What the changes in the PPPA should mean to journalists

By
Edwin Yapp
 | September 23, 2011

The Malaysian Insider

SEPT 23 — Now that quite a few pundits have weighed in on the prime minister’s Malaysia Day eve announcement, I’d like to put in my two-sen’s worth. I shall leave the broader implications of the security laws aside and being a journalist, I shall just concentrate on one of the announcements made — that of doing away with the annual renewal of licences for media organisations as currently mandated by the Printing Presses and Publications Act 1984 (PPPA).

What this means in practice is that if indeed this amendment gets passed in Parliament, existing print media organisations won’t need to renew their printing and publication permits on a yearly basis.

Like the other announcements that touched on security laws, there was a sense of jubilation when the PM first announced that media organisations need no longer renew their yearly licences.

But upon thinking further over this issue, two questions come to mind: Is the doing away with the licensing laws that good of a thing in practice and what does it mean for these media organisations — especially the mainstream print media (MSM) — in terms of how they report and write their stories?

There are many facets to the PPPA, and the requirement for print media organisations to obtain annual publishing permits is only one of them. While this is a step in the right direction, it however does not mean that media organisations are completely free from the clutches of government intervention as the PM did say that their licences could still be cancelled if regulations were flouted.

Which leads to the second question: Will the reporting by the MSM be any different from what it is today just because they no longer need to renew their permits annually?

It’s hard to say given that the MSM need to adapt their respective editorial policies in reaction to the PM’s announcement and while it’s tempting to just dismiss today’s MSM as government propaganda tools, we need to be fair and give them the time to make these adjustments.

In theory, the MSM should be free to write without fear or favour as the threat of not being able to print and publish has ostensibly been taken away. But in practice, my fear is that the MSM won’t immediately change much in regard to their editorial policies as they will still be walking on “egg shells” when reporting the news as they see it or making comments on government policies given that their permits could still be in jeopardy, should they “flout the regulations.”

It’s important to note that the government has not clearly defined what kind of regulations, if flouted, would result in MSM licences being revoked.

And the absence of such details does leave the issue still open for debate as to how the administration could still intervene in media organisations’ operations. Worst still, this ambiguity may allow wiggle room for the government to once again threaten to shut down MSM for not writing along government lines.

Another important point not to forget is that many of today’s MSM owners are political parties, which means that much of what is reported can still be “controlled” by the big boys above, even if they aren’t exactly flouting any regulations.

But let us just assume for discussion that the MSM will be given tacit approvals by their owners to push the journalism envelope more in this country, despite the threat facing them for flouting regulations, the question then would be: are the journalists themselves ready and up to the challenge of doing so?

Will they be willing to report the news as is, go after stories that expose wrongdoers with fervour, enforce checks and balances in the government system through the stories they write, or speak their minds in opinion pieces on issues that really matter to the country, even if it speaks against the government of the day?

Could it be that journalists in this country may not be able to do all that because they have been so ingrained with the sense that they can’t or haven’t been able to make any difference in a long while due to the years of government intervention, that they have effectively given up their roles and right as the fourth estate of the nation?

For the sake of the country, I hope this isn’t true. My hope is that there will still be many journalists who are still prepared to push the boundaries of good journalism.

In regard to this, it’s good to know that the online media has stepped up to fill some of the void left behind by the MSM. As noted in a recent New York Times article, where once Malaysians eager for independent news coverage might have looked to foreign newspapers, now they could simply log on to homegrown sites.

As some reforms are being made with regard to the press and as we pass another Malaysia Day, my hope is that journalists in Malaysia will do (and continue doing) their part according to their conscience and make journalism the centre cog in Malaysia’s wheel of change to becoming a freer democracy.

____

An engineer by training, Edwin has since turned his back on the engineering world in favour of words in the literary world. A freelance journalist & an editorial consultant writing on his own terms now, Edwin hopes his observations will stir up deeper discussions and debates within Malaysia. You can find Edwin occasionally at twitter.com/yedwin01.

                This entry was posted on Friday, 23 September 2011, 11:10 am and is filed under
Media
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Electoral reform for Sarawak

by Duwen Babat

My focus on electoral reform with reference to Sarawak are in four areas that are as follow.

1. Development during campaigning period – I would suggest that all development must be stopped when the DUN/Parliament is dissolved. The caretaker government must not be allowed to used development during the campaigning period to secure vote. Further, such practice could lead to abuse or mismanagement of public fund that would be very unfair to the new government especially if there is a change in government. Also, the current government has been given ample time (around 5 years) to implement development and there is no necessity for last minute implementation.

2. Enact laws to strictly prohibit vote buying either directly or indirectly by the candidates or his/her agent or someone else. If proven guilty, the candidate is deemed to be disqualified, and entitled the other candidate with the second highest votes as winner without re-election.

3. Permit the Sarawakians who reside in Malaya to vote in Malaya. The current technology and infrastructure would facilitate this process without much a problem.

4. Introduce laws to prohibit the Pengulu and Tuai Rumah to be a political agent of any party. They are being paid by the government and as such should be treated like any government servants whereby they should abstain from being involved in politic.

If we could do the above, we would be able to see a more fair election in the Dayak areas in the future.

