UMNO continuing to behave  like big bully of MCA and Gerakan in Parliament as well as PRS

It was only less than a fortnight ago that the Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi made it as the  theme in his opening speech at the 55th MCA General Assembly that “UMNO is not a ‘Bully Party’  or many component parties would have left BN by now” and even
asking
:

“Do you think Ka Ting allows himself to be bullied? You think (MIC president) Samy (Vellu) can be bullied? You think (Gerakan president Dr. Koh) Tsu Koon wants to be bullied?”

I don’t want to answer Abdullah’s question as the best people to answer are the Malaysian people. All I can say is that Abdullah will be very surprised by the answers from the people if he really believes that Umno is not a “bully party” in Barisan Nasional.

Those who follow the recent  parliamentary proceedings cannot escape the conclusion that Umno’s “bully” mentality vis-à-vis the other Barisan Nasional component parties are still very alive and unrepentant, as evidenced from the merciless way Umno MPs flayed the MCA Deputy Minister for National Unity, Culture,  Arts and Heritage, Teng Boon Soon and the Gerakan Wanita chief and Deputy Information Minister Datuk Tan Lian Hoe –  with a
NST
headline

“DEWAN RAKYAT: Lian Hoe gets another roasting”
 – and nobody in MCA and Gerakan in Parliament  dared to come to their  defence apart from DAP and Pakatan Rakyat MPs! How pathetic!

BN MPs from Sabah and Sarawak are often victims of such “big bullies” in BN politics.

The latest victim is Parti Rakyat Sarawak’s (PRS) former publicity head of its Balleh division
Beginda Minda
, who was removed from his party post on Oct. 27 following his ‘bully’ statement against Umno and Parti Pesaka Bumiputera Bersatu (PBB) published in Malaysiakini two days earlier.

Beginda has now boldly called on PBB president Abdul Taib Mahmud to step down as Sarawak chief minister as “
Twenty-seven years as chief minister is long enough”
as well as for Iban Deputy Chief Minister Alfred Jabu’s “retirement” – as it is better for the two “to step down gracefully and retire as honourable and respected statesmen” than “to be forced out of office through people’s power”.

Will Beginda now be sacked from Barisan Nasional for being a hero to the people of Sarawak in daring to  speak up about the marginalisation  and sufferings of the Sarawak Dayaks after 45 years of independence through Malaysia?

When will such high-handed bully tactics and culture in Barisan Nasional end – whether in Parliament or outside?

(Speech at the opening of the 2008 DAP Federal Territory State Convention at the Federal Hotel, Kuala Lumpur on Sunday, 2nd November 2008)

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 2 November 2008, 12:34 pm and is filed under
Pakatan Rakyat
,
Parliament
,
Sarawak
,
UMNO
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


UMNO Ministers – take 5-month Cabinet leave for party election campaign instead of neglecting national duties

Umno Ministers are neglecting and abdicating their Cabinet and national responsibilities to gird the country to face the worst global economic crisis in 80 years because of protracted Umno party election politicking.

This could be seen from the absence of two Umno Ministers from Parliament during the winding-up of their Ministries on Thursday, namely  Home Minister, Datuk Seri Syed Hamid Albar and Education Minister, Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Hussein.

This is most shocking and irresponsible, as both Hamid and Hishammuddin  are responsible for important Ministries at this critical stage when the country is faced with a crisis of competitiveness – a safe and low-crime society where citizens, investors and tourists are not increasingly worried  about personal or property security as well as having an education system which could nurture a creative culture of  talents for the country to climb up the competitiveness ladder with a core group of highly-educated and competent people in all areas of the economy.

I do not know how many  of the 14 Umno Ministers who are to  reply on behalf of their ministries in the next  two days of the four-day Ministerial winding-up of the debate on the 2009 Budget will absent themselves from Parliament tomorrow and Tuesday, but Umno Ministers should be told in clear and no uncertain terms that if they cannot find the time to concentrate on their Cabinet and national responsibilities or even to discharge their most elementary parliamentary duties, they should take five-month leave from the Cabinet to conduct their Umno election campaigning without hindering and undermining the interests of the nation and people.

Let us see how many of these 14 Umno Ministers will play truant from their parliamentary duties in the next two days.

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 2 November 2008, 12:24 pm and is filed under
Parliament
,
UMNO
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Are Nuris “flying coffins”?

Are Nuris  “flying coffins”? If not, why not just upgrade them for a few hundred million ringgit, a small fraction of the cost as compared to the billion-ringgit purchase of Cougar EC725 Eurocopters, which are  40-year-old Cougars in any event?

This is one important question  which the Public Accounts Committee should probe, answer and report to Parliament by before the end of the month in its current inquiry into the billion-ringgit Cougar EC725 Eurocopter deal fiasco.

The Deputy Defence Minister, Datuk Abu Seman Yusop, in his winding-up on behalf of the Defence Ministry in the 2009 Budget debate on Thursday, was not only unable to rebut allegations concerning  very grave issues about propriety, accountability and professionalism in the decision-making process in the tender for the helicopters to replace the Nuris , but reinforced concerns of unprofessional and below-par leadership running the Defence Ministry.

This raises the even more vital question  whether Malaysian defence and security as well as the lives and welfare of the armed services personnel are really  in safe and trustworthy hands and the  topmost priority of those in the highest echelons of the Defence Ministry.

This is apparent from the video
(embedded below)
 of the parliamentary grilling of Abu Seman by Pakatan Rakyat MPs in Parliament on Thursday.

I have received an email which make my question, “Are Nuris  ‘flying coffins’? If not, why not just upgrade them for a small fraction of the cost of buying old Cougars?”, most relevant and pertinent, and which should be the subject of the  current PAC inquiry.

This email from a former Nuri pilot claimed that 85 % of the RMAF Nuri crashes were  due to human error, 10 % enemy aggression and another 5 % only maybe technical.

He also said that the RMAF Nuris are still “good for another 20 years and more”, having “very low airframe hours, with an average of 9000 hours per aircraft” as compared to “worldwide standard for this type of helicopter currently is more than 50,000 hours and some even reaching 60,000 hours”.

I am no spokesman or defender for Nuris, but the issues raised are of  great public importance on national defence and the safety of RMAF personnel, and deserve a full investigation by PAC.

I am circulating a copy of this press statement  to all the PAC members for their  action. The email I have received is as follows:

RMAF NURI HELICOPTERS

 In the tender process for the replacement of the Nuri helicopters (Sikorsky S61A), the Nuri helicopter had been portrayed here as cause for all the crashes. This is not true and very prejudicial for the image of Sikorsky aircraft, manufactured by the leading helicopter manufacturer Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation, USA who have also built well known aircraft like the CH53 Golly Green Giants, the legendry Blackhawks which had seen 2 Iraq wars and others like the S76C which are widely used in the offshore oil industry and the Nuri S61, Sea Kings. Needless to say Sikorsky helicopters are flown all over the world in the military, commercial, VIP and offshore oil industry.

The RMAF bought 40 Nuri in 1968. Over the years the Nuris have served Malaysia with distinction and is still flying. The Malaysian Armed Forces, especially the Army should be grateful as they had used them extensively during Malaysian Communist Emergency warfare. There are many servicemen today who must thank their present existence to the Nuri which had rescued them especially from the war zone infested with Communist Terrorists. Several Nuris were loss during this insurgency phase which came to a conclusion in 1989. There are many senior Armed forces officers who will be willing to provide their testimonies to the goodness of the Nuri helicopter.

RMAF has operated the Nuris for 40 years now. In any operation of this duration there will be a number of accidents. Accidents could be due to bad weather, poor terrain visibility, technical error, human error and maybe act of God. There are a number of casualties that has involved human lives both from the military and the civilian population. The RMAF lost a number of the Nuris in accidents and enemy action and is still operating 28 Nuris both in Peninsular Malaysia and Sabah/Sarawak. I am sure that if we were to check the records for these accidents, 85 % of these would be due to human error, 10 % enemy aggression and another 5 % only maybe technical. RMAF should be able to provide these statistics to prove the point on this before we go around shouting ‘change the heli’. I suppose that’s what happens when one gets old and when a new one comes along. “Sudah tua punya pasal, bukan sebab dia ta’baik lagi.”

In the press statement in STAR on the 29th, the DPM and former Defence Minister said, “we cannot forget the safety of our armed forces personnel and other Nuri passengers in the decision making process involving the purchase of Eurocopters”. Does the Minister mean to say that all the accidents are caused by the Nuri aircraft? This is definitely not so.  More than 1000 of the S61s were produced and to date more than 600 are still flying in the commercial and military field. Even the seven S61s flown by MHS with over 40,000 hours clocked in each aircraft in Malaysia has not had any accidents involving any casualties. As a former Nuri pilot, I know for sure that most accidents in the RMAF are caused by human error- operational situation, lack of experience and poor decision making. This is in view that the aircraft is not fully equipped for adverse weather flying conditions that have led to these many accidents. So under these conditions, even if they have been given the best of aircraft, do you think there will not be any accidents?

I must congratulate our Prime Minister for stopping the Eurocopter chopper purchase. At a time like this you have made a very wise decision. With the current global financial fallout we must not get caught with a huge buy like this. We should continue using the Nuris as they are still in good condition. Our Nuris aircraft have very low airframe hours, with an average of 9000 hours per aircraft. Whereas, the worldwide standard for this type of helicopter currently is more than 50,000 hours and some even reaching 60,000 hours.  More than 1000 of these machines have been produced and used by many countries especially the military services. There is still plenty of airframe life in these Malaysian Nuris and will be good for another 20 years and more. So why do we need to spend so much to purchase new aircraft. Why not upgrade our Nuris now to suit the current requirements which will only cost a small fraction of buying the old Cougar.

I had previously suggested that the PAC should invite representatives from all the aircraft manufactures who had submitted bids  for the helicopter tender to appear to help the PAC in its inquiry.

