent jump, equalling it as Southeast Asia’s third largest economy.

The Wall Street Journal added in its opinion article that the events in the past month, referring to demonstrations by Indian rights group Hindraf, suggest that the decades of pro-Bumiputera policies under the NEP designed to “paper over ethnic divisions have only perpetuated the strife instead.”

Groups like Hindraf accuse the ruling coalition of yielding too readily to nativist Malay voices that agitate against meritocratic reforms, the newspaper said.

Bloomberg’s BusinessWeek also ran a column by Australian researcher John Lee which said that pro-Bumiputera group Perkasa’s influence among Umno’s Malay constituents made it difficult for Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak to push through reforms.

“So far, little has been done to roll back pro-Bumiputera restructuring and redistribution policies or initiatives that would reduce the role of the state in the economy,” the weekly newspaper said, calling the government’s efforts “a phony war on affirmative action.”

“Significantly, Najib has backed away from abandoning the four-decade-old sacred tenet that Malays own at least 30 per cent of all corporate assets in the country,” wrote Lee, who was born in Ipoh, Malaysia.

“The obsession, however, with improving the lives of Bumiputera-Malaysians rather than all Malaysians has come at a heavy price. Many NEP affirmative action policies are still in place today (and some have even been extended). This living legacy is behind much of the pessimism surrounding the country today,” he said.

The article added that economic protection in the name of affirmative action has led to unproductive and wasteful habits.

“Foreign perception that Malaysia’s affirmative action economic environment makes the country an uncompetitive place to invest is damage enough,” Lee wrote.

He added that Malaysia’s net foreign direct investment (FDI) fell from US$2.56 billion (RM7.76 billion) in 2004 to negative US$7.67 billion in 2008 and recovered to only US$1.95 billion in 2009 — the worse decline among its developing and developed neighbours.

                This entry was posted on Friday, 4 March 2011, 12:02 pm and is filed under
Najib Razak
,
NEP
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Why no protest by CSL at Ling and Chan being singled out for corruption charges in connection with RM12.5 billion PKFZ scandal without any  Umno personality being charged?

Many questions are swirling in the minds of Malaysians over the corruption charges against former MCA President, Tun Dr. Ling Liong Sik and former MCA Deputy President, Tan Sri Chan Kong Choy in connection with  the RM12.5 billion Port Klang Free Zone (PKFZ) scandal which do not enhance public confidence in the independence, professionalism and integrity of the Attorney-General, the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) and the judiciary.

Firstly, why the MCA President Datuk Seri Chua Soi Lek endorsed the Attorney-General Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail’s prosecution of Ling and Chan as Chua had publicly said after Chan was charged in court on Monday that “anyone who had committed an offence in the eyes of the Attorney-General’s Chamber should face the music”.

It is no secret that there is considerable questioning, not only among the general public but particularly at all levels of the MCA leadership and membership, why the two former Transport Ministers who were  MCA No. 1 and 2 had been singled out for corruption charges for the PKFZ scandal when there has not been a single prosecution against any Umno personality.

This is one reason why I had posed several  questions to Chua in the past three days for everyone, particularly in the MCA, are entitled to know why the MCA President endorsed the singling out and prosecution of the two former MCA leaders as borne out by Chua’s comment after Chan was charged on Monday.

Why is there no protest by Chua and the top MCA leadership at Ling and Chan’s being singled out for corruption charges in connection with  RM12.5 billion PKFZ scandal without any  Umno personality being charged?

Would this be selective prosecution by the Attorney-General? Is this the result of selective investigation by the MACC?

These are valid and pertinent questions, but have they been addressed by Chua as the MCA President and the entire MCA leadership?

                This entry was posted on Friday, 4 March 2011, 2:48 pm and is filed under
Corruption
,
MCA
,
PKFZ
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Fools No More, They’re Breaking Out

By
Kee Thuan Chye

MALAYSIAN university students must surely realize that they have more power now than they have ever had in the last four decades. This accounts for their robust participation in politics in recent days. Not only in university campuses, but also in the public sphere.

Suppressed for so long by the Universities and University Colleges Act (UUCA), introduced in 1971 because the ruling party feared the rise of student activism, today’s students are breaking out.

The political landscape that emerged from the March 8 phenomenon has no doubt been an encouraging factor. Inspired by the aspiration of a more politically aware rakyat demanding greater democracy, students have been challenging university and government authorities by taking part in political activities they are banned from doing so by the draconian UUCA.

Their defiance has now been augmented by the revolutions spearheaded by youths in the Arab world. Like the Tunisians, Egyptians, Libyans and others, they want democracy, social and political justice. They want to reclaim their right as citizens to take part in the political process. And rightly so.

Indeed, it can be argued that the UUCA contravenes Article 10 of the Federal Constitution, which allows for freedom of speech and expression, and freedom of association. The Constitution does provide for the control of freedom of association but only on certain grounds, like the protection of national security, public order or morality. Political participation is not one of these grounds.

It doesn’t make sense anyway that university students are being deprived of their right to be politically involved when other Malaysian youths enjoy that right. In fact, it’s grossly unfair. Just the other day, a newspaper carried a story about a 20-year-old who had his barber design a Barisan Nasional symbol on his scalp. Any university student caught doing that could have been hauled up to face discipline. Or perhaps not if he sports a BN icon.

Until the recent amendments to the Act, such a student could even have been dragged to court and faced the possibility of a jail sentence.

Last May, four Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM) students were charged by their university under the UUCA for showing sympathy or support for Pakatan Rakyat when they were found in possession of the coalition’s campaign materials during the Hulu Selangor by-election. It was, to say the least, pitiable.

Malaysian universities are what they are today because the UUCA not only prohibits students from expressing political opinion publicly and being members of political parties; it also bars them from joining any society outside of their university without the written consent of their Vice-Chancellor. This is too extensive a ban; and it is this that gives the Act a bad name.

Without allowing our students to participate freely in the larger community, how can we expect them to widen their horizons? How can they be expected to be thinking beings with an informed world-view? How then can we have world-class universities?

The Malaysian university students of the 60s and early 70s were so different. Progressive and aware of their social responsibilities, they engaged in the issues of the day. They rallied for the poor of Teluk Gong, Tasik Utara and Baling, and marched for other causes. They demonstrated against the invasion of Czechoslovakia by the Soviets and the oppression of Muslims in Pattani, and spoke up for plight of the Palestinians. It was part of their own education.

But the student movement came to an end when amendments to the UUCA were bulldozed through Parliament in 1975. Mahathir Mohamad was then the Minister of Education. Students responded by holding mass demonstrations in 1976 at the MARA Institute of Technology to protest against the amendments. Guess who then threatened to revoke their scholarships and thereby managed to break them up?

After that, universities were reduced to “glorified high schools”. More than shutting up the students, the UUCA curbed their intellectual freedom and sense of curiosity. What took root was a culture of obeisance and coconut-shell mediocrity and the prioritizing of passing exams above all else. The academic staff were negatively affected as well. Lecturers who tried to promote independent thinking and free speech among their students found themselves to be a dwindling minority.

The most insidious outcome of all this was the cultivation of a breed of academics who to find favor with the Establishment perpetuated the closing of the Malaysian student mind once they got into influential positions. It epitomizes the tragedy of Malaysian academia.

It could only have happened under a government that ruled with a strong mandate and, of course, a government that preferred to keep university students mute and under its thumb.

But the times, they are a-changin’, and the Government must now realize that it had better start swimmin’ or it’ll sink like a stone. The recent victories of the Pro-Mahasiswa group, said to be anti-Establishment, in a number of campus elections should cause the political rulers some concern.

Even more worrisome for them would be the indications that these students will no longer take unfair treatment without fighting back. The protests of the Pro-Mahasiswa group in Universiti Malaya (UM) and Universiti Putra Malaysia (UPM) that railed against alleged election meddling by university authorities showed a new spirit almost akin to that of the 60s and 70s firebrands.

What happened at UM and UPM generally reflects badly on the university authorities. Disqualifying Pro-Mahasiswa candidates who had won in the elections raised a fishy smell. To the students’ credit, they demanded an explanation from their respective vice-chancellors and refused to budge unless they got one. When security guards were called, things got a tad tense, even violent. Although the mainstream media has been trying to blame the students for getting out of hand, the fact remains that they had right on their side. It was just too bad that the tough security guards were on the other side.

Fortunately, Deputy Higher Education Minister Saifuddin Abdullah played a role in defusing the tension at UPM by expressing regret over the annulment of the victories of the 11 candidates, 10 of whom were with Pro-Mahasiswa. When the victors were eventually reinstated, UPM declared that the candidates were not “disqualified” in the first place. The word used in the letters issued to the affected candidates was “pembatalan”, which it said should mean “cancellation”.

Pray tell, what’s the difference? If a candidacy is “cancelled”, doesn’t that amount to disqualification? Are we hearing ivory-tower doublespeak?

Saifuddin seems to have read the situation well. He seems to understand the significance of student activism. The Arab uprisings would have provided a lesson, but more pressing is the prospect of the general election coming up at any time now. Suppression of student activism would be a huge mistake. Many of them would be going to the polling booths for the first time.