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 24 September 2011, 11:38 pm and is filed under
Elections
,
Sarawak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


What has happened to the rule of law?

— P. Ramakrishnan

The Malaysian Insider

Sep 24, 2011

SEPT 24 — We must not forget the larger issues involved in the case simply because the government had decided to get out of a messy situation for its own good.

The Barisan Nasional government created this untenable position that cannot be sustained by logic and facts. As a cover-up for its high-handedness, it is posturing itself as a generous institution that is capable of being considerate. The fact is it is trying to extricate itself from this unjustified and cruel action against these helpless people who only meant well.

It is unthinkable that people will be deluded by this gesture of the police. Malaysians are no more gullible or naïve to be easily fooled by such tokenism. The reprehensible conduct of the police cannot be condoned.

These 30 PSM members are innocent and not guilty of any offence by any stretch of the imagination under any Malaysian law. That was the reason why the police tried desperately to incriminate them by all sorts of ridiculous accusations:

• They were accused of carrying weapons in their buses on June 25, 2011.

• They were accused of possessing subversive material.

• They were accused of attempting to wage war against the Yang di-Pertuan Agong.

• They were accused of being a national threat.

The police invoked Section 122 of the Penal Code, Section 48 and Section 43 of the Societies Act, Section 29 (1) of the Internal Security Act and the Emergency Ordinance to build up a case that these are indeed dangerous criminals.

The police threw everything available at them in an attempt to crush them and frighten other Malaysians in an attempt to prevent them from joining the Bersih 2.0 Walk for Democracy.

They were incarcerated unjustly under intolerable conditions. On July 4 — after nine days of imprisonment — 24 of them were charged in court while the rest of the six were charged in court on August 3 after having been held for 28 days in solitary confinement.

The court imposed bail of RM8,000 each, which meant they had to scramble desperately to raise RM240,000 to seek their freedom — almost a quarter of a million ringgit! How could these poor people raise such a huge sum to post bail?

All this, however, failed to break the spirit of these 30 stalwarts; it failed to discourage outraged Malaysians from marching for democracy on July 9, 2011. If anything it only spurred Malaysians to discard their fear and stand up for their rights.

But the worrying thing about the whole episode involving these 30 Malaysians is the conduct of the police force. We are perturbed that the police can detain anyone under baseless charges with impunity. It looks that they can accuse anyone for whatever reason without a shred of evidence to back up their claim and detain them.

How could they accuse them of waging a war against the Agong, which is a serious criminal offence — Section 122 allows for 20 years or even life imprisonment — without an iota of incriminating evidence. This is clearly an abuse of their authority.

How could they accuse them of carrying weapons in their bus when no weapon was found in the bus?

How could they accuse them of possessing subversive material when this was not established?

How could they accuse them of being a national threat without proving the existence of such a threat?

Who cooked up these stories? Surely someone must be answerable. Who will be held accountable for this sordid affair? Shouldn’t the Inspector-General of Police who is the head of the police force be held accountable for this? Shouldn’t the Minister of Home Affairs be taken to task for this break-down in the rule of law?

Why didn’t the judge who is responsible for granting the remand order demand proof before granting such an order? Aren’t the fundamental rights and freedoms of a person his concern? Isn’t he the person who ensures that justice must be upheld and every person under the law is entitled to the protection of the law? Why did he fail miserably in his duty to uphold the constitution?

The rule of law should not become a myth in our country. The police must not be a law unto themselves. The rule of law must prevail at all times.

To prevent similar incidences from occurring in future we need to go deep into this episode and ferret out those who were callous in accusing innocent Malaysians without just cause. We need a Royal Commission of Inquiry to examine how and why the detention of the 30 PSM members took place.

We need to know what gives the police the authority to behave in the manner they have without being accountable for their action. We need to establish the fact that there is such a thing as Rule of Law in this country. — aliran.com

* P. Ramakrishnan is president of Aliran

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 25 September 2011, 12:12 am and is filed under
Law & Order
,
Police
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


From Merdeka to Malaysia

KJ John

Malaysiakini

Sep 20, 11

When Malaya gained Independence, I was only seven years old and in Standard One. It was a repeat year for me, as my Dad had emplaced me in the primary one class with my older brother in 1956, but I could not be technically promoted.

I was then moved to Ibrahim Primary School where my Dad symbolically gave the Independence Day speech on behalf of the Sultan of Kedah, although I missed hearing it as I was only in primary one. That was Merdeka and Malaya.

The 48th Malaysia Day was observed last Friday and, this year, we move toward a new era of democratisation, if we can take the prime minister seriously.

We can become 1Bangsa Malaysia or 1United Malaysia if he is serious. We can move slowly but surely towards democratic maturity, after half a century of stunted growth because of the ‘Melayu-first’ agenda that has been abused.

Personally I do not care too much whether Mat Indera is a hero or a coward. But he stood for something, and that is why we can debate or argue about him.

Mat Indera’s unknown neighbour is an individual in our history too, but he stood for nothing much and therefore there is no ‘history’ about him. Can we protest such non-history as ‘unfairness’ too? Modern freedom and liberty to express views and opinions must have some limits. Let us grow up!