The PAC should in particular invite representatives from Sikorsky to make a  professional submission whether the  Nuri helicopters (Sikorsky S61A) are “flying coffins” whose continued use constitute a constant danger to the welfare and lives of the RMAF personnel concerned to help the PAC in its inquiry and report to Parliament.

Even more important, PAC should invite pilots and former pilots of RMAF Nuris to testify to enable the PAC to answer the question which I have posed.

Videos of Parliamentary Proceeding:

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

                This entry was posted on Monday, 3 November 2008, 11:10 am and is filed under
Defence
,
Parliament
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Irene Fernandez: The Best or Worst of Malaysia?

by
Suzette Standring

November 2008

Huffington Post

It is a textbook case of laws being used to crush critics of governmental operations. Malaysia may be 9,296 miles from the United States, but the theme of authorities seeking to silence protest is a universal one. Thus when such a bell tolls, it can toll for thee.

The criminal appeal of Irene Fernandez, age 62, begins (Oct. 28-30) at the Criminal High Court in Kuala Lumpur. It is the longest running legal attempt in Malaysian history to punish a bearer of bad news. In August 1995, Fernandez made public her report, Abuses, Torture and Dehumanised Treatment of Migrant Workers at Detention Centres. It was based on interviews with 300 detainees, each of whom Fernandez spoke with in her role as director and co-founder of Tenaganita, a non-governmental organization (NGO) in Kuala Lumpur that has worked to protect the rights of foreign workers since 1991.

She gave voice to bloodied and abused immigrants held in centers pending deportation. Unspeakable filth, dehydration and rape of children were part of her documented report. In 2003 she was convicted of “maliciously publishing false news,” under Section 8A(2) of the Printing Presses and Publications Act (1984) – even though the Malaysian government did admit to 46 detention-center related deaths.

Released on bail pending her appeal, Fernandez continued her work on behalf of women, children, migrant workers and the poor in Malaysia. The PPPA gave absolute discretion and broad powers to the Minister of Home Affairs to ban or restrict “undesirable publications.” Later it was found to breach the fundamental right to freedom of expression by the UN Human Rights Committee and other constitutional courts around the world.

Now 13 years and 300 court appearances later, the legal wrangling may end. High Court Judge Yang Arif Hakim Dato’ Haji Mohamad Apandi Bin Haji Ali wants to resolve Fernandez’s case this year. Perhaps Judge Apandi’s call for resolution may signal a positive turning point. In a country struggling to fight against corruption, perhaps Judge Apandi’s court will see justice finally served. The facts in Fernandez’ favor are too overwhelming for revisionist history.

Fernandez was born in 1946 in Malaysia, growing up in migrant worker conditions. Her father was a rubber plantation worker. Her first-hand knowledge of the hardships and easy victimization of such laborers was the underpinning of her passion to serve the powerless. Long before her 1996 arrest sparked her current ordeal, Fernandez had been promoting the poor since 1970. She organized the first textile workers union and developed programs to create trade unions in free trade zones. Her consumer education programs taught children about basic needs, safety and environmental protection. Her work with grassroots organizations led directly to laws against domestic violence, sexual harassment and improvements to rape laws. (http://www.rightlivelihood.org/irene-fernandez.html)

Yet in March 1996 Fernandez was charged for “maliciously publishing false news.” Her trial dragged on for seven years. In a surprise fast-tracking of procedure, Fernandez’ lawyers were given only two days to make final submissions based on seven years of trial and 50 witnesses before final judgment by Judge Juliana Mohamed. Interestingly, the prosecution was ready with an 82-page submission.

In 2003, Magistrate Juliana Mohamed ruled Fernandez’ report – the torture, denial of medical treatment, forced stripping, lack of proper food, unsanitary toilets and police corruption in detention centers toward migrant workers held for deportation from Malaysia – to be false. Prosecutor Stanley Augustin pushed for the harshest sentence as a deterrent to any who might throw Malaysia’s good name into disrepute amid world attention. “The court must take into account the interest of the nation. Freedom of speech is not freedom to say anything you like. It must be confined and cannot hurt the public or national interest,” said Augustin.

At the sentencing, Fernandez said, “I want my children and the children of all the people I work with as head of Tenaganita to enjoy and live in a society that is peaceful, where we do not fear state violence.” Facing a maximum sentence of three years, Fernandez was sentenced to one year of imprisonment, but was released pending appeal. And over 13 years, Fernandez’ legal process has taken absurd twists and turns, all from court mismanagement.

Statements from five key prosecution witnesses and all of the 21 defense witnesses have gone missing. A computer virus wiped out hearing notes.

Over 1,700 pages of trial records were missing. A massive re-typing of notes was undertaken, and content was still awaiting transcription as of August 2008. Currently 3,648 pages are divided into eight volumes. Judge Apandi has ordered the appeal to move forward despite any illegible or incomplete notes. The Criminal High Court should dismiss this case due to an inaccurate trial transcript and reconstituted court records. But when a case is high profile, politics can come into play, and not just in Malaysia. (Sometime look into the case of People of California v. Caryl Chessman, a criminal who was a controversial critic of the justice system. His execution for kidnapping was based on a law that was later repealed and an incomplete trial transcript.)

But Fernandez is no criminal. She is the teller of uncomfortable truths, with a long activist history in protesting abuses and enacting reforms. In 2005, she earned the Right Livelihood Award, often called the “Alternative Nobel Prize” for “… for her outstanding and courageous work to stop violence against women and abuses of migrant and poor workers.” Established in 1980, the Right Livelihood Award honors and supports those “offering practical and exemplary answers to the most urgent challenges facing us today.” Fernandez is one of 133 Laureates from 57 countries.

Now that is a recognition of which Malaysia should be proud. Conversely, the country should publicly decry those who practice or support abuse and corruption through the manipulation of its laws. What is shameful are the efforts to hide the existence of deplorable conditions. What throws a country into disrepute is its resistance to righting wrongs. Irene Fernandez embodies the best of Malaysia – grace, strength, courage and endurance – even as the worst elements of Malaysian power have long sought to silence her. Few would have the determination to gut through the uncertainty of facing prison and all the horrors it might hold, but Fernandez has endured a 13-year legal ordeal. As an advocate of non-violence and legal means, Fernandez draws attention to the plight of the undesirables with her personal struggles.

The findings of her report cannot be false. Nor is truth ever malicious. Fernandez has been a role model of right living, despite the sword of Damocles that has dangled over her head for the past 13 years. That’s a long time to live under restricted freedoms, a confiscated passport and being barred as an election candidate. Whether justice is dispensed depends on the morality of those in charge and their own degree of courage. But I hope for the best. I take my cue from Fernandez’ reported serenity and from the faith that fueled Martin Luther King when he once wrote, “The moral arc of the universe is long but it bends toward justice.”

                This entry was posted on Monday, 3 November 2008, 8:37 am and is filed under
Court
,
Labour
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Three Higher Education Ministers  in 4 years while universities continue  plunge in international rankings and losing out to  Indonesia after left behind by Singapore/Thailand

Three Higher Education Ministers in four years while Malaysian universities continue the plunge in international university rankings – this is the second consecutive year Malaysia is excluded from the Times Higher Education Supplement’s (THES-QS) World’s Top 200 Universities.

Are these two  matters inter-related?

This is the question I posed to the third Higher Education Minister in four years, Datuk Seri Mohamed Khaled Nordin in Parliament this morning when he replied during the winding-up of the 2009 Budget debate, but as expected, he could not throw any light on the conundrum.

It is a sad reflection of the “paradigm shift” in  university quality  and excellence in Malaysia that while the first two Higher Education Ministers (Datuk Dr. Shafie Salleh and Datuk Dr. Mustapha Mohamed) talked about how to defend Malaysian university rankings in the Top 200 World Universities, Khaled spoke with pride  this morning at the inclusion of Malaysian universities in the Top 500 world universities!

I warned this morning that Malaysia is seriously losing out in competitiveness, with our univerisites not only left behind by Singapore [National University of Singapore (NUS) ranked 30th and Nanyang Technological University, Singapore ranked No. 77] and Thailand (Chulalongkorn University ranked No. 166), we are beginning to straggle behind Indonesian universities!

Until last year, Malaysian universities were  all ranked well ahead of the Indonesian universities, but in the  2008 THES-QS World Top Universities ranking, Indonesian universities are catching up with Malaysian universities in leaps and bounds.

Last year for instance,  the three top Indonesian universities were all  ranked behind the Malaysian universities – University of Indonesia (UI) No. 395, Bandung Institute of Technology (ITB) No. 369 and Gajah Mada University (UGM) No. 360, as compared to the three top Malaysian universities University of Malaya (UM) No. 246, Universiti Sains Malaysia (USM) No. 307 and Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM) No. 309.

In this year’s ranking, University of Indonesia has improved by 108 placings to be ranked as No. 287, Bandung Institute of Technology No. 315 and Gajah Mada University No. 316.

This means that in the 2008 THES-QS Ranking, University of Indonesia  (No. 287) has narrowed the gap with University of Malaya (No. 230) and Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia  (No. 250), while ahead of Malaysia’s apex university, Universiti Sains Malaysia (No. 313), University Putra Malaysia (No. 320) and Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (No. 356).

                This entry was posted on Monday, 3 November 2008, 3:07 pm and is filed under
Education
,
Parliament
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


A rare parliamentary sight not seen for decades  – eight UMNO Ministers queuing up in Parliament  till 11.30 pm last night to reply

A rare parliamentary sight in Parliament for decades – eight Umno Ministers queuing up in Parliament till 11.30  pm yesterday to take their turn to reply in the 2009 Budget debate yesterday.

Clearly, my Sunday speech to the DAP Kuala Lumpur Convention castigating Umno Ministers for neglecting their parliamentary, Cabinet and national responsibilities because of the protracted  Umno party elections and suggesting that they take  five-month leave so as to ensure that the people and country do not suffer because of their party politicking  when  Malaysia  faces the worst global economic crisis in 80 years has hit home and taken instantaneous effect.