Already, some have even offered themselves as election candidates. At the Malaysian Civil Liberties Movement forum last December, it was startling but refreshing to see student leader Shazni Munir bin Mohd Ithnin openly and confidently declare that “the time for fear is over” and that his fellow students were offering themselves as candidates to pro-rakyat political parties to stand in the next general election.

This was open defiance of the UUCA, an act of courage. As more and more students show courage in the face of repression, many may be moved to join them. They have indeed come a long way since August 2008 when 100 of them staged a protest against the then proposed amendments to the UUCA at the entrance to Parliament, to the December 2010 protest in Putrajaya against petrol, diesel and sugar price hikes for which three students were arrested, to the UM and UPM face-offs with the university authorities.

University students have found their voice again, as Ivy Kwek, a graduate from a Malaysian university, observed in an online site recently. They know they can make a difference and will strive to do so.

“When I was a student,” she wrote, “among the first things first-year students were told in orientation week was that we should focus on our studies and not get embroiled in campus politics and illegal organisations… I really believed what they said and thought that is what university is all about…

“Later, I found out that under the Universities and University Colleges Act … I cannot participate in a gathering of more than three people, as it is deemed illegal. I also found out that I, as a 21-year-old, can vote and even contest in national politics, but under the Act, am not allowed to be a member of any political party…

“In retrospect, I feel that I’ve been treated like a fool.”

Oh, well. The times, they are a-changin’… and university students are fools no more. Oppressors, beware!

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 5 March 2011, 4:52 pm and is filed under
university
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Why Chua Soi Lek dare not declare that Ling and Chan were  innocent and that they are victims of selective prosecution by Attorney-General?

Just saw the unusual Merlimau and Kerdau double by-election polling day statement by MCA President Datuk Seri Dr. Chua Soi Lek, which is reported by
The Malaysian Insid
er under the headline
“Dr. Chua: Kit Siang using PKFZ as vote bait”.

Congratulations! The MCA President has issued a statement which even MCA leaders and members don’t believe, let alone the Malaysian people at large.

I am not interested in trading accusations.

What is obvious is that Chua continues to avoid the issues raised by the corruption charges preferred against the former No. 1 and No. 2 of MCA when they were Transport Ministers in connection with the RM12.5 billion Port Klang Free Zone (PKFZ) scandal, including:

Firstly, why the MCA President dare not declare that the MCA and in particular the MCA leadership are convinced that the two former top MCA leaders were innocent of the corruption charges made against Ling and Chan in connection with the PKFZ scandal?

Secondly, why he dare not declare that Ling and Chan are victims of selective prosecution by the Attorney-General, Tan Sri Gani Patail, when no other political personalities particularly from UMNO, have been charged for the same PKFZ scandal?

Or is Chua seriously suggesting that if he declares that Ling and Chan are innocent of the corruption charges, and that he is confident that their corruption trials will clear them of all charges of corrupt practices, he would be interfering in the process of the judicial system?

Clearly Chua has very poor legal as well as political advisers – as in believing that these questions are only pertinent to the Merlimau and Kerdau by-elections!

Or are there anyone in the MCA leadership who think that both Ling and Chan should have been charged with more serious offences, as those recommended by the Parliamentary Public Accounts Committee, in the PKFZ scandal – apart from hauling the court all political personalities including from UMNO involved in the RM12.5 billion “scandal of scandals”?

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 6 March 2011, 5:23 pm and is filed under
Corruption
,
MCA
,
PKFZ
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


It’s a sham! It’s a show! It’s a Shame – it’s our Sick Economy!

By
Martin Jalleh

·  “The present PM has made some helpful gestures towards liberalising the economy…These initiatives, however, must do more than skim the surface of what must be done. (7 January 2010)

·  “Malaysia is a sham democracy, one which existed only in name but grievously compromised in substance, reality and fact… Reforms could not be expected from the incumbents in power.” (8 February 2010)

·  “Our economy has stagnated. Productivity remains low. We now lag our regional competitors in the quality of our people, when we were once leaders in the developing world.” (23 March 2010)

~ Tengku Razaleigh, former Finance Minister and veteran leader of Umno

Below is a glance at the sad and scandalous scenario of how the country’s once strong economy has fallen sick with the government putting up a big show (performance now!) of economic reforms in 2010 – full of sound and fury signifying nothing.

1. Flight in capital

The year 2010 began with the bad news that Bolehland had suffered disastrous capital flight in the previous year. The Asia Sentinel, an online news website, on 11 January 2010, quoted investment bank UBS as revealing that in 2009 foreign exchange reserves fell by close to 25 per cent even though the country continued to run a huge surplus on the current account of its balance of payments.

The USB described the situation as “bizarre” and contrasted Malaysia with other countries with large current account surpluses – Thailand, China, Taiwan, Singapore, and Hong Kong – which have seen their reserves increase – as should be expected.

AS suggested that the massive outflow could be partly due to the government’s state-controlled enterprises, headed by Petronas, which “has been spending its billions in profits around the world as it attempts to become a major global player – at the expense of Malaysian citizenry in general and the oil and gas producing states in particular.”

The newspaper added the capital flight was also due to “the outflow of local private capital (which) has been taking place on an unprecedented scale in response to political instability, massive official corruption and discrimination against non-Malays.”

“Often with the exodus of money goes an exodus of talent as highly skilled persons disadvantaged by race or, as in the case of some Malays, disgusted by local corruption or primitive religious authorities, take themselves and their capital to Australia, Canada, India, China, etc.”

2. Foolish denial

In a report on Malaysia released at the end of January 2010, the Hong Kong-based Political and Economic Risk Consultancy (PERC) warned: “Events of the past month give the impression that pressures are building and the entire situation is becoming much more unstable” (Malaysian Insider, 10 Feb. 2010).

Since New Year’s Day (2010) “the situation in the country is becoming increasingly unstable; a group of elite minorities were dominating the national agenda to the extent that it was hurting Malaysia’s attractiveness to investors…”

Lim Kit Siang then asked for Najib’s response to the PERC’s “blistering” report and the prospect of Malaysia becoming even more uncompetitive internationally. Najib chose to be silent but his deputy Muhyiddin Yassin called the report “part of a hidden agenda to destabilise the country”.

Evidently, Muhyiddin chose to ignore Second Finance Minister Husni Ahmad Hanadzlah’s revelation made in December 2009 that the country’s economy “has been stagnating for the past decade (in the wake of the 1998 Asian financial crisis)”.

3. Flip-flopping on the NEP

On 30 March 2010, the PM unveiled the much-awaited New Economic Model (NEM) which will “transform the nation into a high-income economy that is sustainable and inclusive and will position the nation on the right path towards attaining developed nation status by 2020”.

Dr Jeyakumar Devaraj, an Aliran member and Sungai Siput MP, praised the NEM’s policy statement and in particular the “uncharacteristic honesty about the current situation of the Malaysian economy”. He added that “its policy thrusts have been lifted from the Pakatan Rakyat’s (PR) prescription for reform”.

He, however, argued that the NEM is “a deeply-flawed policy”, “essentially the recycling of policy prescriptions from the neoliberal school”. He warned that planning for the future must not be left to the PM and the NEAC who “are clearly still stuck inside the old and tired neo-liberal box”.

As the months passed, Najib backtracked on the “promising” NEM. He succumbed to strident objections from extremist right wing groups, such as Perkasa, to the NEM. He flip-flopped over the 30 per cent Bumiputera equity target and even called the NEM a “trial balloon”.

4. False alarm by Idris Jala?

On 27 May 2010, Idris Jala, Minister in the PM’s Department stunned the nation with his sudden and dramatic warning that we have a time bomb in our hands – we could go bankrupt by 2019. We either swallow subsidy cuts or risk having a “Greece” staring at us!

Some felt Idris’ doomsday scenario had a sobering effect. Others were sceptical. Some said it was just a scare tactic or just some stunt or drama by Idris – to sidetrack the nation from the real issues. Some Umno warlords told the PM to give Idris the sack; he was asking them to commit political suicide!

DAP supremo Lim Kit Siang was sharp enough to point at Idris’ failure to address the root causes of the national economic crisis instead of just dealing with its symptoms. Idris failed to focus on the big ticket items – corruption, mismanagement, extravagance and lack of accountability. (See sections on “A leap into greater losses” and “Malpractices, mismanagement and misuse of funds”.)

Idris proved that he was a typical politician, though he says he is not one, by claiming that his statement was taken out of context. The PM stayed far away from Idris’ apocalyptic speech. He made the CEO of Pemandu a sitting duck whilst he ran short of political will to seriously address the subsidy syndrome.

Things turned out the way DAP’s Tony Pua had predicted: “I don’t think the Najib administration has the courage to carry out the cuts…not across the board and not as Idris planned it. They’ll probably stagger the subsidy cuts, one every three to four months, as long as there is no by-election.”

Then came another slap on Idris’ face. His warning was based on the country’s total subsidy of RM74 billion, equivalent to RM12,900 per household last year. Najib’s Finance Ministry had the country’s total subsidy at only RM18.6 billion, equivalent to RM3,246 per household.