Last year, the PM announced that Malaysia Day would be a public holiday; this year he has told us why. He has therefore given all Malaysians a wedding gift for the marriage of our three states to make the nation we call Malaysia.

But, sometimes I wonder, as my friend Anis asks: “Has this marriage ever been consummated?” Or are we merely sleeping, each in our own bed, in this bedroom?

Allow me to congratulate the PM and the cabinet and all their public service colleagues for their acquiescence to the changes announced. It could not have happened without their support and concurrence.

There is clear strategic intent. The PM made the ISA intent clear on April 3, 2009. Then he made Malaysia Day a national holiday.

On Sept 15, he declared that the ISA will be repealed. Well done Mr Prime Minister, I salute your courage! I still doubt and am sceptical if Umno will allow you to do this, but let us wait and see.

Positive implications

‘We R Malaysians’ was the theme song many of us sang on Malaysia Day in UCSI on Sept 16 last year.

What could be the positive implications of a shift from the ‘Merdeka Day mindset’ to ‘Malaysia Day celebrations’? What are the implications of real celebrations of this ‘arranged marriage’? Allow me some reflections:

•All three groups of Malaysians (Malayans, Sabahans, and Sarawakians) can become genuinely united about the meaning of Malaysia Day as our day of formation or wedding day.

•Malaysians can now become aware that the different Independence days that we each received from the British colonial government. It was not something we had to fight for’. In traditional British diplomacy and courtesy (vis-a-vis other colonial powers), following World War II, all Commonwealth colonies were given independence.

•There would be no Malaysia if there were not the independence of Malaya, Sabah and Sarawak. We had to be ‘independent adults’ capable of making our choices before the option of marriage was given. The formation of Malaysia should therefore never be viewed as a corporate takeover exercise.

•Malaysia has a greater potential to grow and create new value to become a developed country by 2020 if we can allow greater pride and ownership to all Malaysians about our marriage and formation.

•The PM should ask the people directly to give him a mandate for this agenda of development.

•This offer of a real and more meaningful democracy will give the next election much greater meaning and significance to the people of Malaysia. The offer can transcend political parties.

•All Malaysians, everywhere in the world, will now want to vote in the next general election because they too have much at stake. Malaysian-ness can become a birthright they may not want to give up just yet.

Therefore, my hope and prayer is the consequential emergence of a true-blue two-party state and the demise of the fear syndrome which has beset Malaysians up till today.

‘We are free, we are free! At last, we are free!’ is the song Martin Luther King Jr spoke within his ‘I have a dream’ speech. It can become our song too, Even the mainstream newspapers may now find their free and democratic voice. They too can learn to speak up and speak out for the public interest without self-censorship.

If abolition of the ISA can spur and usher in a newer democracy, wherein we all become primary shareholders and stakeholders of a real Malaysia Day, then I believe Malaysia can be on a roll towards Vision 2020; to become a real and mature democracy in our own mould.

We can and should take the PM seriously, even if with a healthy dose of scepticism! Please believe that he too, like all other PMs, can usher in some real and meaningful change. Just remember that the greater fear has now shifted to those who are non-democrats.

But, we the people still have a say; and we can define the direction in which we want to go. Democracy can be a rule of the majority but with greatest care for the minority in our midst. Yes, we can Malaysia!

Therefore, let us focus our eyes on the next general election and hold the leadership of the BN and government responsible for delivering our expectations on all issues that have become the movement for change in Malaysia.

For many of us, that must include political will to remove corruption far away from all forms of decision making, as this is the most evil root of destruction and performance in this nation.

May God bless Malaysia!

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 25 September 2011, 7:28 pm and is filed under
Najib Razak
,
nation building
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


People power for a better media

— Paul Victor

The Malaysian Insider

Sep 25, 2011

SEPT 25 — People power knocked some sense into the mind of Prime Minister Najib Razak, forcing him to set up an election reform panel and announce the abolishment of the ISA and other draconian laws.

There is absolutely no way Najib would have considered change if the people behind Bersih had not stuck to their principles and marched on July 9. A regime based on dictatorial principles and feasting on patronage has little time for reform and change unless forced to do so.

It is the same with the mainstream media, and I single out Utusan Malaysia and The Star for dishonourable mention. They will not be fair-minded or truthful or serve the public interest unless forced to do so.

And this is where People Power 2.0 comes in. Think about the many times you have been disgusted with the lies spun by Utusan Malaysia from their now discredited Christian plot to take over Malaysia to their serial lies about the Opposition. Now they are spinning some tale about Lim Guan Eng allegedly making disparaging remarks about Johor. Their own game plan is to try and force the end of the DAP-Pas nexus.

But the Umno mouthpiece is not the only culprit. What about The Star, New Straits Times and other mainstream media? Their writers and columnists do not serve the people who put money in their pockets: the readers.

I read on Malaysia Today that one of The Star’s columnists did an undisguised hatchet job on Mohamed Sabu recently and was left wondering why we put up with this evil stuff anymore.

The paper serves the interests of its owner, the MCA.

After all, People Power has started to hold Najib to a higher responsibility. Why shouldn’t we pressure the mainstream media to do a decent and honest job?