On Thursday, two Umno Ministers, Home Minister Datuk Seri Syed Hamid Albar and Education Minister, Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Hussein played truant from their Ministerial duties when they were absent in the winding-up of their Ministries, passing the buck to their deputy ministers.

If Hamid and Hishammuddin think that their deputy ministers were equal to them and could reply of behalf of their Ministries as  effectively as they themselves could, then it is time they resign and give way to their two deputies to become full ministers!

I hope that this unprecedented show of discipline and responsibility is not a “one-shot” affair but will become a directing principle for all responsible Ministers for the rest of the parliamentary term – and we will see Ministers taking full charge of the debate for each Ministry during the 16-day Committee stage debate of the 2009 Budget beginning tomorrow till 4th December 2008.

Yesterday, the Umno Ministers put up a responsible show, but the MCA Ministers fell short, with two MCA Ministers absent from their parliamentary posts  during the reply, viz the newly-elected MCA President and Transport Minister, Datuk Ong Tee Kiat and the newly-elected MCA Vice President and Women, Family and Community Development Minister Datuk Dr Ng Yen Yen, who had to depend on their deputy ministers to save the day.

There can be no excuse for the absence of Cabinet Ministers from their parliamentary duties for the parliamentary calendar for the Ministerial winding-up in the 2009 budget debate had been fixed many months ahead of schedule and there can be no excuse for Ministers to be away from Parliament, whether overseas or somewhere else in the country.

I hope today, the fourth and last day of the Ministerial winding-up of the 2009 Budget debate, will see other Umno Ministers continue to set a good parliamentary example to their other BN Cabinet colleagues.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 4 November 2008, 12:24 pm and is filed under
Parliament
,
UMNO
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Are MCMC/Ministry dumb or just subservient to Telekom Malaysia?

“Are MCMC/Ministry dumb or just subservient to Telekom Malaysia?”

This is the question I posed to the Minister for  Energy, Water and Communications Datuk Shaziman Abu Mansor  in Parliament at close to 11 pm  last night when  winding up the debate on behalf of his Ministry on the 2009 Budget debate.

I had queried Shaziman on why Telekom Malaysia Bhd (TM) was awarded the RM11.3  billion HSBB (High Speed Broadband) project, subsidised with RM2.4 billion of taxpayers’ money, when there was  an alternative proposal by HSBT (High Speed Broadband Technology Sdn Bhd) offering  to build a similar network without  any subsidy?

I also challenged the government’s rationale in awarding the HSBB to Telekom when  Telekom must bear the greatest responsibility for Malaysia’s failure to become a broadband power, left far behind in the past decade by other countries when Malaysia had started on an equal  broadband footing with them.

South Korea has  now a broadband penetration rate of 93 per cent and  Hong Kong at 30 per cent, as compared to Malaysia’s 13 per cent (Shaziman corrected me and claimed that Malaysia’s broadband penetration rate is now 17%) which includes Malaysia’s most extraordinary “low broadband speed”!

The main reason why Malaysia has lagged behind other countries in broadband development must lie at the doorsteps of Telekom, which had acted as an absolute bully in refusing to open up the last mile copper to allow other industry players to buy the “last mile” at a fair price and thus promote  a full liberalisation of the telco industry.

This monopoly has not only allowed  Telekom to have a stranglehold on the other industry players, it has been most costly to the country in terms of  lost GDP in tens of billion of ringgit in the past decade, business competitiveness as well as more efficient public service delivery.

I asked Shaziman whether he was aware of almost unanimous industry opposition to the award of the HSSB project with RM2.4 billion government subsidy to Telekom in view of its monopoly and role in  stunting the broadband growth of the nation  in refusing to open up the “last mile copper”.

As a result,  the question that is universally asked in the industry is whether the MCMC (Malaysia Communications and Multimedia Commission) and the Ministry of Energy, Water and Communications are dumb or just subservient to Telekom to allow Telekom to continue with its untrammelled monopoly position and  baneful influence on broadband growth impeding and undermining a  successful national broadband policy?

In the exchanges with Shaziman, I specifically asked  why there was no open tender for the HSBB project and why HSBT offer to execute the HSBB project without a single sen of public funds, depending on Middle East funding and expertise from South Korea and Japan, was rejected by the government.

Even in Singapore, SingTel which is like TM as the erstwhile monopoly Telco, was not given the sole right to build the island republic’s HSSB.

Shaziman did not have the answers to my questions, except to give an assurance that as the Minister responsible, he would not allow Telekom Malaysia to be a “bully” in the IT industry.

I concluded my intervention in the debate by  recommending  four measures for Shaziman to consider to resolve the  national  misgivings as well as the concerns  of the IT industry to the award of the RM11.3 billion HSBB project to Telekom, viz:

·	Carry out using a third party to review industry feedback on the award of the HSBB project (RM2.4 billion subsidy) to TM.

·	Turn the TM HSBB network into a truly open network from the outset and not to wait for seven years.

·	Call a tender for  the award of another HSBB network.

·	Use a third party to derive the formula for fair access pricing to TM HSBB network.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 4 November 2008, 7:06 am and is filed under
IT
,
Parliament
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Azmi’s unilateral rush as PAC Chairman to whitewash Eurocoper helicopter deal fiasco

Public Accounts Committee Chairman Datuk Seri Azmi Khalid has provided the most eloquent testimony  why there is a Commonwealth parliamentary convention that a senior Opposition parliamentarian should be head of the PAC (and why a Minister who has just stepped down from the Cabinet should not head the PAC)  if the parliamentary watchdog committee is not to be bullied or overawed by the Executive to rubber-stamp or whitewash controversial government decisions like the RM1.6 billion 12 Couger EC725 Eurocopter deal fiasco.

Yesterday, Azmi announced that the PAC had
cleared
the government of any procedural abuse in the RM1.604 billion Eurocopter helicopter deal and that the deal “was done in accordance with procedures”.

Is Azmi aware that his announcement clearing the government of any procedural abuse in the helicopter tender process has created consternation, disbelief and dismay  among right-thinking Malaysians  and undermined public confidence in the institution of Parliament for it runs counter to the clear and grave procedural abuse  in the tender process requiring physical evaluation and in this case, test flights of the helicopters shorted-listed?

How can Azmi claim on the one hand that there is no procedural abuse in the tender process and yet in the next breath admit to the fact  that there was the grave procedural abuse  of no physical evaluation and test flight of the helicopters concerned?

As I pointed out in Parliament on Thursday during the winding-up of the Defence Ministry by the Deputy Defence Minister, Datuk Abu Seman Yusop, the  helicopter tender documents specifically provided for “documentary evaluation” in Section 37 and “physical evaluation” in Section 38.

We have here another instance of the conflicting claims and justifications by top government leaders for the Eurocopter deal fiasco, not only in three different versions for its price, but also on its evaluation.

Abu Seman gave three ridiculous reasons in Parliament as to why there was no need to comply with the tender document requiring physical evaluation and test flight of the helicopters tendered, while Datuk Seri Najib Razak, Deputy Prime Minister-cum-Finance Minister who was Defence Minister when the helicopter deal was clinched, claimed that “joyrides”  of the Couger EC725 helicopter by RMAF pilots at the LIMA Airshow in Langkawi were adequate as physical evaluation and test-flights!

Why  is Azmi swallowing “line, hook and sinker” the government excuses for a gross abuse of procedure in the Eurocopter helicopter deal instead of showing an independent and critical mind  which are the prerequisites for a conscientious PAC Chairman?

Coming to the post of PAC Chairman with a “Ministerial mindset” is bad enough, Azmi  should be conscious that he should not act or conduct himself in any manner as to create suspicion or doubt  whether he is being influenced by thoughts of getting back to the Cabinet in the new Najib administration beginning in five months’ time!

Is Azmi able to explain why he is prepared to overlook the grave procedural abuse of not having any physical evaluation and test flight of the helicopters tendered by claiming that it was no  procedural abuse?

What Azmi is guilty of is “an unilateral rush” as PAC Chairman to whitewash the grave procedural abuse of the helicopter tender process.

I have been referring to Azmi personally but not to the PAC because I have been informed that  no vote had been taken of the PAC members for the PAC finding claimed by Azmi that there was  no procedural abuse  in the RM1.604 billion Eurocopter helicopter deal and that the deal “was done in accordance with procedures”.

In fact, this alleged finding of the PAC is clearly not the views of all the PAC members and it is most unfair and undemocratic for Azmi to claim that the PAC had reached any such finding when it is not the case.

Yesterday, I had suggested that the PAC should investigate the suggestion by a former Nuri pilot that a better proposition is for an upgrade of the RMAF Nuris, which will cost only a few hundred million ringgit, for two reasons:

·	that 85 % of the RMAF Nuri crashes were  due to human error, 10 % enemy aggression and another 5 % only maybe technical.

·	the Nuris are still “good for another 20 years and more”, having “very low airframe hours, with an average of 9000 hours per aircraft” as compared to “worldwide standard for this type of helicopter currently is more than 50,000 hours and some even reaching 60,000 hours”.

I am shocked that my proposal had been summarily rejected by Azmi on the ground that a total of 95 persons had died in Nuri helicopter crashes since 1969.

I do not hold any watching brief for Sikorsky, the manufacturer of Nuri helicopters, and have no objection to the phasing out of the Nuris, if this is the considered opinion of any independent study of the matter as my top priority is the safety of the RMAF personnel using the helicopters.

What I cannot accept is that Azmi has taken upon himself to pass such a judgement, not as a result of an full inquiry by the PAC, but because of the advice he had received by some Defence Ministry official.

If the PAC Chairman is going to be a puppet of any top Ministry official, what is the use of having a PAC in the first place.