The contradictions between the PM and Idris would become more and more glaring. For example, three days after the dire warning that the country could become bankrupt by 2019, the PM declared: “Malaysia can be a developed nation by 2020, if the country registers a continuous six per cent annual growth”!

5. Foreign/local investors stay away

In mid-July the released UN’s World Foreign Investment Report (WIR) 2010 revealed the following:

·  Malaysia’s FDI plunged 81 per cent from US$7.32 billion in 2008 to just US$1.38 billion in 2009, trailing behind neighbouring countries such as Thailand, Indonesia, Vietnam and Singapore.

·  Malaysia was the only Asean country to experience negative FDI flow in 2009.

·  The country’s 2009 FDI fell lower than the Philippines, which attracted US$1.95 billion, while Singapore raked in the most — more than US$16 billion. (It was the first time ever that Malaysia attracted less investment than the Philippines!)

Pas vice-president Mahfuz Omar said that the plunge in foreign investment in 2009 proved that Najib had failed miserably in his Key Performance Indicators (KPI) and National Key Results Area (NKRA) (meant to gauge governmental performance) as PM and Finance minister. He should resign gracefully.

According to Mahfuz, the main factors responsible for the dismal performance in attracting investors were:

·  Rampant corruption, bureaucratic red-tape and money paid to middle men.

·  Interference and a state of “lawlessness’ in the judiciary. The Lingamgate case, the BN’s power grab in Perak and Sodomy II gave the impression that Malaysia practised law of rule and not rule of law.

·  Government’s mismanagement of giant government-linked-companies such as Sime Darby, Felda and Maybank had hurt investor confidence.

DAP’s chief economist Tony Pua had this to add: “Despite Datuk Seri Najib repeatedly insisting that the era where ‘the government knows best’ is over, his administration continues to crowd out private investments by directly awarding mega-projects to government-linked entities, such as the Sungai Buloh land to an EPF joint venture with the government, or the Sungai Besi airport redevelopment, to the 1Malaysia Development Fund.”

“Without these necessary and critical changes to the government’s economic policies, the Malaysian economy will only continue to drift away from the radar of both local and foreign investors,” he said.

Nothing really changed in spite of the warnings of the WIR in July 2010. One could see this clearly in a statement which came out in December 2010 by Ramon Navaratnam, who warned that the Najib administration would face continued investor scepticism until it became more explicit on how to make Malaysia a high-income nation.

The former senior civil servant who had helped Tun Abdul Razak draft the NEP said the second New Economic Model (NEM) report was filled with good intentions but “very short” on specific measures. He added: “And therein lies the problem… Investors, after waiting so long, find they’re back almost to square one in terms of the specifics and policy proposals they can act on.”

6. Fine performance by PR

According to Penang Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng, the combined four Pakatan Rakyat states of Penang, Selangor, Kedah and Kelantan beat the 9 BN states together in terms of investments in 2010.

They succeeded in attracting RM25 billion in investments comprising 53% of Malaysia’s total investments of RM47.2 billion in 2010. Despite the financial constraints and limitations imposed by BN, PR showed good governance.

For the first time in history, Penang was the new champion of investments in Malaysia, replacing the previous 2009 champion Sarawak by recording RM 12.2 billion in 2010 as compared to Sarawak’s RM3.9 billion.

Lim took pride in saying that Penang’s success in drawing in RM12.2 billion was an extraordinary vote of confidence by both foreign and local investors in the PR state government of Penang. The No.2 state after Penang was another PR state of Selangor with RM 10.6 billion in investments.

7. Farcical reforms

2010 was a year which revealed how sick the country’s economy has become with the PM and his government trying to cure it by drowning it with acronym soup — GTP, NKRAs, NKEAs, SRIs, NEM, ETP, EPPs, SRIs and more.

Alas, Najib would end up looking so silly at times. When commenting on the Budget for 2011, Sakmongkol AK47, the pen-name of Mohd Ariff Sabri Abdul Aziz, a former state assembly member of Pahang who is an Umno member, said that Najib was “suffering from Acronymitis”.

“It’s a new disease I suppose which has become fashionable since Najib took over from Pak Lah. And we are seeing its deleterious effects when the PM/Finance Minister prepared the 2011 budget recently. He is suffering from an economics heatstroke I think.”

He provided an excellent example: What has the construction of a 100-storey tower got to do with the government budget? Or for that matter the construction of the RM43 billion MRT, the RM10 billion mixed development of Sungai Buluh, the RM26 billion construction of the KLIF hub, RM10 billion worth of highways?

Idris Jala will be remembered as the man who at one moment would shake the nation with his apocalyptic message and at the very next moment suffocate the nation with a slew of grandiose plans through his slick powerpoint presentations. He would be sadly accused of being an spin doctor for Umno.

The target for private investment set by Najib through the ETP, 10-MP and Budget 2011, stood at RM115 billion at an increase of 12 per cent every year until 2020. But in spite of the slew of acronyms, the showcase of plans, projections, and programmes, and the spate of privatised projects, there were no significant signs of foreign and domestic investor confidence.

On 24 December 2010, the Malaysia Chronicle reported that a survey showed Najib’s popularity dropping by a significant amount – from 72 per cent to 69 per cent cent, and this had his minders scrambling to spin away his loss of approval among Malaysians.

“The artificial public relations and false promises are starting to come unstuck. It is also highly likely the actual results are much worse because you can be sure the survey-takers would have tried their best to be kind to him,” commented PKR vice president Tian Chua.

The poll was conducted by the Merdeka Centre and suggested that the lower approval rating was due in part to a reduction in government subsidies for fuel and sugar. The poll also found that few Malaysians understood or appreciated his flashy RM1.4 trillion Economic Transformation Programme.

Many felt the government was refusing to do what was necessary to save the economy. As was plainly put by Tengku Razaleigh, who blamed the Najib administration for crippling the national economy by putting politics ahead of policy reforms, “only political change can bring economics reforms to Malaysia”.

The Umno veteran urged the PM to end race-based affirmative programmes in the NEP, drawn up 40 years ago, which he said was a cover for “corruption, crony capitalism and money politics”.

Before the year ended Opposition Leader Anwar Ibrahim accused the government of bullying the poor by failing to impose similar subsidy cuts on “subsidy monsters” like the Independent Power Producers The latest price hikes on daily essentials was clear proof of the BN’s “double standard” and “flagrant inconsistency”.

(The above article first appeared in the latest issue of Aliran Monthly. It is part of a 30-page comprehensive review of the year 2010.)

                This entry was posted on Monday, 7 March 2011, 7:03 pm and is filed under
Martin Jalleh
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Selangor DAP tells PAS to stop anti-gaming talk

By
Debra Chong

The Malaysian Insider

Mar 06, 2011

KUALA LUMPUR, March 6 — Selangor DAP chief Teresa Kok warned political ally PAS to stop pushing for all Pakatan Rakyat (PR) states to adopt Kelantan’s controversial gaming ban for fear of losing non-Muslim votes in the coming general election.

“If PAS pushes this further, it’s not going to help them win more Malay votes and it might cost them non-Malay votes,” she told The Malaysian Insider today.

Kok was weighing in behind DAP national chairman Karpal Singh who had yesterday criticised the Kelantan government for enforcing a state law which, he said, had denied the rights of its non-Muslim citizens.

Earlier today, PAS secretary-general, Datuk Mustafa Ali defended the ban, saying the Islamist state’s anti-gambling policy was for the well-being of all communities, not just Muslims.

Kok said while she broadly agreed with Mustafa that gambling was socially unhealthy, she stressed that it did not mean the rights of the non-Muslims should be compromised, which Kelantan appeared to be doing.

Echoing Karpal, Kok, who is a Selangor executive councillor and holds the investment, industry and trade portfolio in the country’s most developed state, suggested it was not prudent for the PR leadership to enforce such a sweeping policy.

“Last time, all Pakatan states came out in one voice to say we do not agree to have gambling in this country,” she said.

Kok was referring to opposition pact’s united stand denouncing the Cabinet for awarding a sports betting licence to a company linked to tycoon Tan Sri Vincent Tan, which became a hot topic during the Hulu Selangor parliamentary by-election last year.

But she stressed that the DAP did not agree with PAS this time to suddenly clamp down on all forms of betting, including the ones legalised under federal law.

She noted the growing unhappiness among the minority non-Muslim community in PAS-ruled Kelantan after state enforcers raided several shops in Kota Baru selling Big Sweep lottery tickets and fined its owners despite it being legal under federal laws.

Gambling is considered a haram activity and punishable under Muslim law.

PAS Youth chief Nasrudin Hassan sparked the debate with the secular DAP when he suggested that all PR states emulate Kelantan and ban all forms of gaming activities.

Other DAP leaders have also stepped forward to reject Nasrudin’s idea.

Lim Kit Siang, the secular party’s whip in Parliament, maintained PAS’s tough stand on betting was not part of the pact’s common policy and the three remaining PR states did not have to follow suit.

“The party’s position is that it is not common PR policy. What Karpal says reflects the party’s stand,” he told The Malaysian Insider today.