If many of us stop buying these papers, their sales will drop and they will be forced to mend their ways. The gathering of more than 50,000 Malaysians brought Najib down a few notches; can you imagine the fear we can strike into the heart of newspapers if 50,000 people cancel their subscriptions?

A free and honest press is needed in Malaysia. It is our duty to make sure it happens.

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 25 September 2011, 7:13 pm and is filed under
Media
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Why we need English-medium national-type schools

— Lan Boon Leong

The Malaysian Insider

Sep 25, 2011

SEPT 25 — It was reported in the press last month that the Education Ministry is sticking by its decision to abolish the PPSMI policy of teaching and learning Science and Mathematics in English.

The abolishment of the policy means that the two subjects will be taught solely in Bahasa Malaysia in the national schools, and solely in Mandarin or Tamil in the national-type schools.

Dr Mohd Puad Zarkashi, the Deputy Education Minister, said he and many other academics believe the two subjects need to be taught in the students’ mother tongues.

UNESCO, in fact, advocates mother-tongue education for all subjects because children learn better in their mother tongue. However, mother-tongue education, although desirable, will make the national and national-type schools even more ethnically polarised.

Moreover, there are many Malaysian children of diverse ethnic background — Malays included — whose mother tongue or first language is English. But there are presently no English-medium national-type schools to accommodate them. Aren’t these students disadvantaged compared to their peers whose mother tongue is Bahasa Malaysia or Mandarin or Tamil?

The solution to these two problems — ethnic segregation and linguistic inequity — is obvious: the government needs to add English-medium national-type schools to our national school system.

These schools will not be attended solely by English-speaking Malaysian children. Many parents of children whose mother tongue is not English would also send their children to such schools because they understand the importance of English for their children’s future.

English-medium national-type schools will therefore have a much better ethnic mix of students than the Mandarin or Tamil counterparts and the national schools, and thus able to foster ethnic harmony unlike our present schools.

Furthermore, children whose mother tongue is not English who attend these schools should be more proficient in English. These benefits of English-medium national-type schools, which are vital to our country’s future, are crystal clear. So what is stopping the government from establishing such schools? It is not difficult to do so — we could start simply by converting some national schools to English-medium ones.

If you are a Malaysian parent who is in favor of the establishment of English-medium national-type schools, please vote for them at www.surveymonkey.com/s/NKRJVDH and join PENS (Parents for English-medium National-type Schools) at www.facebook.com/#!/groups/PENSmember/ to help recruit more members for the campaign.

Vote and campaign for your children’s future!

* Lan Boon Leong is an Associate Professor at Monash University Sunway Campus.

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 25 September 2011, 7:19 pm and is filed under
Education
,
English
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Malaysia in the Era of Globalization #83

By
M. Bakri Musa

Chapter 10: Freedom, Justice, and the Law

No person is perfect enough to be entrusted with the liberty and dignity of others.

—Mahmoud Mohamed Taha (1909-1985)

Sudanese Reformist, executed by his country’s military rulers.

I was visiting Malaysia after being away for many years. It was right after the race riot of 1969. The streets were still deserted, and I was driving with my father when we came upon a stop sign at an intersection. I duly stopped, looked around, and finding no oncoming traffic, proceeded.

            My father asked why I stopped, and I responded that there was a stop sign. Startled by the unexpected question, I looked back to find him in a pensive mood, his face tilted, and his eyes looking far into the distance. After a long pause, he matter-of-factly murmured, “That is why the West is so advanced. People there obey the law even when no one is watching!”

            Intuitively he had concluded that since my stopping at the stop sign was so natural, it must have been conditioned by my years of living abroad. He remembered only too well my driving habits at home a decade earlier!

            While I was studying abroad, my father always encouraged me to venture beyond the campus and be involved in and observant of the community at large. Canada, he wisely observed, must be very advanced to be able to offer scholarships to foreigners, and he advised me to use the opportunity to learn everything about the country, and not just come home with a degree. Thus my summers were spent working at such places as a dairy farm and a summer resort, working and interacting with ordinary Canadians. I would write home frequently about my observations.

            I described how efficient the modern dairy farms were, and of cows with humongous udders pouring out literally gallons of milk daily. Once I related how the farmer had unhesitatingly discarded a bucket of fresh milk, as he did not know whether it had been contaminated. That potentially spoilt milk, he noted, would be mixed with others, and thousands of customers would be sick. Besides, the reputation of his outfit could not be compromised or ruined for the sake of a few dollars worth of milk.

            On another occasion, after a bus trip, I wrote of my wonderment at Canadian bus drivers; how professional and proud they were about their jobs. Indeed they were dressed like pilots, with their crisp light blue long-sleeved shirts neatly tucked inside their dark blue pants, complete with a bow tie and a captain’s cap. That bus driver had taken us through the neighborhood where he lived and proudly showed us, the tourists, his home. It was a neat, modest track bungalow in a clean pleasant suburb. I could not help but compare him with his Malaysian counterparts who for the most part had their shirts flying loosely untucked, with untied shoes or slippers, and generally looking disheveled.

            Through such regular commentaries my father knew firsthand about life in Canada. He had the right impression that the West was indeed advanced and wondered why or how it got that way while countries like Malaysia were still struggling.