In his unilateral rush for PAC judgment to whitewash the Eurocopter deal, Azmi has failed to lead the PAC to probe into two important aspects:

1. The  very grave issues about propriety, accountability and professionalism in the decision-making process, whether at the technical, off-set or price stages, especially when it is now established that the government had not conducted physical and specification inspections of the three short-listed aircrafts – the Cougar EC725, Sikorsky S92 and AgustaWestlands AW101.

2. Has the PAC secured firm undertaking from the Defence Ministry that when the government finally decides to purchase the helicopters, there would be a new open tender for the helicopters in view of the procedural abuses in the Eurocopter deal?

Finally, when is Azmi and the PAC going to submit its report on the Eurocopter inquiry to Parliament for debate. Can the report be tabled by before the end of this month?

Azmi must not forget that the PAC is only a committee of the Dewan Rakyat which has the final responsibility to endorse, revise or reject its report and recommendations.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 4 November 2008, 11:32 am and is filed under
Defence
,
Parliament
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Three Higher Education Ministers in 4 years

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 4 November 2008, 6:22 pm and is filed under
Education
,
Parliament
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Najib as David Copperfield

Speaker: No debate on Najib’s stimulus package

By
Shannon Teoh

The Malaysian Insider

KUALA LUMPUR, Oct 5 – Speaker Tan Sri Pandikar Amin Mulia has ruled that economic stimulus plan announced in Finance Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak’s address to Parliament yesterday are not amendments to the 2009 Budget but measures to tackle the economic crisis.

Pandikar Amin said the RM7 billion stimulus package was derived from savings in fuel subsidy and not an additional allocation and it was clear that the amount was not part of the Budget.

“It is not an additional Budget. There is no change to the Budget tabled at the policy level and no change to any figures to projections made in any documents. This is the response if necessary due to the economic downturn,” Pandikar Amin told Dewan Rakyat.

He said the members would be debating the Budget tabled by then Finance Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi on Aug 29.

DAP parliamentary leader Lim Kit Siang had asked if what was presented by Najib, who is also Deputy Prime Minister, “does not exist. It can be forgotten as it was not tabled and is a waste of time of this House.

“Is this merely wayang kulit? That it has disappeared like David Copperfield? Does this mean there will be a Supplementary Estimate to discuss the RM7 billion stimulus package next year?” he quipped, referring to the renowned illusionist.

Deputy Finance Minister Datuk Husni Hanadzlah replied the stimulus package was at the prerogative of the ministry and that the House would debate the Aug 29 Budget.

“Originally we estimated oil prices of US$120 per barrel but now it has dropped. Based on our new projections, we will save RM7 billion and we will use it for certain necessities. Any such allocation only requires an administrative order. We merely wanted to be transparent so we announced the steps in advance. For the purpose of this debate, we will debate the Aug 29 figures,” the Tambun MP said.

Opposition Leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim also sought to clarify if the Speaker meant that the RM7 billion is not part of the Budget.

“The question is that at the committee stage, we need an exact figure. So we will only debate the Aug 29 figures by the Prime Minister and not consider the opinion of the Finance Minister yesterday which are not binding to the budget,” he said.

Pandikar Amin agreed with Anwar that the “RM7 billion is not part of the budget debated at the policy stage.”

By Shannon Teoh

KUALA LUMPUR, Oct 5 – Deputy Speaker Datuk Dr Wan Junaidi Tuanku Jaafar suspended proceedings in the Dewan Rakyat at 12.15pm today as the opposition refused to debate the 2009 Budget at the committee stage.

DAP parliamentary leader Lim Kit Siang had initially questioned the legality of Finance Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak’s new proposals yesterday.

“What was passed yesterday was the Aug 29 budget,” the Ipoh Timur MP told the House, referring to Prime Minister and then Finance Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Badawi’s original budget.

“It does not not include yesterday’s suggestions. So do we debate it or ignore it completely? Was it an illegal Supplementary Budget?” he continued.

Opposition Leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim also added that it was unclear which figures would be debated.

“Today, at committee stage, what are we debating? Is the old estimates still in use or not?” the Permatang Pauh MP said.

“I am only asking that the Finance Minister give us the revised figures so we can debate at committee stage. I am not objecting to anything, but how can MPs debate when we are not sure which figures?” he continued.

However, Wan Junaidi ruled that what had been passed by the Dewan Rakyat could not be retracted.

“The issue was passed yesterday. If the Dewan Rakyat has passed it, what other approval do we need? Principally it was passed. It is up to the ministry to release details,” he said.

However, Dr Dzulkefly Ahmad (Pas-Kuala Selangor) pressed on the fact that a debate could not continue without the details.

As such, the deputy speaker decided to postpone proceedings, although at that point it was unclear even to MPs until when.

When asked by reporters later, Wan Junaidi confirmed that the House would resume proceedings at 2.30pm pending the details of Najib’s proposals being furnished to the MPs.

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 5 November 2008, 5:24 pm and is filed under
Economics
,
Najib Razak
,
Parliament
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


No, Neo-Colonialism is Never the Answer

By
Farish A. Noor

I recently had a conversation with an Indonesian political analyst in Singapore, where I am currently based. In the course of our discussion about the state of Indonesian politics, he let slip a statement that I felt terribly uncomfortable with. While lamenting the state of Indonesia’s convoluted politics, he opined thus: “I wonder if Indonesia’s problems could be solved if we allowed a foreign government to run our country?”

Now, talk like this usually sends shivers up my spine. We will recall that up to the late 1990s, it even became fashionable to talk about the necessity for the re-colonisation of Africa. This sort of nonsense was all the rage in some American political magazines and journals, and of course this neo-colonial bile was dressed up in the discourse of altruism and universal humanism, as if the colonisation of any country was an altruistic act between fellow human concerned about the fate of others. Never mind the fact that the ones doing the colonising would be the same Western powers and the ones being colonised would be the same hapless denizens of the Third World.

It is true that Indonesia’s political situation at present is a mess to say the least. With the next elections almost half a year away, the political parties – and there are more than 35 of them, at the last count – are already campaigning in earnest. Vast amounts of money are being spent (or rather wasted) on publicity campaigns and electoral drives that are designed to puff up the already inflated egos of political aspirants than to do any real good to the people. On top of that the political discourse of parties like Hanura and Gerindra seem full of fluff and froth as the leaders have little to say on how they will actually set about changing things for the better.

But in the case of Indonesia, as it is with the other countries of Southeast Asia, the perennial problem is the same: Aspiring elites want to speak for the people and represent them, but they don’t even know what the people want. The political disconnect between the elites of Jakarta and the masses across the archipelago is mirrored in the disconnect we see among the elites of Kuala Lumpur, Singapore, Manila and Bangkok too. Why?

Answering this question may also lead us to the answer to the earlier comment about the need for Indonesia to be re-colonised for its own good.

The bottom line is that the governmental structures of Indonesia – as it is for Malaysia, Singapore, Philippines and many other post-colonial societies remains rooted in the structures of colonial rule. Now colonial rule was unique in the sense that the colonial governments could govern with scant attention paid to the colonial subjects themselves, hence the ‘success’ of British colonial rule in Burma, Malaya and Singapore and Dutch colonial rule in Indonesia. The British, French, Dutch, Spanish and American colonisers who governed Southeast Asia were not answerable to their colonial societies, but rather the metropolitan capitals of London, Hague, Paris and Washington. Thus British Malaya, Burma and Singapore were governed at a long-distance, with orders from London being enacted and executed in Malaya. Likewise orders from the Hague were put to work in Indonesia. At no point was this metropole-colony relationship an equal or reciprocal one.

Today the structures of colonial rule persist with colonial laws such as Malaysia’s Internal Security Act still in place; and the ruling elite of Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore and other countries are likewise distanced from their own people. Like the colonial masters of the past, they view their own fellow citizens with incredulity, and fail to understand how plural and complex their societies really are. The ‘success’ of colonial rule – if you could call it that – was that it blanketed the real pluralism and differences in these colonised societies and made them look homogenous.

Today, Southeast Asia’s internal pluralism and difference are coming to the forefront in no uncertain terms. Indonesia’s complex political landscape merely mirrors the complexity of Indonesia’s plural society, a fact that was thinly disguised during the three decades of Suharto’s centralised authoritarian rule. But we need to remember that the manifold forms and modes of socio-political activity we see in Indonesia today, that includes also the new ‘radical’ groups like the Majlis Mujahidin Indonesia, the Hizbut Tahrir Indonesia (HTI) and even mainstream Islamist parties like the PKS are the genuine expressions of Indonesian pluralism too. The MMI, HTI and PKS are not from Mars or Sweden: they are part and parcel of Indonesian society and the products of the same political processes that created the political elite in Jakarta who do not understand them.

It is imperative therefore that we recognise two things: That postcolonial societies have yet to jettison the colonial mindset of colonial governmentality; and that we need to develop a new mode of representative politics that reflects the complexity of the societies we reside in. Indonesia’s new political elites may be jockeying for position and running for the biggest prize of all – the Presidential seat – next year. But they need to remember that to be President of Indonesia today means being President of one of the most complex, confounding, plural and interally-differentiated societies in the world. The sooner the political elites of Indonesia (and Malaysia, Singapore, Thailand and the Philippines) realise this, and the sooner they behave like democratic representatives rather than colonial bureaucrats, the better it will be for everyone.

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 5 November 2008, 6:38 pm and is filed under
Farish Noor
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Obama’s historic win – can a Chinese, Indian, Kadazan or Iban become Prime Minister?

This is the question I posed in Parliament at the beginning of the 16-day committee stage debate of the “wayang kulit” 2009 Budget debate in Parliament today.

I started by congratulating Barack Obama for his historic win as United States President as it was unthinkable even until very recently for anyone to believe that it is possible for a black, who were slaves until some 150 years ago, to be able to become President of US.

I said Parliament should also send its congratulations to Obama.