His son and Penang Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng joined in the fray on the prickly subject that could affect the warming political ties between the two opposition parties.

“Penang does not agree with PAS Youth chief. He speaks not for us. The existing ones in Penang remain untouched. Only expansion of new forms of gambling like sports betting not allowed,” Guan Eng said in a text message to The Malaysian Insider today.

Guan Eng, who is also the DAP’s secretary-general, did not elaborate when asked why his party was dead set against the PAS proposal.

                This entry was posted on Monday, 7 March 2011, 7:34 pm and is filed under
DAP
,
Pakatan Rakyat
,
PAS
,
Religion
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Cops question students for 10 hours over ‘Interlok’

by
Zaidatul Syreen Abdul Rashid

Malaysiakini

Mar 8, 11

Three Form Five students were yesterday taken to the Kuala Kubu Baru district police headquarters and traumatised by being questioned for 10 hours – all for wanting to return the novel Interlok to their headmaster last Friday.

Initially, seven SMK Kuala Kubu Baru students, who wanted to return the book because they were not happy with its contents, were stopped by a discipline teacher who allegedly abused them verbally.

“All seven of us we were walking calmly towards the headmaster’s room when our discipline teacher stopped us and started making comments at us, which hurt our feelings,” said one of the students, who was with four others at the Human Rights Party headquarters today.

According to the student, the discipline teacher said the students were purposely creating problems because of their race.

The teacher reportedly said,
“Kenapa orang India garang? India memang suka rosakkan nama sekolah. Keling memang dasar pariah sejak sejarah lagi”
 (Why are the Indians so fierce? Indians really like to tarnish the school’s name. The keling have been pariahs since historical times).

The students were not able to return the novel as the teacher told them to disperse immediately.

Three students taken to police station

Yesterday, while the students were in school, the head of the parent-teacher association, Baktiar Md Rashid, who is also a police officer, took three of them to the police station for questioning, without the consent of their parents.

P Gomathi, 42 (left), the mother of one of the students, said she was angry that her son was taken to the station without her presence or permission.

“My son did not commit any crime. He just wanted to return a book that he didn’t enjoy reading.

“Instead he was humiliated and taken to the balai like some kind of hardcore criminal, in a patrol car,” she said, adding that the school authorities did not inform her about this.

The novel Interlok, written by national laureate Abdullah Hussein, made headlines recently as critics have argued that it portrays the Indian and Chinese communities in a bad light.

There have been protests against the book since the Education Ministry’s decision to use Interlok as a compulsory textbook in secondary schools. This is the first case of students being taken to a police station and questioned over the book.

Gomathi was informed of her son’s whereabouts at 10.30am by a classmate. When she reached the station, she said, she was told that her older son, A Sanjeevkumar, had also been called in for questioning as the discipline teacher had made a police report against him.

“She (the discipline teacher) said in her police report that my older son brought 100 Indians from Kuala Lumpur, from the Gang 36, to threaten her and her family,” Gomathi added.

She sees this as a desperate move by the teacher because Sanjeevkumar was away in Kuala Lumpur the whole week when this issue started.

Sanjeevkumar said: “I was a student in this school two years ago, and I have never been involved in any problem. No problem with the teachers or other students.

“Therefore, it is not fair for the teacher to pin it on me on grounds I was a former student who ‘turned’ into a gangster to influence my younger brother.”

Gomathi yesterday lodged police reports against PTA chief Baktiar and the teacher.

“I am not happy with what has happened. It was a school drama that should have ended there.

“Baktiar was misusing his authority. He should have had his ‘parent teacher association’ cap on, as the matter concerned school children in the school compound… not putting on his ‘DSP police cap’ on, arresting the children and taking them to the balai for questioning.

“After all it’s just a book,” she added.

‘A night in jail’ threat

Asked what took place at the police station, the teary-eyed student said the police threatened that he and older brother Sanjeevkumar would be spending a night in jail.

“I asked for permission to call my parents but they (the police) wouldn’t let me, saying I was in only for questioning, and that they were not going to arrest me. The other two of my friends were also not able to call their parents.”

As to what the student now wanted from the authorities, he simply answered, “I want to go back to school macam biasa (like normal). Jumpa semua kawan (see all my friends).

“Sebab hari Jumaat, banyak cikgu lain yang dengar cerita ini, semuanya cakap sorry dekat kita. (Last Friday, most of the other teachers who heard of this issue, came and said sorry to us).

“So, all I want is the discipline teacher to apologise to us. That’s it.”

HRP president W Sambulingam (left), who was present at the press conference, said it was unfair to put the students through such an ordeal at a tender age.

“This is what I say, harapkan pagar, pagar makan padi. The police are supposed to educate and keep the people from harm. Instead, they lock up students. And for what? For trying to return the novel Interlok.

“As we have been saying since the beginning, Interlok must be removed immediately. Look at it today, see for yourself what it has done to this particular school,” Sambulingam added.

“Malaysia is a beautiful country, with beautiful people, so please do not make it ugly with hidden racial agendas. Don’t ever victimise the nation.”

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 8 March 2011, 6:20 pm and is filed under
1Malaysia
,
Education
,
nation building
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Don’t gamble away our children’s future

By
Thomas Lee

The issue of gambling is again hogging the political limelight, following the PAS Kelantan state government decision to disallow the sales of Big Sweep lottery tickets in coffee-shops and other business premises.

The common perception at present is that since the Big Sweep lottery scheme has been given a licence to operate, the Kelantan state government has no authority and power to ban its sale of lottery tickets in the state.

On the contrary, although the licence to operate the lottery is given by the federal government, the authority responsible for issueing permits to premises to operate as lotttery outlets is the local council.

The lottery can be sold in Kelantan, but only in premises which have been specifically licensed for the purpose, i.e.legally permitted to operate as lottery outlets.

Hence, the Kota Baru Municipal Council is not intrinsically wrong per se to take action on business premises selling lottery tickets as they are not licensed as lottery outlets. A bookshop, for example, has no business selling lottery tickets.

The argument in support of the Big Sweep lottery being allowed to be freely available to the people is that it is a fundamental right enshrined and endorsed by the Social Welfare Lottery Act.

This antiquated and obsolete law was originally enacted to allow the federal government to raise funds via a lottery scheme for its welfare work among the poor and underpriviledged people.

Hence, it surely is not right to use this archaic legislation to justify the current business operation of the gambling commercial enterprises. The profits from these lottery schemes run by these companies are not specifically meant and used for welfare work, and as such, these schemes should not be covered by the provisions of the Social Welfare Lottery Act.

Having looked at the legal implication of the Kelantan action, we should also consider the religious, moral, social and ethical dimensions of the gambling issue.

Gambling is basically a games of chance, involving the wagering of money or something of value.

Currently, gambling is a major commercial activity, with a worldwide legal gambling market involving an estimated US$400 billion (RM1.2 trillion) in 2010. In Malaysia, hundreds of millions of ringgit are involved in the three weekly lottery draws operated by the three major gaming corporations — Sport Toto, Magnum, and Big Sweep. Hence, gambling is a signficant economic activity, and an avenue for the federal government to collect massive taxes.

But the moral and social consequences of the gambling habit are certainly matters of deep concern. The emergence of loan sharks, for example, is a direct consequence of the gambling culture.

In view of the moral and social consequences, almost all religions frown on gambling as an evil practice, a sin, at least the official level.

However, many countries, including Malaysia, have made allowance for those who wish to gamble, and accommodate them by regulating and limiting gambling with legal jurisdictions and taxation.

In Malaysia, gambling has been legalized with licences given to various companies to operate lottery schemes, and at the turf clubs and casinos. Legally, only the non-Muslims are allowed to purchase lottery tickets and patronise these gambling joints.

The issue PAS raised concerning the moral evil of gambling is not without merit, and we should seriously give the party a hearing on the matter, at least on the following grounds:

First of all, the most serious consequence of a legalized gambling scheme is the harmful impact it has on the poorest section of our society. Even without the benefit of extensive empirical studies, we can verify by objective observation that the largest number of gamblers come from the poorest section of our community.

Psychologically, many of these poor people have conditioned themselves to think that they could never uplift their current economic status, unless they could strike it big in a lottery draw or win big in other gambling schemes. Gambling gives them a hope of sort.

Secondly, the easily availablity of licensed gambling outlets leads to the temptation to try one’s luck, especially when the jackpot winnings nowadays can be in tens of millions ringgit. The inititate “harmless” play can eveutally develop into a habit, a bondage to the gambling demon. Many a life and family have been destroyed by the evil of addicted gambling.

Thirdly, one serious consequence of gambling is the rise of criminal activities. Desparate addicted gamblers will steal, rob, or even murder to get money to fuel their gambling habit or to repay gambling debts. Many are harassed by loan sharks who use all sorts of violent tactics against the borrowers and their innocent family members. The rise in snatch thefts, break-ins, robberies, etc is certainly one consequence of unrestrained gambling.

Finally, many families have been destroyed by a gambling father, a gambling mother, a gambling son. Lives have been lost due to gambling losses. Recently, there have been some very sad stories about housewives from Johor travelling to the casinos in Singapore, and causing break-ups of families.