            My father was on to something profound when he observed that obeying the law when no one is watching is a key ingredient to the West’s success. To many observers, a respect for the rule of law is a prerequisite for progress. A modern society is ruled by law, and not by men. Progress cannot take place when there is callous disregard for the law.

            This respect for the law must be shown not only by ordinary citizens but also more importantly, the leaders. For when leaders abuse their privileges and flout the law, then there is little hope for the country. This abuse can come in many forms, from outright disregard of the law to more subtle forms as in selective prosecution and uneven applications of the law. When leaders and the elite do not respect the law, it sends a clear message to the masses to do likewise.

            Similarly all laws must be respected, even the seemingly minor ones. The contemporary American political scientist James Q. Wilson first made the astute observation that when we ignore violations of minor laws, this would later encourage the breach of more serious ones. Law enforcement agencies are now familiar with the “broken window syndrome,” that is, when we ignore minor vandalisms like broken windows, we encourage others to commit even greater crimes, until the whole building is completely wrecked or burnt down by arson. New York police successfully reduced the rate of major crimes by first cracking down on such seemingly innocuous ones as loitering, jay walking, and littering. When ordinary citizens see that such minor laws are being strictly enforced, they rightly assume that other more serious infractions would also be vigorously pursued.

            Going back to my father, I should have given him an update on my driving habits now that I have lived in California for a while. Californians are among the worst drivers. They consider a stop sign only a suggestion; and a yellow traffic light a signal to step on the gas!

            Apart from respect for the law, another feature of the West is the premium it places on individual and personal liberty. Americans do not appreciate this freedom as it is taken for granted. They are sensitized only when that freedom is threatened or breached. Notice the current uproar over the president’s proposal to detain potential terrorists without due process in response to the 9/11 tragedies. Americans become very much aware of their cherished freedom when they are abroad.

            Once on a flight to Malaysia I came upon an article in a regional publication that was supportive of Malaysia but contained some mild but valid criticisms of the leadership. I related that article to my Malaysian friend, and he too was interested to read it. I rushed to the nearest bookstore to get a copy of the magazine. (Having been away from Malaysia for a long time I have not developed the habit of swiping the airline’s copy!) Imagine my horror when I could not find the article; the pages had been neatly excised! Some bureaucrats in the censors’ office had the audacity to decide what I can and cannot read. How insulting! I felt violated.

            This blatant disregard for the rights and dignity of the individual is pervasive in the Third World. These poor societies fail to appreciate that in the final analysis it is individuals who effect changes, and thus progress. Western societies are more progressive because they place a premium on the individual. Eastern societies generally submerge the individual to the needs of the larger society. They emphasize society’s goals and stability over that of the individual, as encapsulated by the Japanese saying: the nail that sticks out gets hammered. At least that is the perceived wisdom.

            I challenge that. Consider what the Sudanese reformist Ustaz Mahmoud Taha wrote in 1963, “Every individual is, authentically, an end in himself. He is not means to any other end. He – even if he is an imbecile – is a “God” in the making and must be given the full opportunity to develop as such. Liberty is the prerequisite need. Man must be free from all dehumanizing influences – poverty, ignorance, and fear.”

            Fifteen years earlier, the United Nations, using far less elegant prose, said essentially the same thing in its Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In its preamble the document reaffirms the inherent dignity and the equal and inalienable rights of all humans as the foundation of freedom, justice, and peace. The document’s first article could easily have been taken from the Koran when it declares that all human beings are born free, with equal dignity and rights, and are endowed with reason and conscience.

            Many outside the West would challenge the universality of this UN Declaration, especially its statement reaffirming the primacy of the individual. But as the Islamic scholar the late Fazlur Rahman wrote, “Whether ultimately it is the individual that is significant and society merely the necessary instrument for his creation or vice versa is academic, for individual and society appear to be correlates. There is no such thing as a societiless individual.”

Next:   Society and Individuals

                This entry was posted on Monday, 26 September 2011, 11:28 am and is filed under
Bakri Musa
,
globalisation
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Mat Zain: Charge Gani Patail, not change A-G’s powers

By
Shazwan Mustafa Kamal
 | September 26, 2011

The Malaysian Insider

KUALA LUMPUR, Sept 26 — Taking away the Attorney-General’s power to prosecute will not stop abuses of power, a former senior police officer said today.

Former Kuala Lumpur CID chief Datuk Mat Zain Ibrahim said that there was nothing wrong with the functions of the A-G as defined by the Federal Constitution, and charged that it was Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail (picture) who had abused his powers as the current A-G “several times over.”

“We should not blame the Constitution. It’s the honesty of the person holding the post that matters.

“Even if we were to separate the functions of the A-G and the PP, there are no guarantees that either one or both of them will not abuse their powers,” Mat Zain wrote in an open letter to The Malaysian Insider.

Mat Zain was referring to Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz’s recent remarks supporting calls to separate the functions of the A-G.

In Malaysia, the A-G is the principal legal adviser to the government and also serves as the country’s highest-ranking public prosecutor.

The former policeman continued his attacks against Abdul Gani, accusing him of fabricating evidence in an investigation back in 1998.

It is believed he was referring to Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim’s controversial “black eye” incident.

The deputy prime minister-turned-opposition leader is back in the dock on a similar charge of sodomising a former male aide.