However, Obama’s historic breakthrough make many Malaysians ask whether it is possible for a Chinese, Indian, Kadazan to become the Prime Minister of Malaysia although the Constitution is very clear that any Malaysian citizen, regardless of race or religion can become Prime Minister.

If such a question is asked 50 years ago, the nation’s founders like Tunku Abdul Rahman, Tun Razak, Tun Dr. Ismail, Tun Hussein Onn, Tun Tan Cheng Lock, Tun Tan Siew Sin and Tun V.T. Sambanthan would unhesitatingly answered in the positive as there is no constitutional bar  –  separate from the question of whether it was likely to happen.

But if the same question is asked now, there will be strong voices (as heard in Parliament today when this question was posed) who would rise  up to say no.

Who is going against the Merdeka Constitution and the social contract reached by the  forefathers of the major communities to achieve national independence half a century ago?

Why is Malaysian race relations and nation-building going backwards in the past 50 years as compared to the historic breakthrough in race relations in the United States with Obama’s historic victory in the US presidential elections?

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 5 November 2008, 7:15 pm and is filed under
nation building
,
Parliament
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


A New America? Lets Shut Guantanamo First, Please.

By
Farish A. Noor

Needless to say, the news that Barrack Obama has become the new President of the United States of America has spread worldwide and already the world rejoices over the timely demise of the Neo-Con empire of Bush and company. In Asia in particular the news of Obama’s victory has been greeted with a collective sigh of relief, and genuine jubilation in places like Indonesia for the Indonesians have claimed Obama as one of their own, no less. Time will tell if this historic sea change in American politics is indeed historic, but for now we can at least recover some meaningful respite from the simple fact that momentarily at least America’s vast arsenal of destruction has been laid to rest. But for how long?

Obama’s campaign was, from the outset, driven by a simple message that nonetheless resonated with a vast cross-section of American society: The time has come for change. The old crumbling power structures that has for so long been dominated by the same incestuous community of white, upper middle class, elite men whose genealogies date back to the founding fathers of America seems to have been opened up for a while, allowing for this rupture in the collective imaginary of the American people and forcing all of us to question some of the settled assumptions that have guided our understanding of America for perhaps too long.

But before we all don our rose-tinted glasses and celebrate a second Woodstock, let us pause for a moment and consider the hurdles and obstacles that will have to be overcome by Obama and the American people before we can utter the phrase ‘change has come’ with due and warranted confidence. Those of us who reside in Asia would have our own set of questions that ought to be put before the latest resident of the White House, and there are lingering dilemmas and quandries that need to be laid to rest before we herald the coming of a new order.

For a start, let us begin with the claim that the victory of Obama will lead to a new America, one that is confident and strong. Obama’s promise was to restore to America and Americans the sense of pride that was severely compromised during the Bush years and to recover much of the credibility and standing that America has lost since the fateful invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq.

Now to this question we pose the following: If America’s pride and dignity are indeed to be restored, then how? A strong America is not necessarily a bad thing, and even worse would be the prospect of an America falling apart at the seams and sending debris all over the world. But for too long, America’s political elite have understood this grand project in terms that were decidedly militarist and hegemonic. A strong America need not and should not be understood as a licence for greater American hegemonic influence, and certainly not greater military clout and beligerent prowess. This was precisely the fatal error of successive American governments beginning with the Reagan administration that sought to restore American pride following the country’s graceless exit from Vietnam in 1975. Yes, we welcome a strong America that is grounded on universalist principles, but no, we do not welcome a strong America that arrives on our shores with humvees, stinger missiles and B-52s. (And lest we forget, B-52s do not make good ambassadors of goodwill.)

Related to this is the question of America’s moral standing and its moral credibility today, which is at an all time low. Mr Obama has reiterated his claim that he will seek to restore the image and moral credibility of the United States in the eyes of the world, but let this not be a vain boast for the sake of posturing and political correctness. America has been using human rights and the promotion of democracy as a bargaining chip since the time of the Helsinki accord at the peak of the Cold War, and the Carter administration was keen to highlight the human rights abuses of other countries then, provided they were all in the Soviet bloc or showed signs of harbouring pro-Leftist sympathies. During this period, both Democratic and Republican administrations paid scant attention to the horrendous human rights abuses that were taking place in countries that were firmly allied to American interests, ranging from Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Israel to Indonesia and the Philippines.

No, Mr Obama, we will not take seriously your claims to defend fundamental liberties unless and until you personally see to it that institutions such as the prison at Guantanamo Bay are shut down during your watch. (And dont wait 4 years to do it, or you may end up like the incumbent leader of Malaysia who was also known to have waited too long before attempting his reforms). Only then can America preach human rights with confidence and credibility, and when doing so please focus your attention on those countries most closely allied to your own American concerns too.

Mr Obama would also do well to relieve us Asians of the blight and burden of being designated as the ‘Second Front in the War on Terror’. During the cold war, Southeast Asia was likewise called the second front in the ‘war on Communism’, and the net result of this was the promotion of military dictatorships, the use of draconian laws, the wanton murder, torture and incarceration of millions of innocent Asians deemed dangerous due to their Leftist sympathies, and the annexation of East Timor that took place under the nose of Washington. Mr Obama should realise that the War On Terror has been nothing more than a blanket excuse used by the governments of Southeast Asia to curry favour with Washington, and to build a vast network of anti-terror centres, prisons, detention facilities and to further perpetuate antiquated colonial laws used to detain even more Asians, ostensibly to protect Americans and American foreign interests. To expose the anti-terror scam for what it is, that is nothing more than an elaborate fiction and lie that serves the economic interests of repressive regimes, arms companies and the security industry would not only raise the image of the America that Mr Obama wants to save, but also prove to us that America may still be able to redeem itself.

Thus for all these reasons, we hope and pray that that America under its new President with prosper; but let it prosper with the world and not against it. American strength and pride should never be at the cost of the weakness and humiliation of other nations. I know you are not personally responsible for what your successors have done Mr Obama, but for your sake and the world’s I and many others hope you succeed. God bless.

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 6 November 2008, 6:37 am and is filed under
Farish Noor
,
Foreign
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


In Solidarity

Abolish ISA, Free all Detainees

[*RPK is out from Kamunting, but Malaysians are still unfree]

Date: 9 Nov 2008 (Sunday)

Time: 8pm

Venue: Taman D.R. Seenivasagam, Ipoh (
Map
)

(Free candles for all, but bring your own umbrellas just in case ~~)

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 6 November 2008, 11:57 am and is filed under
Announcement
,
ISA
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Of Pretentious Promises, Parachuting Promotions & Pressured Praise

by
Martin Jalleh

The Palace of Justice has a new “prince” – Zaki Tun Azmi. He was promptly sworn in as Chief Justice (CJ) soon after the Conference of Rulers went through the procedural motions and provided consent to his extraordinary elevation.

His Lordship had leap-frogged from the legal profession into the Federal Court last September. Two months later he was proclaimed Court of Appeal (CoA) president. Now (almost a year later) he is proudly perched on the highest post in the judiciary.

Zaki’s political “parachuting” has no precedent. But be not perturbed. Did not the PM promise (especially after his party had quickened his passage into the sunset) that he would produce profound changes in the judiciary?

Indeed, before he packs his bags and participates fully in Umno’s early retirement plan for him, Pak Lak would prove to the whole of Bolehland that he still has the penchant to produce the very opposite of what he initially promises.

In April this year, at a Malaysian Bar Council dinner where he paid tribute to former Lord President Salleh Abas and four former Supreme Court judges all of whom were sacked in 1988 by Dr M, Pak Lah had promised the setting up of a Judicial Appointments Commission to help the PM choose judges.

Pak Lah had also very proudly declared then that such a step was to “renew the people’s trust in the judiciary” and to “make the process of nominating, appointing and promoting judges more transparent and representative”.

In his perfect closing the PM pleaded poignantly, pointedly and so passionately: “Let us move on…The rakyat wants movement and progress, not continuing strife… Let us write this proud and new chapter together!”

About five months later, the PM picked and plucked out a Umno lawyer from the Bar, parked and planted him in the Court of Appeal for a while, so as to place him at the pinnacle of the judiciary at the opportune time!

The PM’s preference of the most junior judge in the Federal Court to take the place of the outgoing CJ implied that it was the government’s perception that there were no senior serving Federal Court judges qualified for or worthy of the job.

It also implied that the government had practically no confidence in the judiciary…and ironically in itself!  What a proud new chapter! In fact, Pak Lah was writing a whole new book by himself – on how to catapult a lawyer into the CJ’s chair.

The PM who had made plenty of pious pronouncements on collaboration, consultation and commitment towards what he had called a “judicial renaissance”, looked very pleased when his controversial candidate received his papers from the King to be crowned the new CJ.

At the opening of the 21st LawAsia conference in Kuala Lumpur recently, Pak Lah presented Zaki as “a man who likes reforms” – just like the PM himself – who loves to talk and take the rakyat for a ride on reforms?

Predicted

Many had predicted Zaki’s promotion to CJ.  When the latter was made CoA president, Lim Kit Siang (who was then the opposition leader in parliament) called the appointment “a prelude” to Zaki becoming “Umno’s Chief Justice”.

Activist lawyer Harris Ibrahim who runs the popular The People’s Parliament blog had sent two petitions to the King, the latest containing 25,700 signatures urging His Majesty to appoint the senior most judge of the Federal Court to the position of CJ.

Pakatan Rakyat had also sent a memorandum urging the King to defer the appointment of the CJ and to consider public opinion. Aliran was “shocked that a person who is so junior in rank with nothing outstanding about him should now outrank all the senior, serving judges…”

Can anyone be more accurate than Raja Petra?: “Imagine having two Umno men at the top of the judicial hierarchy, one as AG and the other as CJ. You will be able to literally get away with murder (as if they are not already getting away with it).”