While the MCA and Gerakan politicians, as usual, are trying to cash in to score political points by attacking PAS over its attempt to curb the spread of the gambling evil among the people, are they really aware and concerned about the moral-social and spiritual well-being of the citizens?

Whatever may be the theological basis of the PAS philosophy and practices, it is certainly clear on what is universally morally right and morally wrong, and as a Christian I accept and endorse its moral-ethical values as being consistent with universal moral principles. Note, I said moral-ethical values, not theology.

The promoters of Islamophobia and PASphobia in the MCA and Gerakan use every conceivable opportunity and excuse to attack the DAP for giving in to the PAS Islamic state agenda, exploiting the ignorance and fear of the theologically illiterate and politically naive in their desparate attempt to hold on to their little derived power given to them by Umno.

We should not allow ourselves to be deceived and misled by the politics of fear propagated by the promoters of Islamophobia and PASphobia in the MCA and Gerakan.

We need to understand that the essential need for our country’s survival and progress is a politically viable formula, grounded on mutual trust and respect, with compromise and cooperation based on common universal moral, social and ethical values.

There is a place for accomodation of common values, a need for adoption of a common political platform, a willingness to assimilate and integrate the good values and practices of each other, and the vision and mission too accelerate our country into a righteous, just, fair, equal, peaceful, harmonous, and prosperous nation, without the considerations of colour, creed, culture, and class.

The PAS stand on gambling is not something to be polticized, but something to be honestly, objectively and critically evaluated and reflected on, because our children’s future is at stake. It doesn’t mean that since gambling is legal, it must be morally right. The ISA is legal, but is morally evil and oppressive.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 8 March 2011, 10:34 am and is filed under
Thomas Lee
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Malaysia in the Era of Globalization #55

By
M. Bakri Musa

Chapter 7:  Enhancing Human Capital

Enhancing Human Capital Through Education

Globalization is driven essentially by knowledge; the new economy is appropriately called the K(for knowledge)-economy.  Knowledge is the important ingredient of the new economy, and also its measure.  Knowledge has replaced the economists’ “factors of production” – land, labor, and capital – as the chief economic resource.

The philosopher Saidina Ali perceptively observed that knowledge, unlike wealth, protects us under all circumstances, but we have to protect our wealth constantly against theft and inflation.  The world around may crumble but with my knowledge and skills as a surgeon, I can still contribute and be productive.  Further, wealth is diluted when shared; knowledge on the other hand, increases and gets enhanced when shared.  A discovery in one field often stimulates innovations in another, thereby increasing our overall knowledge.  Knowledge is also amplified through such exchanges.  The nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) that was used initially in basic research to identify chemical molecules is now used routinely in clinical medicine.  Indeed the market for this is worth considerably more.  Wealth if kept secret may retain its value, but knowledge kept secret will quickly become obsolete and worthless.

Globalization greatly enhances the diffusion and amplification of knowledge and ideas.

The remarkable aspect of investing in education and knowledge is that the returns are both cumulative and synergistic.  The more we invest, the greater the returns.  One set of knowledge enhances the effect on another.  As observed by the economist William Esterly, “Investment in knowledge leaks from one person to another and realizes its full potential when high-skilled individuals match with each other.  The more existing knowledge there is, the higher is the returns to each new bit of knowledge.”

I will illustrate this with a real life example.

About ten years ago a Malaysian patented a unique engineering device.  This grew out of his doctoral studies.  He wanted to stay in America for a while to develop his invention, but being a government-sponsored student, he was forced to return.  He approached his departmental head at a Malaysian university for some protected time to work on his new gadget but was of course denied.  Instead he was forced to teach an introductory calculus class.  He appealed to his vice chancellor, but the latter was not interested in the travails of a junior instructor.  Besides, Malaysian universities are more teaching factories rather than research centers.  The vice chancellor, having no original invention of his own, did not appreciate the young lecturer’s dilemma.  In the end, as is so typical of the fate of many talented Malaysians, the engineer left the country.

In America he was able to find an independent laboratory to perfect his invention, and with the help of a venture capital firm and a patent attorney, he was able to successfully market his product and establish his own company.  He was greatly aided by the presence of all the supporting infrastructures.

The remarkable success of Silicon Valley, California, is due to this synergy of the various elements, “clusters” to use Michael Porter’s phrase.  Each segment brings its own skills and knowledge, thus amplifying each other.  A patent attorney would be useless without inventors; likewise, a venture capitalist would not survive unless there are entrepreneurs.  All these elements complement and reinforce each other, hence the synergism.

Back to the Malaysian inventor, even if his university had been supportive he would still have difficulty bringing his invention to market because of the lack of supporting infrastructures.

Malaysia was fortunate that right from the very beginning its leaders were fully conscious of the need to develop the citizens.  Its leaders wisely chose to build schools rather than barracks, and train teachers instead of soldiers.  Significantly, the nation’s first minister of education was no less than the able Deputy Prime Minister, Tun Razak.  He purposely took on that portfolio to demonstrate the government’s commitment to education.  Ever since then that portfolio has been widely regarded as the most important and prestigious.  All the country’s prime ministers (except the first of course) had once held that position.

When Tun Razak was Minister of Education, his budget was the largest, reflecting the importance placed on education.  Unfortunately his stream of successors as Education Minister had all been singularly unimpressive, except possibly for Dr. Mahathir in the 1970s.  Following Mahathir that ministry again reverted to form, with its mediocre string of ministers.  Razak and Mahathir recognized the importance of their assignments; they enhanced the reputation of the ministry.  In contrast, their successors used the prestige of the ministry to further their own selfish political ambitions.  They merely coasted along or worse, pandered to the political whims of the day.  They let the schools and universities to deteriorate.

In an attempt to reverse the decline and in a marked departure from tradition, Prime Minister Mahathir chose the current minister, Musa Mohamad, the first non-politician appointed to the post.  Sadly, thus far he has simply carried on this mediocre tradition, fumbling from one crisis to another.

Education remains the biggest item of expenditure in Malaysia.  Both in absolute amount as well as relative to the budget, GDP, and population, Malaysia spends more on education than Taiwan or South Korea but has precious little to show for it.  The Malaysian Ministry of Education is extremely inefficient; its mission cluttered.  First is the poor leadership.  Second, it has too many items of its agenda beyond education – politics, social engineering, and public works.  And third, it is too much like the defunct Soviet system.

I will cite one glaring stupidity of the ministry.  Up until the economic crash of 1997, Malaysia sent thousands of young Malays abroad simply to complete their matriculation, essentially Sixth Form classes.  There were scandals where students were sent to fly-by-night “educational” outfits that existed only on paper, and of students being stranded abroad because the “colleges” they had been enrolled had not even been built!

For the cost of sending two students abroad, Malaysia could have easily employed a professor from Berkeley to come to Malaysia, thus benefiting many more students.  I can see the rationale for sending them to top universities or for pursuing courses of study not available in Malaysia.  But these students were taking run-of-the-mill undergraduate courses at third-rate institutions.  While they were expending billions on these students, local universities were starved for funds to expand their libraries and laboratories.

Additionally, the government also runs a system of expensive residential schools where students get free tuition plus room and board.  Even children of millionaires and ministers do not have to pay a dime for their children to attend these expensive schools.  The ministry is also responsible for distributing millions worth of contracts for construction, equipment, and textbooks.  But instead of getting the best value for its money, such contracts are given instead only to Bumiputras, especially those with high political connections.  Consequently because of the limited competition and lack of transparency, these contracts incur significant costs overruns and are often delayed or never completed.

A recent example was the contract for supplying computers to schools.  At the end less than 10 percent of the projects were completed.  Instead of punishing and blacklisting those recalcitrant contractors, the ministry merely extended their deadlines.  This of course would be repeated many times.  In the end it is the students who suffer.

To put matters in perspective, private colleges in Malaysia are being built and run at a fraction of the cost of running similar government institutions.  And their graduates are more employable than products of public institutions.

The ministry is a replica of the defunct Soviet system: highly centralized, strict top-down command, and rigid controls at all levels.  The minister even appoints universities’ departmental heads!  When led by efficient and imaginative ministers like Razak and Mahathir, such a structure produced admirable results.  Left in incompetent hands, and you have a disaster that is the present system.

The present centralized system is clearly inadequate.  American universities are widely regarded as the best precisely because there is no central authority; there is no ministry of higher education.  Each institution is free to chart its own course.  Consequently, the crowd at Harvard is very different from those at Creekville State University; nonetheless graduates from both places are needed.  In contrast, American public schools, highly controlled and regulated, lag behind those of many other countries.

Next:   Enhancing Human Capital Through Education

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 8 March 2011, 10:35 am and is filed under
Bakri Musa
,
globalisation
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Senior Gerakan leader resigns, blames Umno

The Malaysian Insider

Tuesday, 08 March 2011

KUALA LUMPUR, March 8 — A senior Gerakan leader announced his resignation from the party today, blaming it on the Umno’s “hegemonic race politics” that has changed little since the political tsunami in the last general election.