Mat Zain reiterated that the criminal allegations against Abdul Gani were made publicly in two previous parliamentary sessions — the first in March 2009 and the other just last December.

Mat Zain said that an independent three-man panel had also investigated the allegations against the A-G and that one of the panellists had concluded the A-G was involved in evidence tampering, which was stated in the form of three expert reports.

“The Cabinet has to explain to the public how they could clear Gani Patail from any wrongdoing when the evidence presented to them is crystal clear. The A-G must be made to account for the three expert reports in question.

“If it is the A-G himself who has committed a crime, so be it. He has to face the music like everybody else,” the former top cop added.

                This entry was posted on Monday, 26 September 2011, 5:21 pm and is filed under
Court
,
Crime
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Beware of false prophets

—
Jacob Sinnathamby

The Malaysian Insider

SEPT 27 — Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak certainly talks a good game. It is election season and he needs to win big so everything goes.

Today he talks about how Bumiputera quotas need to go, eventually. No one knows when this eventually will be because as we all know the Umno-hijacked New Economic Policy was extended under pressure from the Umno beneficiaries.

Najib is not the first Umno president to talk about removing quotas or taking away the crutches from Bumiputeras.

Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad and Tun Abdullah Badawi both mentioned this when they wanted to show Malaysians that they were enlightened leaders and when they were fishing for support from non-Malays before elections.

Needless to say all their “good intentions” never materialised. Once they got the votes, they promptly forgot about taking away the quotas and instead fortified the distortions in the system.

Abdullah talked about open tenders but openly allowed Umno men and cronies to carry on negotiating inflated contracts. It is the same with Najib.

There is no such thing as open tenders today. In fact, it business as usual for well-connected businessmen and Umno warlords.

Anyone who reads news portals will know that the beneficiaries of many of the contracts are well-connected to Umno ministers or other leaders.

Heck, wasn’t it only weeks ago that Najib succumbed to Perkasa and gave a chunk of MRT contracts to Malay businessmen.

The problem in our country is that we have too many false prophets. They always come bearing gifts during the election season.

And you know what they say about false prophets and gifts.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 27 September 2011, 11:37 pm and is filed under
Abdullah Ahmad Badawi
,
Elections
,
Mahathir
,
Najib Razak
,
NEP
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


DAP accuses The Star of misreporting hudud quit vow

By Shannon Teoh

The Malaysian Insider

Sep 27, 2011

KUALA LUMPUR, Sept 27 — The DAP accused The Star today of falsely reporting that Lim Guan Eng had threatened to pull the party out of Pakatan Rakyat (PR) if hudud became part of the pact’s joint policy.

Zairil Khir Johari, Lim’s political secretary, wrote in an open letter to the English daily that the party secretary-general had merely promised that “the entire central executive committee (CEC) would resign to take full responsibility if hudud” became PR policy.

“An initially correct report had come to be replaced by one that was imaginatively concocted,” Zairil (picture) wrote.

He said that a correct version of the article was uploaded on thestar.com.my on September 25 in which the reporter quoted Lim as saying that the party’s CEC would resign if anyone could prove that hudud law was in the Common Policy Framework (CPF) or Buku Jingga.

But a second version was uploaded the next day which changed the headline from “Guan Eng: DAP top leadership will quit if hudud law included in Pakatan policy” to “DAP leaders threaten to quit Pakatan council”.

Zairil said the second article “implied wrongly and falsely that Lim had threatened the resignation of the party’s top leadership” from PR.

PR issued a gag order yesterday on all PR parties, barring their members from speaking on the hudud issue until the pact’s leadership meets tomorrow.

The hudud issue reared its head again recently, reigniting the longstanding squabble among PR parties over whether the Islamic law, which prescribes stoning, whipping and amputation as punishment for criminal offences, should be implemented.

Major newspapers front-paged yesterday the declaration by Lim that his entire DAP central leadership would quit if the controversial law was made a part of PR’s Buku Jingga agenda.

Former Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad, who opposed hudud when Kelantan passed the law in 1993, recently reignited the issue when he dared Datuk Nik Aziz Nik Mat, the state’s mentri besar, to implement hudud now that he was no longer in power.

The PAS spiritual leader then called on Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak to propose amendments to the federal constitution to allow the Islamic law.

Opposition Leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim also backed PAS’s stand on introducing hudud in Kelantan but the DAP has insisted that it is not part of their common policy, leading to PR’s unity being questioned.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 27 September 2011, 12:02 pm and is filed under
DAP
,
Islamic state
,
Lim Guan Eng
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Hudud Laws, between the literal and the implicit

—
Dr Ahmad Farouk Musa

The Malaysian Insider

Sep 27, 2011

SEPT 27 — The hudud controversy has now returned to the eyes of the media after it was discussed at the National Syariah Seminar sponsored by the Department of Islamic Affairs of Kelantan. PAS indeed had taken a step forward in their comprehensive proposals for a welfare state but their preoccupation with the hudud issue clearly shows that they are still stuck in the framework of antiquarian politics.