Writing before Zaki’s amazing ascent, Kim Quek, a well-known political commentator, had described Zaki as “the person planted to the highest court to succeed Fairuz”. He listed the reasons why Zaki would be “a poor candidate for any judicial appointment”.

Zaki was a key player in Umno. He was chairman of the party’s election committee, deputy chairman of its disciplinary board of appeal, party legal advisor, etc. As Umno’s legal man, he was involved with “the party’s myriad scandalous financial misadventures that were bailed out by the government (of Dr M)”.

“Apart from acting as Umno’s nominee, Zaki also has held directorship in scores of major companies… Even if he has the superhuman capability to totally severe his umbilical cord to the ruling party and his commercial interests to eliminate conflict of interests, there is still the insurmountable problem of public perception.”

Kim Quek had also questioned Zaki’s “moral integrity arising from his controversial marriage and divorce from his second wife Nor Hayati Yahaya”, who was half his age and whom he married in a ceremony conducted by a kadi from Thailand in a textile shop in Perlis in March 2005.

“They separated three months later. In the messy divorce that ensued, it was revealed that Zaki burned the original marriage certificate to hide the marriage from his first wife. Further, the marriage was ruled by the Syarah court as illegal.

“Following the revelation of Zaki’s marital trouble, he resigned as deputy chairman of Umno’s disciplinary board, for which he told the press: ‘Considering that members of the disciplinary board are of the highest integrity, I have made this decision following reports in the media …’ ”

“The question we must ask now is: If Zaki is morally unfit to serve in Umno’s disciplinary board, how could he be considered morally fit to be a federal court judge, not to mention his lightning elevation to the No.2 position, and anticipated imminent rise to the top job in the judiciary?” Kim Quek quipped.

“Is this country so poor in legal talent and integrity that we have no choice but to appoint someone so glaringly unsuited for such important judicial position arising from his multiple conflicts of interests and questionable integrity?” Kim Quek quizzled.

(In an attempt to placate the growing protests in parliament against the parachuting of Zaki, Minister in the PM’s Department Nazri Aziz portrayed Zaki as “a straight fellow” and that the “only reason we roped him in was due to his past performance and his character”! Nazri was at his very naïve best!)

As it turned out, the PM chose to ignore the very pointed issues and pertinent questions that Kim Quek and the public had posed regarding Zaki’s then imminent ascension to the apex court. There were no consultations with the “primary stakeholders” – in spite of Pak Lah’s promise in April.

Pleasantries

The public pooh-poohed Pak Lah’s preference of Zaki as the new CJ. Lim Kit Siang described it as “the most controversial appointment of the head of the judiciary in the nation’s 51-year history”. Din Merican, an Anwar Ibrahim aide, called it a “retrogressive move” in the PM’s reform agenda.

After the swearing-in ceremony of the new CJ, and hard-pressed by the press, a rather resigned Bar Council president Ambiga Sreenevasan extended the pleasantry that “Zaki must be given a chance to prove he can bring about the much-needed change to the judiciary system”.

“There had been concerns in relation to Zaki’s political affiliations and business connections (and) these concerns can only be dispelled by him through the conduct of his duties and by a demonstration of independence and impartiality at all times,” Ambiga added amiably.

Alas, in Bolehland many things function on the reverse. What had in fact to be proven by the Government was whether Zaki was “worthy” or qualified in every way, to occupy the CJ’s chair. And such proof had to be provided – PRIOR to the appointment, and not after.

The search for the “right man” for high office begins with a process of discernment to ascertain, as far as possible, whether he fits the criteria of the job – and this is done prior to making a final decision. Further the CJ’s Office being a public office, the public has the right to know and critique the proposed candidate.

Ambiga’s implied request, therefore, that the office of the CJ is an “opportunity” for Zaki to prove himself, does not make any sense at all. It is like “putting the cart before the donkey (horse)”. (But then again very little makes sense in Bolehland these days!)

Pretense

The NST had for its headline on Zaki’s maiden speech at the Palace of Justice as: Zaki shows he means business. Perhaps it would be more accurate if it had been: Zaki says he means business.

According to The Star, Zaki had “vowed to get tough on errant judges”, whom he said formed a small group and of whom he accused of besmirching the image and reputation of the judiciary.

“…such errant judges should consider leaving the judiciary. I will not hesitate to take tough and drastic action against this small group (of judges) if the occasion calls for it. And for those in the practice of toadying (currying favour), I say ‘stop it’,” Zaki added more zing into his warning.

Ambiga, who attended the ceremony praised Zaki for having delivered a “hard-hitting” speech (Malaysiakini): “I think it was a no-nonsense and tough speech… He is off to a good start with that speech.”

It was more humdrum than hard-hitting. Zaki’s mundane maiden pronouncements were in fact practically the same as that made by one of his predecessors – Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim, who had said that “judges should resign if they cannot lead a judge’s life”.

Sadly, the tenure of Fairuz was “full of sound and fury, signifying nothing”. It ended as a flop, a farce and a fiasco. The verdict of the Royal Commission of Inquiry on the Lingam tape scandal reduced his appointment as CJ to a first-class joke. Will Zaki Tun Azmi meet with the same fate?

Will our nation be “cox-zakied” (coxsackie is a hand, foot and mouth disease) by a tough talking Chief Justice? Will we see real, rapid and radical changes in the judiciary or will we be regularly reassured by the CJ’s reiterated rhetoric accompanied by a rudderless leadership?

Will the PM stop the Umno warlords from pulling the strings as he plays their puppet, preaching judicial reform but practising the very opposite? Will the judiciary – the very “portal of justice” – continue to be a playground of political expediency where the-powers-that-be persecute their foes by a perversion of the rule of law?

Business executives in Asia make no pretence about their worsening perception of Bolehland’s judiciary –as revealed recently by a Hong-Kong based Political and Economic Risks Consultancy.  Local lawyers in a Transparency International Malaysia interview shared the same or even greater corroding perception. Genuine change is crucial.

Time is not on Pak Lah’s side. What kind of legacy will he leave behind in terms of the judiciary? Will he be remembered for his pretentious resolve for judicial reform or will he be respected as a courageous and committed PM who translated into reality his talk given in April this year: Delivering Justice, Renewing Trust ( in the Judiciary)?

(5 Nov. 2008)

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 6 November 2008, 6:34 am and is filed under
Abdullah Ahmad Badawi
,
Judiciary
,
Martin Jalleh
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


RM7 billion economic stimulus – Najib wants MPs and nation to live a fiction

Yesterday, the Speaker, Tan Sri Pandikar Amin  Mulia made the
ruling
 that Parliament was debating the Abdullah budget presented on August 29, 2008 and not the Najib Budget of an additional RM7 billion economic stimulus package  announced during the 2009 Budget winding-up debate on Tuesday, as no changes to the Abdullah Budget had been tabled in the House.

The Speaker is right as MPs could not possibly be debating a revised 2009 Budget incorporating an additional RM7 billion economic stimulus package, when neither the details of the supplementary RM7 billion package  have been tabled in the House nor an amendment to the 2009 Budget proposed in Parliament.

The trouble with such an interpretation is that MPs would have to live the  fiction of pretending that  the RM7 billion economic stimulus package announced by Deputy Prime Minister and the new Finance Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak, in his speech winding-up the2009 Budget policy  debate had disappeared into thin air within 24 hours and does not exist!

In fact, the nation and Malaysians are being asked to join in his fiction, if Najib persists with this unprecedented solution to the parliamentary faux pax he had committed in failing to follow the correct parliamentary procedure of submitting a proper parliamentary amendment to the 2009 Budget incorporating the new RM7 billion economic stimulus package.

This was why I had likened Najib to the illusionist David Copperfield  yesterday when the Deputy Finance Minister Datuk Ahmad Husni Hanadzlah,
responded
 to  my query in Parliament and explained  that  the RM7 billion economic stimulus package announced by Najib  on Tuesday was a hypothetical one, as it depended on  savings made from the downturn in global fuel prices, and what the government will do with RM7 billion when the situation arises.

I agree with Najib when he announced the RM7 billion package on Tuesday that “extraordinary times require extraordinary measures”, like  amending the 2009 Budget with an additional RM7 billion economic package in the face of the worst world  economic crisis in 80 years because of the global financial meltdown – but this is no justification in breaking all parliamentary rules and procedures by one day presenting a RM7 billion economic stimulus package and claiming in the next 24 hours that it is just a hypothetical proposal!

Isn’t the entire 2009 Budget of RM207 billion, made up of RM154 billion operating estimates  and RM53.7 billion development estimates equally “hypothetical” as being  based on on a whole architecture of  assumptions about revenues and expenditures which only  time can tell whether they will come true?

If so, why then is Parliament debating and passing a “hypothetical” 2009 Budget but is not required to debate and pass a “hypothetical” supplement to the 2009 Budget in the form of the additional RM7 billion economic stimulus package?

This is not a good start for Najib as the new Finance Minister and five-month Prime Minister-in-waiting, as this is not the way a responsible Finance Minister should conducted himself – telling Parliament and nation one thing and saying a completely different thing 24 hours later.

Najib never qualified his announcement on Tuesday that his RM7 billion economic stimulus package was a hypothetical one.

Instead, he wanted Parliament and the nation to take his RM7 billion economic stimulus package seriously, and this was why there was a two-week build-up of an important announcement he would be making in Parliament on Nov. 4.

All the media, whether television, radio or newspapers, treated his RM7 billion package as his important first test as the new Finance Minister and not just as a  flight of imagination, with all front-page  newspaper headlines yesterday like “RM7b KICK-START – Government responds to global financial crisis” (New Straits Times),  “RM7 bil spending – Najib unveils plans to ensure continued growth of economy” (Star), “$PEND, $PEND, $PEND” (Sun), “RM7b rangsang ekonomi” (Utusan Malaysia) and “Dana RM7b rangsang ekonomi – Penjimatan subsidi minyak jana pertumbuhan negara” (Berita Harian).