Dr Hsu Dar Ren said, in a statement today, that he was resigning from all his positions in Gerakan, including that of central committee member, Federal Territory state liaison committee member, division chairman, branch chairman and ordinary membership.

“Parti Gerakan is a party with good ideology to establish a fair and equitable society in Malaysia. It too has many conscientious members who subscribe to this ideology. Unfortunately, within the framework of BN, where the hegemonic race politics of Umno predominates, it is impossible for Gerakan to realise this ideal,” he said.

The disheartened Dr Hsu (picture), who has been a vocal leader, said that after more than five decades of “race-based politics”, the country has drifted so much apart that “racial polarisation has never been as bad as now”.

“Despite the many decades of trying to work from within, Gerakan is now further and further away from realising its ideals.

“Three years after the 308 general election, I sense that apart from rhetoric, there is little change in policies gearing towards uniting the people and providing a fairer and more equal footing for all. I feel that it is now futile for me to try to fight within the system anymore,” he said.

He made clear that he has no intention of joining any other political party, but will continue to voice out through writing and blogging on the “importance of building a fair and equitable society”.

In his blog, Dr Hsu’s Forum, he said his resignation was not because of the party itself, and stressed that it “has a good ideology and many good members and many good friends”, but more because of the “dominance of Umno over everything else within the coalition”, and that he is “sick of race-based politics”.

“My decision to quit is nothing personal and not against anyone in the party. Even though I am quitting, I am still hoping against hope that the party can eventually realise its ideology of a fair and equal society, but given the political reality, it will not be possible in any foreseeable future,” he said.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 8 March 2011, 3:30 pm and is filed under
1Malaysia
,
Gerakan
,
nation building
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Answering the people’s call is the way to winning the next GE

By
N H Chan

The call of the people is accountability which is the ultimate checks and balances of democracy

There is an excellent article by an astute young lady in the Sun, March 3, 2011:

Checks and balances imperative

By Yap Mun Ching

When former transport minister Chan Kong Choy was charged with … cheating amounting to RM1.9 billion … it was as though the winds of accountability sweeping across the Middle East had finally gusted over. …the former minister looks set to join his predecessor Dr Ling Liong Sik on a list of former cabinet ministers accused of less than hounourable activities while in office.

Viewing these developments against the backdrop of the events in the Middle East, several important lessons stand out. Firstly, it is never healthy to have leaders hold on to power for too long a period without proper checks and balances. It is not by coincidence that the heads of government facing the strongest opposition in the Middle East now are those who have hung on for decades by crushing all opposition. Tunisia’s deposed Ben Ali ruled for 23 years while Egypt’s Mubarak sat at the helm … for 29 years. Embattled Libyan leader Gaddafi is one of the world’s longest-serving leaders at 42 years, while … Yemen and Bahrain, the incumbents have been in power for 30 and 40 years respectively.

While Ling and Chan did not manage tenures of comparable length, both were members of a government that has ruled for 54 years … a two-thirds majority enjoyed by the ruling government in Parliament [until the 2008 general election] has resulted in a blurring of the separation of powers so important to maintaining the integrity of a democratic form of government. Without independent institutions, the ability of our system to hold leaders to account has been severely compromised.

What a superb piece of writing. She is so good at making an accurate assessment of the situation in the Middle East and about the aspirations of the people there for wanting accountability in government which is also a universal wish of all freedom loving peoples the world over. To paraphrase, the people’s wish is democracy not a dictatorship in any shape or form. It is only in a democracy could there be accountability of those who hold positions of power. It is only with a government of the people, by the people and for the people – for that is what a true democracy is – that the people’s representatives, who hold positions of power in order to govern, could be made accountable to the people who had elected them to office in government. The integrity of a democratic form of government relies on the system’s ability to hold leaders to account. And this can only be possible if our institutions of government – such as the judiciary, the civil and legal services, the police and the armed forces – are independent bodies, not minions who are always at the beck and call of an autocratic master.

In a democracy there is no such thing as the hijacking of an elected government and supplanting it with an appointed one that was made possible by the intervention of a third party in the form of a ruler or king. In the case of Perak, the sultan resorted to some vague imaginary power which some local legal experts have described as a “residual power” – as if a monarch had it before he became a powerless constitutional monarch, unless these experts are naive enough to think that there is such a thing as the divine right of kings. If you can still remember your English history you would know that King Charles the First lost his head and crown to the executioner’s axe for the belief that kings had divine powers. Indeed any form of external intervention, because such is not the choice of the people, destroys the very concept of democracy; such intervention defeats the effectiveness of accountability to the people.

But supplanting King Charles the First with another dictator – Oliver Cromwell – was just as bad because it became a case of replacing one despot for another despot. That was why Cromwell’s dictatorship died with him and upon his death England reverted back to autocratic rule by despotic kings. It was only after the last Stuart king – James II – had fled his realm that democracy started to take root in England and the monarchy became a toothless tiger as we understand it today; a constitutional monarchy without any power to interfere with the democratic process. The Perak takeover was, therefore, unconstitutional because no residual or any power was given to our rulers in our written Constitution. However, had there been such a power given to the monarchs in our written constitution then, in which case, Malaysia would not be called a democracy. It would have become a dictatorship. The English peoples took some 700 years to get rid of their tyrannical kings. It took them that long a time because they did not have a written constitution.

When a system of government had taken hold for too long a period, to use the words of Yap Mun Ching, ‘it resulted in the blurring of the separation of powers so important to maintaining the integrity of a democratic form of government. Without independent institutions, the ability of our system to hold leaders to account has been severely compromised’.

The antithesis of democracy is dictatorship. Any ruler or leader or a government, as in Malaysia, that had held on to power for too long a period – for power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely – would have inexorably transformed himself or itself into a tyrannical autocracy or regime with an animal farm syndrome; the adage is ‘all animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others’. These individuals think they are more equal than others because they think they are invincible and, therefore, not accountable to the people who had elected them to office. They can feel safe from accountability because the so-called independent institutions, like the judiciary, the civil service, the police and the armed forces have been compromised. These institutions would no longer be perceived by the people to be independent because they have been serving the same master for such a long period – in this country for 53 years. Only the unfortunate ones, like Ling and Chan – we should also not forget the late Eric Chia – were made the fall guys to assuage the disgruntled masses because they were expandable.

The difference between the Middle East and Malaysia is their totally diverse system of government from ours; the difference between them and us is the difference between totalitarianism and democracy

n the Middle East they have kings and presidents who actually rule and who had ruled their country before change was brought about through revolution by people’s power. The people there could not do otherwise because despots who have ruled for many years would not give up their power unless they are forced to do so. Hence, change could only be achieved through revolution. But, in this country we can always vote the ruling party out of office in an election.

But, if there is going to be a regime change, like what is happening in the Middle East, things could well be different as the change that was brought about by the power of the people would enable the people to demand accountability from their leaders. In this country we too can achieve change, though not by revolution as we have seen it happening in the Middle East, but by the power of the vote in a general election. This is how Yap Mun Ching puts it in her own inimitable but subtle style:

Protesters in the Middle East, while focusing their anger on a despised figurehead, also demanded the removal of the majority of members of their besieged governments. The prosecution of former cabinet ministers are welcome, but these actions cannot be considered sufficient to close the file on corrupt leaders. Active investigations must be undertaken against other leaders, former and current, to ensure accountability and to deter others from abusing their positions of power.

Important as it is to remove unwanted leaders, these actions must be taken with a view to restoring justice and reparation. Too often in the past, corrupt dictators have evaded punishment by escaping abroad and living the rest of their lives in luxury with their ill-gotten gains.

In my article
The People’s call for Change
 I wrote:

One should be in politics to serve the people, not to get rich. That is why democracy requires the representatives of the people to be accountable to the people. Look at Mr Lim Kit Siang, he has been in politics for as long as I can remember and his son is currently the Chief Minister of Penang. Another was the late Dr Lim Chong Eu. The Perakians and the Penangites know that they are not rich. It is a good thing if every member of the Cabinet and every member of the Exco are investigated as to their financial status and assets before they can assume office. And when they leave office they are to be investigated again. They are to be accountable if they are found to be richer than what they could have earned while in office when they leave.

Restoring public confidence in our institutions

Miss Yap concluded her gem of an article with this suggestion:

Therefore, when it comes to the prosecution of allegedly corrupt leaders, investigators would do well to remember that other than justice, the public would also look to see stolen money restored. RM1.9 billion may not be a large sum in the [scale] of the swindling that has been exposed in the Middle East, but it is nonetheless a sum that would go a long way to restoring public confidence in our institutions.

And I am sure all of us will agree with her unless you are one of those sycophants currying the favour of dishonest politicians.

How to answer the call for change

Now, I trust you will realize that we Malaysians are in dire straits. Don’t you think it is time for us to move on to a better Malaysia. Like the peoples of the Middle East we can use the power of the people to change from tyranny to a true democracy. Use the power of your vote to unseat the oppressors. We have been under their yoke for 53 long years. Enough is enough. Use facebook and twitter. Use your email and if every reader of this article emails it to his friends we will be able to persuade a whole generation of young people to vote out the BN and replace them with a new government. It doesn’t matter that the new is inexperienced but at least we have a government of the people, by the people and for the people. It took the English peoples 700 years to get rid of their tyrannical kings. The American peoples to what they have become today in 250 years. I don’t think we will take that long because we are resilient and we have the benefit of hindsight. And above all we have our young people whose young minds will be able to meet the challenges ahead.