For this evidently shows that the Hudud laws are still a crucial part of their raison d’etre. It doesn’t look likely that this will change, since evoking the hudud is a convenient way to claim that they are the real fighters for Islam in Malaysia, as opposed to Umno. It also somehow implies that the Islamic credentials of any party somehow hinges on their willingness to apply hudud laws.

Much worse, once the hudud issue is sensationalized it makes it difficult for there to be critical discourse: what is overstated, in the loudest tone, is to be regarded as truth. The priority is to scramble for as much influence in the debate as possible to show that one side is more Islamic than the other. Thus it is not surprising that PAS is no longer the only party supporting the Hudud laws.

A moratorium on the hudud

“The Muslim world should hold a moratorium to all implementations of the Islamic penal code, stoning and executions.” This was the call of Prof Tariq Ramadan in 2005 which evoked and invited a variety of responses. That call indirectly addressed, and implicated, all religiously justified laws.  We should consider his arguments, for they are important to help us understand the questions at stake in the hudud laws, and other forms of punishment that have fallen under the Islamic penal code, as well as the necessary steps that need to be taken to move forward.

As Muslims confront new realities, they are compelled to fundamentally question how they should implement the laws of the penal code.

The hudud controversy reflect the struggle of Muslims to seek answers on the best ways to hold on to the message of Islam in the contemporary world and the reality that the extent to which a society should be defined as Islamic is not to be determined or limited to questions about the personal daily lives of Muslims.

Anxieties towards hudud

The anxieties and heated enthusiasms about the hudud laws, according to Prof Tariq Ramadan is caused by the conviction that implementing those laws will confirm the Islamic character of a society.  In analysing this phenomenon two reasons are usually given:

First, the implementation of hudud laws evidently demonstrates the legality and social relevance of Islam. The harshness of those laws supposedly reveals loyalty to the commands of the Qur’an that should be obeyed unconditionally.

Secondly, the opposition to hudud laws from the West and non-Muslims paradoxically encourages the sense that opposing the West should be a part of our steadfastness in faith. The opposition from the West is somehow taken as sufficient proof that in order for a society to be Islamic, hudud laws are the answer.

This belief that is hinged on the apparent, without at all considering the objective beyond the literal word of the law, and additionally a belief based on a binary (to be anti-Western is to be more Islamic) is dangerous. The quality of faith is determined by the letter of the law, not what is taught, protected and ensured by justice.

A diversity of views

There are so many streams of thoughts and opinions in the Islamic world, thus disagreements cannot be avoided, what more in an issue as divisive as the hudud laws. There is a minority among Muslims who demand for the hudud to be enforced as soon as possible. This makes the issue a precondition for a society to be regarded as Islamic.

There are others who view that hudud laws are legitimate and can be validated by the Qur’an and Sunnah, but it cannot be implemented in policy until that society is considered “just” and is thus in an ideal state to accept those laws. Thus, priority must be given to remedying social issues first, that is, to eradicate poverty, to provide free education and so forth. There is also the view, held by a minority of Muslims, that the laws of hudud are no longer relevant and suitable for the contemporary Islamic world.

All Ulamas, be it currently or in the past, from all streams of thought, agree that the laws that make Islam’s penal code and the hudud are indicated in Islam’s canon of texts. But, the difference between them is in how those texts are to be interpreted, the conditions that are required for the implementation of those laws, and how relevant they are for the current situation.

The majority of Ulamas, be it now or in the past view those laws as a whole as Islamic, but nonetheless agree that the social conditions that would enable those laws to be implemented are practically impossible to reconstruct. Thus, those laws are basically inapplicable. Thus, at best, hudud is to be seen as a preventive mechanism. The purpose is so that it can evoke the awareness of those with iman of the severity of the crimes that would deserve the penalties as severe as those demanded by the hudud laws.

Questions that need to be answered

Prof Tariq Ramadan stresses that there are several key questions that need to be asked to official religious institutions all over the world regarding the hudud, regardless of whichever tradition, be it Sunni or Shiite, regardless of whichever Mazhab (denomination), be it Hanafi, Maliki, Syafi’I, Ja’fari or others. It should also not be limited to any schools of thought, be it literalist, salafist, reformist and so on. This should be prioritized before we can regard the discussion of hudud as final.

What are the texts, including their level of authenticity that should be a reference for the hudud laws? Where is the line of distinction among interpretations that already exist, and what is the difference between what happened in the Islam’s long history of legal theory and Islam in the contemporary world?

Are the conditions for each ruling to be set according to the sources alone, the consensus of the ulama’, or the individual will of certain ulama’s in the history of Fiqh? What is the difference in each approach? What are the mitigating circumstances among the countless religious authorities throughout history and in the many mazhabs?

The socio-political contexts, or al-waqi’, should always be given attention of Ulamas as one of the precondition for each implementation of the hudud. As a result, the participation of key intellectuals in the social sciences is required in our discussions of this issue. Thus, in today’s context, is the implementation of hudud still possible? What are the conditions that are required, in terms of transparency and accountability in the political system, in terms of freedom of speech, equality under the law, public education, the eradication of poverty and social justice? Which are the contentious point of disagreements, and why?

These questions are meant to further clarify the issue through giving attention to the range of interpretive issues towards the texts, and to consider the determining factors in contemporary conditions and their social evolution. This process of contemplation must begin and proceed from an understanding of both text and context while holding steadfast to the objective and message of Islam.