Are all these just mirages in the desert?

Najib came to  Parliament on Tuesday like  Santa Claus before Christmas announcing a whole litany of goodies from the RM7 billion economic stimulus package, including

·	RM1.2 billion allocations for the construction of 15,000 low-cost and medium-cost houses.

·	RM500 million to  refurbish police stations and police quarters, as well as army camps and their living quarters.

·	RM600 million for small projects under the Public Infrastructure Maintenance (PIAS) for repairing village roads, building of community halls and small bridges.

 RM500 million for the preservation and repair of public amenities such as schools, hospitals and roads.

 RM500 million for upgrading and construction of rural roads and village roads.

·

 RM200 million to four groups of schools. RM50 million each for fully-aided religious schools,  mission schools,  Chinese schools and Tamil schools.

·	RM300 million for creation of funds and to implement skills training programmes in the Development Corridors.

·	RM500 million to strengthen the public transport especially the LRT, Komuter and bus systems in urban areas.

RM1.5 billion ringgit as  investment funds to attract more private sector investors.

·	RM400 million to expedite the high-speed broadband project implementation.

·	RM200 million to build human capital through various training programmes by various  ministries.

·	RM100 million for  Rakan Muda projects.

RM200 million to revitalise abandoned housing projects.

·	RM200 million for early education for kids.

After raising high hopes from the beneficiaries of the RM7 billion economic stimulus package, is  Najib now pouring “cold water” by  suggesting that the various allocations announced by him in Parliament on Tuesday are tentative, hypothetical and not meant to be taken seriously?

Parliament and the Barisan Nasional would forfeit all public respect if this be the case.

Najib had committed a grave parliamentary faux pax in not following  the proper parliamentary procedure in his first parliamentary outing. He should be man enough to admit his mistake and rectify it and not compound it  by claiming that his RM7 billion economic stimulus package is a mere fiction and need not be debated and approved in Parliament.

Then why announce it in Parliament in the first place?

DAP and Pakatan Rakyat MPs are prepared to co-operate with the Barisan Nasional government in the interests of the people and country and we are ready  to work with Najib to rectify his parliamentary faux pax.

But he must have the humility and decency to admit his parliamentary faux pas or there will be no way to rectify it.

One solution is for Najib to introduce a motion to amend the 2009 Budget to incorporate the RM7 billion economic stimulus package he announced on Tuesday, so that MPs could debate on both the Abdullah Budget presented on August 29 as well as the  RM7 billion supplementary Najib Budget announced on Tuesday.

It is a great disservice to Parliament as well as a most adverse reflection on him if Najib persists in wanting MPs to live a fiction that the RM7 billion economic stimulus package does not exist and need not be debated.

This is the first test of Najib’s quality of leadership five months before he becomes the sixth Prime Minister of Malaysia next March.

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 6 November 2008, 11:26 am and is filed under
Budget Debate
,
Economics
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Abdullah would fail in judicial reforms if  original Article 121(1) not restored

The parliamentary reply of the Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz, yesterday on judicial reforms and the RM10.5 million ex gratia payment to six judges who were victims of the 1988 “Mother of all judicial crisis for two decades” has raised more questions.

Firstly, Nazri most irresponsibly tried to rewrite history about the 1988 “Mother of all judicial crisis for two decades” when he denied that the judges, particularly   the then Lord President Tun Salleh Abas and two supreme court judges the late Tan Sri Wan Suleiman Pawanteh and Datuk George Seah were “sacked” , saying that they were asked to “retire early”.

Nazri was flying in the face of facts of history in making such a claim, for there can be no dispute that  Salleh Abas, Wan Suleiman and George Seah were sacked after the outcome of the two “kangaroo”  judicial tribunals set up by the then Prime Minister, Datuk Seri  Dr. Mahathir Mohamad  time, while the other three judges,  Tan Sri Azmi Kamaruddin, Tan Sri Wan Hamzah Mohd Salleh and  the late Tan Sri Eusoffe Abdolcadeer were victimised when they were suspended and  virtually “sent to conventry” for the rest of their judicial service  after their suspension was lifted.

Why did Nazri openly mislead Parliament yesterday in his dishonest and revisionist version of Malaysian judicial history?

Secondly, Nazri backtracked from the promise of judicial reform given by his predecessor Datuk Zaid Ibrahim when he responded to  my speech the day earlier (see video) and  categorically denied that there is any plan  to amend the Malaysian Constitution to restore the original wording of Article 121(1) and the position of judicial power in the Merdeka Constitution.

One of the first pledges of Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi when he became Prime Minister five years ago was to uphold the doctrine of the separation of powers among the Executive, Legislature and Judiciary, which implicity includes the restoration of the original wording of Article 121(1) on the inherent power of the judiciary, which was arbitrarily usurped by the Executive in a 1988 Constitutional amendment using the Barisan Nasional’s brute two-thirds parliamentary majority.

Nazri’s predecessor, Zaid Ibrahim has publicly stated that the restoration of Article 121(1) was one of the judicial reforms in the pipeline, and the then Chief Justice, Tun Abdul Hamid Mohammad had publicly supported such an amendment, when he said that the government’s proposal to amend Article 121(1) “shows that an amendment made in anger as a reaction to a decision of the court could last (only) for one generation” and that just as “water tends to find its own level”, the country was finding its way back “to the original provision”.

Why has the government lost its way and will on judicial reforms on the amendment of Article 121(1) after Nazri replaced Zaid, who resigned on a point of principle in September  in  protest against the abuse of power and arbitrary use of the Internal Security Act to detain senior Sin Chew reporter, Tan Hoon Cheng, DAP MP for Seputeh Teresa Kok and blogger Raja Petra Kamaruddin.

A clear and unmistakable message must be sent to  Abdullah, that he would have failed in his promise to push through judicial reforms before he steps down as Prime Minister next March  if there is no constitutional amendment to restore the  original wording and position of judicial power in Article 121(1).

The Prime Minister should direct Nazri, as the Minister responsible for shepherding the necessary legislation through Palriament on judicial reforms, to consult with the Pakatan Rakyat MPs to reach a consensus on the necessary constitutional amendments to ensure far-reaching judicial reforms – not only on the appointment of a Judicial Appointment Commission but also  to restore the original wording of Article 121(1).

                This entry was posted on Friday, 7 November 2008, 12:26 pm and is filed under
Judiciary
,
Parliament
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


“Bastard” in the House – most severe action must taken against Tajuddin

Yesterday, two DAP MPs were
suspended
 from the Dewan Rakyat – a dubious record for a single day of parliamentary proceeding.

DAP MP for Batu Gajah
Fong Po Kuan
was reduced to tears not because she had committed any crime or wrong but at the injustice of being ordered out of the House for trying to discharge her parliamentary duty to speak up on behalf of her constituents and Malaysians.

DAP MP for Bandar Kuching
Chong Chieng Jen
was suspended because he stood up to support Fong and complained about the harsh nature of the Speaker’s decision.

On Tuesday, Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR) MP for Batu, Tian Chua, was suspended from the House for repeatedly demanding to know why the Finance Minister, Datuk Najib Razak was refusing to allow opposition MPs to seek clarification on his new RM7 billion supplement to the 2009 Budget which had not been formally tabled in Parliament.

Last Thursday, DAP National Chairman and MP for Bukit Gelugor Karpal Singh was suspended for two days over the “main, main” issue.

But all these “infractions” of the four Pakatan Rakyat MPs added together are nothing compared to the ultimate parliamentary offence by the obstreperous  Barisan Nasional MP for Pasir Salak Datuk Tajuddin Abdul Rahman in his
most obnoxious and completely unacceptable  conduct
on Wednesday when he used the terms “bastard” and “bloody bastard” against the DAP MP for Ipoh Barat, M. Kulasegaran.

The Malaysian Parliament may have the notoriety as the first  Parliament in the world where MPs could get away with unparliamentary  terms like “bastard” and “bloody bastard” lightly.

Although Tajuddin subsequently withdrew the ultimate of unparliamentary  terms, the damage had already been done – as it was a parliamentary  offence which could be mitigated and not wiped out by a withdrawal.

Compared to the punishment meted out to Po Kuan, Chieng Jen, Tian Chua and Karpal, Tajuddin should be suspended for at least one year if not two years for deliberately using terms which go beyond the pale of parliamentary permissibility and dishonouring forever parliamentary honour and record.

If Tajuddin is allowed to get away with such “ultimate” contempt of Parliament, it would only be a matter of time before four-letter obscenities and expletives are deliberately  used in the House by an MP, who would be quite happy to withdraw it when challenged – preserving the whole disgraceful episode for posterity.

This must not be permitted.

To safeguard the  honour and dignity of Parliament, DAP and Pakatan Rakyat MPs will   push for  the severest action to be taken against Tajuddin for his uncouth and boorish behaviour in using the terms “bastard” and “bloody bastard” in Parliament against another MP in Parliament. In fact, such terms should never be heard again in the Chambers of Malaysian  Parliament.

                This entry was posted on Friday, 7 November 2008, 3:20 pm and is filed under
Parliament
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Entering the Malay mind

by
Azly Rahman

[Lecture notes of a recent speech given to Malaysian students in New York]

In this digital age of postmodernity, hypertextuality, alienation, and of chaos and complexity in which the historical march of capitalism has dictated the way nations think, it is becoming difficult for us to understand how the mind of a people work – unless we build a metaphysical chariot (like the one Krishna prepared for Arjuna in the battlefield of Kurusektra) to journey into it, through the eyes that will also bring us through their soul. At strategic points in that much the soul is corrupted by the material condition created by those who own the means of controlling the march of “progress” and the definition of “history”. At every epoch in the history of nations, there will be those who will be clueless of what they exist for and who they exist for; marginalized by those who have a better command of the art and science of social control and in the art of war.