But before you vote for the opposition, I think, you should demand that they should promise to repeal all oppressive laws if ever they do come to power. We do not need the Sedition Act, or any emergency law like the ISA or any legislation that would suppress freedom of speech and our fundamental liberties. Above all, demand that they will enforce accountability to all our leaders, past and current.

If you are 21 and above, register yourself as a voter now and when election time comes do your duty and exercise your right to vote out the BN for a better Malaysia without oppressive laws and accountability from all those who hold or have held positions of power or trust on behalf of the people. I think the phrase is wide enough to encompass all politicians, judges, the civil service, police and the armed forces for any misuse of power.

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 9 March 2011, 4:14 pm and is filed under
NH Chan
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Najib takes country on a “quantum leap” into greater losses

By
Martin Jalleh

When delivering the 2011 Budget speech in Parliament on 15 Oct. 2010, Prime Minister and Finance Minister  Najib Razak said that he will lead the country to make a ‘quantum leap’ to become a develop and high-income nation by 2020.

Such a promise became a mere joke when one looks at the leakages, laggard government ministries and agencies, scandalous losses by GLCs, the economy which drifted listlessly and “looting” by the political elite – all of which marked Najib’s second year as PM (in 2010). Below are some examples:

Blocks L and M in South China Sea
: In May 2010, Pas proposed to file a suit against the Federal Government for ceding away the oil and gas-rich offshore Blocks L and M in South China Sea to Brunei to protect the rights of future generations of Sarawakians, Sabahans and Malaysians. Mahathir had estimated that the worth of oil and gas rights for both blocks are in the region of US$100 billion (RM320 billion).

Pos Malaysia Bhd
: On 8 May 2010, Minister in the PM’s Department Nor Mohamed Yakcop confirmed that Pos Malaysia Bhd had incurred losses over the years amounting to RM546 million. He said he was “not directly involved (with the losses) because Pos Malaysia, as a government-linked company (GLC), has its board of directors and any decision is determined by the board, including Khazanah Nasional Bhd, without having to refer to the ministry of finance”.

Felda
: In an open letter dated 13 June, former Land and Co-Operative Development deputy minister Dr Tan Kee Kwong, who was put in charge of answering questions in Parliament regarding all Felda matters during his tenure, alleged that there was mismanagement and high-level government corruption in the organisation. He also accused Najib of “single handedly destroying Felda”!

“As of now out of the huge cash hoard of RM 4.5 Billion, only RM200 Million is left. In actual fact with the record price of CPO (crude palm oil) for the past few years, Felda, if managed properly, should have cash reserves of RM6 billion! The reverse has happened and now it has only a pathetic sum left.”

After his initial attempts to appease an angry PM and to do some damage control Ahmad Maslan, the deputy minister in the Prime Minister’s Department and in charge of Felda, admitted in parliament that Felda’s cash reserves had plunged to RM2.73 billion from RM4.08 billion in 2004 and five years later it dropped further to RM1.35 billion in 2009.

Johor Corporation (JCorp)
: In July 2010, it was revealed that Johor Corporation (JCorp), the most successful state corporation in the country was in debt amounting to RM3.58 billion. Its Chief Executive Officer Muhammad Ali Hashim denied his resignation was due to the company’s debt and added that JCorp’s asset value of RM12 billion, including RM6 billion in listed shares, is currently higher than the debt itself.

Port Klang Free Zone (PKFZ)
: On 29 July 2010, former Transport Minister Ling Liong Sik was charged in the Kajang Sessions Court over his involvement in the RM12.5 billion Port Klang Free Zone (PKFZ) scandal. PKFZ, a commercial and industrial project south of the capital, was conceived as a RM1.82 billion venture constructed over 1,000 acres. However, costs are expected to balloon to RM12.5 billion, making the affair one of the country’s biggest financial scandals and a major embarrassment for the government (Malaysiakini).

Sime Darby Berhad
: On 5 August 2010, the Malaysian Insider reported that the 100-year-old Sime Darby Berhad could face massive losses amounting to RM2 billion or as high as RM2.5 billion. Most of the losses are down to ill-advised investments in the energy and utilities sector in Qatar as well as tardy business practices in the development of the Bakun Dam in Sarawak.

Bakun
: On 13 August 2010, Anwar urged Najib to come clean about further potential losses in the troubled Bakun Dam project. This is especially if the losses, said to amount to another RM2 billion following problematic federal-state negotiations, are to be absorbed by the rakyat already suffering from subsidy cuts. .

The total cost of the dam is reported to have ballooned to RM7.3 billion. Anwar also raised the alarm over the total RM5.75 billion in loans from the Employees Provident Fund (EPF) and Retirement Fund Incorporated (KWAP), which have largely funded the Bakun Dam project.

“Who will pay for the losses? Will the prime minister instruct the EPF and KWAP to quietly write off a part of the RM5.75 billion in loans to Bakun Dam to hide the losses from the public?” (Malaysiakini)

On 16 August 2010, DAP secretary-general Lim Guan Eng criticised the BN for failing to act against those he claimed stole RM52 billion worth of Bumiputera shares from poor Malays. Najib reportedly admitted in June 2008 that only RM2 billion out of the RM54 billion of Bumiputera shares given out since the inception of the New Economic Policy (NEP) in 1971 remained in the hands of the Malays.

Malaysia Airlines (MAS)
: On 16 August 2010, it was made known that fuel price volatility led Malaysia Airlines (MAS) to post a pre-tax loss of RM533 million for the second quarter ending 30 June 2010 compared with a pre-tax profit of RM896 million in the same period in 2009. Its revenue, however, increased by 26 per cent to RM3.2 billion (compared to RM2.5 billion) while operating profit improved 33 per cent. For the first half ending 30 June 2010, the airline posted a pre-tax loss of RM212 million from a pre-tax profit of RM190 million.

Malacca’s Monorail
: On 20 October 2010, Malacca Chief Minister Mohd Ali Rustam officially declared the historical state “a developed state”. Two weeks later, the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) clarified that the OECD did not endorse the Malaccan declaration, mainly because they were not in a position to do so! Two months later, Malacca’s RM15.9mil new monorail, which the CM had launched on that “historic” day, was plagued by “several technical and mechanical problems”. Then in the month after its launch, the monorail only worked intermittently before more problems developed with its wheels and software system (Malaysian Chronicle).

Shah Alam Hospital
: On 29 November 2010, opposition parliamentarian Khalid Samad (Pas-Shah Alam) moved a RM10 pay-cut motion against Works Minister Shaziman Abu Mansor for his minister’s inability to tackle delays, alleged discrepancies and allegations of Umno-linked cronyism in various mega-construction projects such as the Shah Alam Hospital project.

Khalid questioned the whopping increase in the cost of the project (mooted about 10 years ago). It was initially estimated to cost taxpayers RM300 million but later ballooned to a staggering RM482 million– a mark-up of RM182 million. It was scheduled for completion on 14 August 2010, rescheduled for November 2010 but has now been extended to June 2011. After making many excuses, the minister said that the Public Works Department (PWD) was in the process of appointing a ‘white knight’ to rescue and complete the abandoned project by way of a limited tendering procurement method.

National Cancer Institute
: The cost for this project (believed to be directly awarded to an unknown entity connected to the ruling elite) escalated from RM340 million when announced in 2007 to RM700 million in 2009.

New Palace
: Khalid also sought to censure the minister for the exorbitant cost of RM935 million for the new palace which stood at RM811 million in June. The cost of the new palace doubled from its estimated RM400 million in 2006 and the contacts for the construction were awarded to three companies through direct negotiations, instead of open tenders. Well-placed sources in Kuala Lumpur told Asia Sentinel that the total cost is actually nearing RM1.2 billion and is expected to go higher.

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 9 March 2011, 11:29 am and is filed under
Martin Jalleh
,
Najib Razak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


‘Malaysia’: What’s in a name?

by
Clive S. Kessler

The Malaysian Insider

Mar 10, 2011

MARCH 10 — “What’s in a name?” asks Shakespeare’s Juliet. “That which we call a rose,” she avers, “by any other name would smell as sweet.”

Likewise, “Malaysia.”

 So what is in a name, and behind this one?

 In a recent blog post (Semenanjung Tanah Melayu (http://chedet.co.cc/chedetblog/2011/03/semenanjung-tanah-melayu.html) , March 3, 2011) Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad has repeated the claim — now almost a commonplace in the thinking of many Malaysian citizens — that it was only when the Tunku consented to the blandishments and machinations of retreating British power in the region that the name “Malaysia” was suggested for the newly proposed federation of the pensinsular Malay states, Sarawak, North Borneo (Sabah) and Singapore.

With that, Tun Dr Mahathir asserts, the Federation of Malaya (understood as the Malay Lands or States) or Persekutuan Tanah Melayu came to an untimely and underserved “official” end.