I realize that the above sentences, for some, are dense and complex and require clarifications through simpler language; but like the monologue of Colonel Kurtz in Francis Ford Coppola’s classic, “Apocalypse Now,” we ought to try to understand the meaning of such a statement. Like James Joyce’s stream of consciousness, sentences may flow gracefully with intensity.

The subject of our inquiry is the Malay mind in this time of chaos and complexity, cynicism and uncertainty. These are the times that try the Malaysian soul and it is through cognitive science and the archeology of the mind, and through deep probing questions alone that one may accomplish the task of entering the mind of the Malay.

How do we do this?

Interpretations of what the Malay is – from the time of Frank Swettenham, Munsyi Abdullah, Tun Sri Lanang, the Sumatran Sufi scholars of ancient times, and others paid or unpaid writers of Malay history or from scribes who do not know the meaning of neutrality – all these are useful to a certain extend for us to understand what exactly the mind of the Malay.

Because we are rooted language and language constructs one Inner sensibility and determines how we construct our social reality and next, because we then use language to define how we create our economic condition, educate our tribe, govern each other, and work and play, we will need to define how the Malay mind works through the use of definitions.

But however we define what a Malay is, we will have linguistic difficulties and we will have problems determining from what and from whose historical perspective we are defining it.

Each definition of what a Malay is is contingent upon premises that are rooted in culture as some point and the Constitution in modern times. The world “Malay” is elusive, as argued by many a Malay and non-Malay cultural analysts trying to justify this or that rights and privileges. At every argument in history, conflict either bloody or bloodless may happen – because we are trapped in the prison-house of language. Only philosophy may free us from this shackle. Only by consistently attacking words and definition and demanding for their clarity may we be liberated. Connotations and denotations arise not only out of history but also out of the class divisions and antagonisms as a result of the evolution of who gets to own the tool of domination called “literacy”.

Malaysia has prepared herself to enter the Age of Deconstructionism in which in every sphere of our lives we are experiencing rupture and waning of affect; an age in which relationships have become meaningless and power is used to set fire to the voices in the wilderness. Consider these in we enter our very own “postmodern condition” wrought but the “cultural logic of our own brand of late capitalism”. We are experiencing rupture in our Judiciary, Executive, and Legislature. We know we want justice for all but we may have none. We know we want power to be executed the good of all, but we may have power concentrated in the few to let evil prevail. We want to be governed by the rule of law but we may end up seeing our lives governed by the iron fist of lawlessness.

How do we enter the Malay mind? What set of questions do we need? What will our metaphysical chariot look like? We need the following questions:

What is a Malay?
 Herein lies the need to consider the idea of “Constitutional versus cultural” aspect of the definition

What shapes the Malay mind?
Herein lies the need to consider the idea “The Historical material condition”

  How has history define Malay culture and consciousness?
 Herein lies the need to consider the idea of “social construction of reality”

How has economic condition create the Malay mind?
 Herein lies the need to consider the idea of “technology and culture”

How has globalization affect the consciousness of the Malays?
Herein lies the need to consider the idea of “border crossings and heteroglossia”

How has modernization and hypermodernity shape the newer character of the Malay mind?
Herein lies the need to consider the idea of “the neo-feudalistic cybernetic capitalistic Malay

Herein lies the beginning of the phase of self-reflection of the Malays as a people who has arrived at a historical juncture in which more and more rhetoric and words left undefined are used to construct the meaning of the word “Malay”.

Entering the postmodern Malay mind is a complex journey worth taking. It will be a journey like the poems of T.S. Elliot or Rilke. But to engineer this Copernican Revolution, we must take the first step.

                This entry was posted on Friday, 7 November 2008, 6:35 am and is filed under
Azly Rahman
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Great news – Court orders RPK’s release

The Shah Alam High Court this morning ordered the release of Malaysia Today editor and blogger Raja Petra Kamaruddin who had been detained under the Internal Security Act since Sept. 12, 2008.

The judge, Justice Syed Ahmad Helmy Syed Ahmad ordered the police to produce RPK, who is detained in Kamunting Detention Centre,  in Shah Alam court by 4 pm today to be formally released.

I would be in Shah Alam Court myself to be a witness to this historic moment if I am not in Penang now and have to be in Alor Star tonight.

The Shah Alam High Court decision sustains hope that basic judicial decency, independence and integrity  have not been completely destroyed despite two decades of judicial darkness.

The Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi should ensure that the Home Minister, Datuk Seri Syed Hamid Albar and the police fully respect the Shah Alam High Court’s decision on RPK’s habeas corpus application  and uphold the rule of law and should slap down any  trickery or stratagem to frustrate the judicial decision, such as a re-arrest.

Welcome back RPK!

                This entry was posted on Friday, 7 November 2008, 10:52 am and is filed under
Raja Petra Kamaruddin
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Tajuddin of Pasir Salak – “tak sekolah ke?”

Before the disgraceful “bastard” episode in Parliament on Wednesday (5th November 2008), the Barisan Nasional (BN) MP for Pasir Salak, Datuk Tajuddin Abdul Rahman was involved in an earlier  parliamentary row when I was speaking on the Prime Minister’s Department on  how the Biro Tata Negara (BTN) was poisoning the minds of the new generation of public servants with racist, communal and unMalaysian propaganda.

This was Tajuddin’s “tak sekolah ke?” expose.

Many MPs, not only from Pakatan Rakyat but also from BN, have been  wondering why Tajuddin had been enjoying immunity not only for showing utter contempt for parliamentary decencies but even for openly challenging the authority of the Chair, as happened on on 29th October 2008 when the Deputy Speaker Datuk Dr. Wan Junaidi Tuanku Jaffar was presiding, and Tajuddin threw the gauntlet:

“Kalau macam ini saya tidak setuju kalau Tuan Yang di-Pertua hendak ambil tindakan kepada saya, ambillah! Betul, ambillah, ambil! Come on. Let’s be fair dengan izin. You dengar ini dengar!”

DAP MP for Bukit Gelugor Karpal Singh was suspended for two days over the “main, main” issue but Tajuddin got away scot-free for unprecedented open defiance to the Chair except to subsequently withdraw the statement.

                This entry was posted on Friday, 7 November 2008, 6:01 pm and is filed under
Education
,
nation building
,
Pakatan Rakyat
,
Parliament
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


DNA Identification Act – Are we ready?

Date : 12 November 2008, Wednesday

Time : 8.00 pm

Venue : KL-SCAH, Jalan Maharajalela, Kuala Lumpur –
MAP

Speakers :

1. Sonya Liew, Bar Council Human Rights Committee

2. Dr Koh Chong Lek,(Head, DNA Centre @ NIE, Singapore)

3. Lim Kit Siang

4. Gobind Singh

Moderator : Anthony Loke Siew Fook

Live Webcast :
http://tv.dapmalaysia.org

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 8 November 2008, 6:08 pm and is filed under
Announcement
,
DAP
,
Human Rights
,
Police
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


MCAC – 3 reasons why no confidence in Abdullah’s last fling with anti-corruption reform

The Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi announced at the National Integrity Convention in Kuching yesterday that the Cabinet had endorsed the formation of the Malaysian Commission on Anti-Corruption (MCAC) and that the MCAC Bill will be passed at the current meeting of Parliament to replace the Anti-Corruption Act 1997.

He said the MCAC is modeled after Hong Kong’s Independent Commission on Anti-Corruption and New South Wales’ Independent Commission Against Corruption, “which are  among the best anti-corruption agencies in the world”.

I have no confidence that Abdullah has the political will to carry out meaningful anti-corruption reforms, and that the MCAC will not end up as another toothless tiger for anti-corruption like the Human Rights Commission (Suhakam) with its statutory duty to promote and protect human rights!

My lack of confidence that Abdullah is capable of one final fling with a meaningful institutional reform before he ends his hapless five-year tenure as the fifth Prime Minister of Malaysia is supported by at least three reasons:

1. The setting for Abdullah’s “important” announcement yesterday – the National Integrity Convention in Kuching.  On stage applauding Abdullah’s announcement to fight corruption were leaders responsible  for Malaysia’s relentless plunge, year after year, in international rankings on anti-corruption – whether Transparency International Corruption Perception Index from No. 37 in 2003 to No. 47 in 2008 or the Hong Kong-based Political and Economic Risk Consultancy (PERC) annual corruption ranking, with Malaysia in 2008 placed No. 6 in Asia and getting the worst score of 6.37 (in a grading system with zero as the best possible score and 10 as the worst) since 1996.  Malaysia was ranked No. 4 in Asia with a score of 5 in 1996!

2. Abdullah’s stance of fight against corruption – which has been all talk but no walk – is not echoed or supported by other Barisan Nasional leaders or  Cabinet Ministers.  I spoke on the corruption issue in the 2009 budget committee debate on the Prime Minister’s Department in Parliament on Wednesday, but the Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz studiously avoided answering issues I raised about corruption in his one-hour reply on Thursday. This meant two things: firstly, lack of real political interest, will  or commitment to fight corruption and secondly, defensive mentality on the issue, particularly with the serious problem of corruption of money politics in the ongoing Umno party elections.

3. Worst case of corruption and money politics in UMNO elections.  Nobody dared to respond to my challenge in Parliament on Wednesday to stand up and deny my  charge that the current  Umno party  elections is shaping up to be  the worst case of corruption and money politics in the nation’s history.

I am not the only making this charge as top Umno leaders have publicly confessed to this, like  Tengku Ahmad Rithaudeen, Umno disciplinary board charman, who has virtually thrown up his hands in despair, declaring: “It seems to be getting worse with every party election…We are trying our best, but it seems we can’t deal with it completely. It is now rooted to the core.”  And Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah’s shocking “No money, no talk” expose, why he could not get even a second nomination to contest for Umno Presidency because he refused to respond to overtures and bribe delegates in return for their votes!

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 8 November 2008, 12:58 pm and is filed under
Abdullah Ahmad Badawi
,
Corruption
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.