In effect, this claim holds, that older name or identity was throttled by an entirely new coinage, a hitherto unprecedented idea, a crude and ungainly neologism, and then buried under its weight.

The name and idea of “Malaysia”, this view holds, came into currency together with the new political entity that it was devised to designate. After a precarious pregnancy over the preceding two years, it was born in September 1963.

Of course, in the late 1930s the great United States scholar of regional, especially Malayan, affairs Rupert Emerson had used this same name as the tile of his great and very perceptive book about what its colonial masters saw and dubbed as “British Malaya”: Malaysia: A Study in Direct and Indirect Rule (Macmillan, New York, 1937).

So in 1961 it was hardly a brand new coinage.

But there is more to the story than that.

More challenging is what is to be learned from the voluminous documentary evidence published by the British Government in a massive archive about the worldwide post-World War Two decolonisation process.

Those published documents inform us that, among all the other questions that had to be resolved as part of the “Merdeka Process” — including notably the question of citizenship and the timing of independence — there was also considerable discussion, and some basic difference, even between the various Alliance Party partners about what the name of the new independent political entity should be.

The main non-Malay partner parties, the MCA and MIC, favoured the simple, unadorned and declarative name of “Malaya”.

For them it acknowledged the country’s Malay background and history but spoke of an entity, like “British Malaya”, that by now was not exclusively Malay. This was the meaning that the term “Malaya” had popularly acquired during the 1920s and 1930s.

The Umno had other ideas. It put a different proposal. Surprisingly, we may now think, they favoured a bold, new forward-looking name. Perhaps echoing Emerson, in the course of the Merdeka negotiations they proposed the name “Malaysia”.

This innovation won little support or enthusiasm from anyone, not from the Umno’s allies or from the retreating English.

In the end a compromise was reached, one of minimal disruption, of maximum continuity. Following the collapse of the 1946 Malayan Union proposals, the Federation of Malaya or “Persekutuan Tanah Melayu” was created in 1948.

As the country inched, and then sped, towards independence in the mid-1950s under Umno impetus, a compromise proposal was put and accepted. In the interests of a reassuring continuity, a line of minimal disturbance, or of least resistance, was ultimately favoured.

To minimise the possibility of contentious differences erupting among the Alliance partners, and also to evident British satisfaction, the continuity between the new independent sovereign nation and the political arrangements from which it was to emerge would be emphasised.

All parties accordingly agreed simply to preserve and extend the use of the current name.

A new nation, perhaps, this was. But it was a familiar name, a known country in the otherwise often bewildering post-colonial kaleidoscope.

So “The Federation of Malaya” or “Persekutuan Tanah Melayu” it was to be.

The compromise was accepted by all. But things might well have been otherwise. History could so easily have been different — if only Umno had got its way.

Had the Umno had its initial way, the new sovereign independent nation would have been named and known from the start in 1957 as “Malaysia”.

“These,” if I may quote a far greater man than myself, “are the facts of history”.

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

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 10 March 2011, 4:15 pm and is filed under
1Malaysia
,
nation building
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Call for action plan by ASEAN MPs to secure ratification of Rome Statute by majority of ASEAN nations on 10th anniversary of ICC on July 2, 2012

It is said “All Roads Lead to Rome”. In the past two days, the road from Rome leads to Kuala Lumpur and I want to add to the voices of  welcome expressed yesterday by the hosts to the distinguished foreign guests and participants to this consultation, and hope  that you are fully enjoying the Malaysian hospitality imbibing the Malaysian sights, sounds and  smells!

This however had been a long road from Rome to Kuala Lumpur – not only in distance but in time.

The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) was adopted on 17th July 1998 at a conference attended by 160 states, 33 international organisations and a total of 236 NGOs – with 120 votes cast in favour, only seven against, with 21 abstentions.

In order to enter into force, the Rome Statute had to be ratified by 60 states.  This target was achieved in a relatively short period of some three years between the first ratification (Senegal, 2nd February 1999) and the last (Cambodia, Mongolia, Bulgaria, Romania, Ireland,  Niger, Jordan and Slovakia  on 11th  April 2002).

When the world’s first permanent criminal court started work in The Hague on 1st July 2002 with authority over genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes, the number of countries which had ratified the Rome Statute had reached 74.

On that historic day for human rigthts, international justice and the rule of law, I had issued a statement calling on the Malaysian government to ratify the Rome Statute and like-minded Malaysians have been working on this cause until we are here today some nine years later  for  the present consultation.

I had not raised this issue in the Malaysian Parliament in 2002, as both M. Kulasegaran, the secretary of PGA organising committee,and I  had lost in the 1999 general elections and not re-elected to the Tenth Malaysian Parliament.

But when we were both returned to the 11th Parliament in 2004, I asked Kula to take special responsibility for the subject of  the ICC, and this is one of the genesis of the present ICC consultation in Kuala Lumpur.

Kula not only had to educate himself but even the Foreign Ministry at the time on the ICC.  When he spoke in Parliament calling for the ratification of the ICC during the committee stage of the budget debate in October 2004, the Parliamentary Secretary of the  Foreign Ministry was totally nonplussed and was unable to respond as he did not know whether  Malaysia was a signatory to the ICC.

There has been quite a sea change as we have now  the Minister in charge of law and parliamentary affairs Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz personally espousing the cause of Malaysia ratifying the Rome Statute, making the commitment at the 6th Consultative Assembly of PGA on ICC in Kampala on 27 – 28 May 2010 that “Malaysia cannot fail in its duty to stand with the rest of the world in ending impunity” as well as urging Asian countries to “stand in the forefront of this endeavour to transform the ‘culture of impunity’ into a ‘culture of responsibility’.

Although the Minister had not honoured his word in Kampala in May last year that an ICC accession bill would be tabled in the Malaysian Parliament upon his return, we are encouraged by his continuing positive support for the cause, as testified by his role as PGA Malaysia Organising Chairman of this ICC consultation and  his speech and media conference statement at the opening ceremony yesterday.

Although Nazri had missed presenting the ICC accession bill to the Malaysian Parliament last year,  Malaysian and world parliamentarians expect him to honour his commitment in the current meeting of Malaysian Parliament which is to sit till the first week of April.

Or is Nazri facing insuperable obstacles to get government and Cabinet support for  the country ratifying the Rome Statute on the ICC?

This morning we have with us the Attorney-General Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail to deliver an opening address.  Every participant is looking forward to hear from him as according to the grapevine, he holds the key to the question of Malaysia’s ratification of the Rome Statute on the ICC.  Will he bring good news to this consultation?

Let me express the hope that the PGA consultation on ICC in Kuala Lumpur would set in motion a chain reaction for ratification of the Rome Statute by Asian/Pacific and in particular ASEAN nations.

Asia-Pacific  and ASEAN are greatly under-represented in the international architecture of the ICC system.

ASEAN nations have committed themselves to uphold human rights,  international justice and the rule of law in the ASEAN Charter.

I  commend for your consideration the timely need for an  action plan by ASEAN MPs to secure ratification of Rome Statute by the majority of ASEAN nations to mark the 10th anniversary of the inauguration of the International Criminal Court on July 1, 2002 –  i.e. by  July 1, 2012 in a period of the next 14 months.

So far, only one ASEAN nation, Cambodia has ratified the ICC.  On February 28 this year, President Aquino of Philippines signed the Instrument of Ratification of the Rome Statute and has asked the Philippines Senate for its concurrence.

With the impending ratification of the ICC by Malaysia, unless indicated otherwise by the Attorney-General, the challenge of securing the majority of the ASEAN nations to ratify the ICC in the next 14 months  to mark the tenth anniversary of the coming into force of the ICC is within reach, do-able and  a worthy fruit of this ICC consultation in KL to ASEAN MPs, the PGA and the Coalition for the International Criminal Court. (CICC).

At this important juncture of history, when there is a greater appreciation of the role of ICC in the protection of human rights and international justice against crimes against humanity, like the unprecedented unanimous UN Security Council resolution on Libya to refer the Gadafi massacres to the ICC, ASEAN must be in the forefront to establish the universality of the ICC.

In conclusion, let  us admit that the ICC has undoubtedly many weaknesses and failings – and  the Emeritus Professor of Law at UiTM and Visiting Professor at USM,  Prof Shad Faruqi has written eloquently on 10 such defects in the Star newspaper yesterday. And these weaknesses and failings of ICC  need to be addressed.

But as Shad Faruqi  rightly concluded after applying his scapel to critique the ICC:

“Despite many  reservations, it would be folly not to join hands with this historic institution of international criminal justice. As Eleanor Roosevelt said: ‘It is better to light a candle than curse the darkness’.”

May this PGA consultation in KL light more candles to end the darkness of gross violations of international humanitarian  law and human rights, namely genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes.

(Welcome remarks at the second day of the Asia-Pacific Working Group of the Consultative Assembly of Parliamentarians for the  ICC on the Rule of Law jointly organised by Parliamentarians for Global Action (PGA) and Malaysian Parliament on Thursday 10th March 2011)

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 10 March 2011, 12:08 pm and is filed under
Foreign
,
Human Rights
,
Parliament
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.