This requires the most complete initiative, time and the preparation of space to dialogue and debate. It is not enough to simply discuss it at a national level, but also internationally, among Ulamas, intellectuals and among Muslim communities themselves. This issue is not only based on the relationship between text and interpreters but also their combined relationship with context, which requires the involvement of those who are knowledgable in world affairs.

Between the implicit and the objective

The objective that justifies a particular interpretation must be driven by how the texts of the laws are viewed.  The goals that are already pre-determined are the preservation of life and justice. The implementation of hudud based on literal readings, without taking into account contexts will only lead to injustice.

The Caliph Umar Al-Khattab suspended the implementation of hudud laws during draughts, this even when the statements of hudud were clear.  Despite this, Umar al-Kattab understood that the execution of hudud laws in that context would only lead to injustice.

The contemporary circumstance of the Muslim ummah today is far more complex. Oppression, be it apparent or as a result of poor administration, a flawed economic system, corruption, nepotism and the like can be regarded as a long “draught” in themselves. Thus, the implementation of hudud laws that do not regard the increasingly complex contexts of the Muslim world is not a sign of loyalty to the teachings of Islam.  Instead, it will only upset the highest goals of Islamic teachings that values justice.

Moving forward

In the spirit of Umar Al-Khattab, the anxieties to ensure justice is served and protected should be prioritized ahead of implementing hudud laws while ignoring contexts. The focus should also be on efforts to shape an educated society to the point where they can go beyond thinking in terms of formal paradigms, which only values the appearance and form of religion, while ignoring the content, substance and matter of religion, which is far more important.

Stressing interpretations and approaches to punishment that are uncompromising will not make society more loyal to the teachings of Islam. The ability to encourage social justice and the safeguarding of every individual’s integrity, male or female, rich or poor, in actuality will ensure loyalty that is more deserving of Islam. According to the norms of Islam, the issue that is important is to secure the rights of individual and society, and not to execute punishments that are in actuality to be implemented only on strict and narrow conditions.

It is time we keep the question of hudud laws away from any exploitation of public perception and sentiments. Muslims should reject the manipulation of their Islamic faith by formalist legitimisation and focus instead on the inner message of Islam that calls for spirituality, demands education, justice and the respect of pluralism. It is important for Muslims to divert their attention from what is limited by laws to what they are actually meant to protect. That is to say, an enlightened spirit, integrity, the freedom of each human being, as well as justice that has always been the most important foundation of Islamic teaching.

* Dr Ahmad Farouk Musa is chairman of the Islamic Renaissance Front (IRF)

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 27 September 2011, 6:29 pm and is filed under
Islam
,
Islamic state
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Bumi quotas to go eventually, says Najib

By
Clara Chooi

The Malaysian Insider

Sep 27, 2011

KUALA LUMPUR, Sept 27 — Datuk Seri Najib Razak expressed today the need to eventually do away with Bumiputera quotas but said the government must continue to support the community’s best talent to ensure a more competitive business environment.

The prime minister pointed out that the New Economic Model (NEM) promotes affirmative action based more on meritocracy, saying “we must promote the right Bumiputera”.

He said offering quotas would promote complacency, hamper economic growth and bury Bumiputera talent.

“What we have done in the past is we have not promoted the right kind of people.

“We want to do away from (with) quotas but we must support them (Bumiputera entrepreneurs) in a way that would allow them to grow,” he told the Khazanah Megatrends Forum 2011 here this evening.

“If we give them quotas, what will happen is that they will rest on their laurels and eventually, they will not gain expertise,” he added.

Najib said the 30 per cent Bumiputera equity target “does not mean anything”, particularly if entrepreneurs decide to sell off their shares when prices soar, leaving little in the hands of the Bumiputeras.

He said the government was now moving on a different footing by seeking “good, tested and dedicated” Bumiputeras and supporting them in a manner that could help them become more competitive.

As an example, Najib mentioned Teraju’s recently launched programme to train 1,100 top small, micro and medium-sized Bumiputera companies under a special entrepreneurship programme as one of the government’s new initiatives.

“That is the new approach — to create a new class of Bumiputeras who are more resilient and can succeed in the long run,” he said.

Critics have accused Najib of diluting his NEM by creating agencies like Teraju and failing to focus on needs and merit-based affirmative action policies but government officials said the move was necessary as Bumiputera equity in the economy remained low despite the billions doled out since the New Economic Policy (NEP) began in 1971.

In his speech earlier, Najib also expressed a need for the government to remove “rigidities within the system” in order to create a more resilient economy.

“We know that people do not start in the same place… we know that everyone is not equally endowed… we know too that there will be winners and losers when things change – and of course we worry about those who deserve assistance more than those who could easily get by with less,” he said.

“Equally, we want to see winners who find their lives and the lives of their families transformed rather than simply enriching those who already have too much,” he added.

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 28 September 2011, 8:02 am and is filed under
Najib Razak
,
NEM
,
NEP
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Middle Malaysia

By
Liew Chin Tong
 | September 28, 2011

The Malaysian Insider

SEPT 28 — Middle Malaysia is elusive but it is clear that whichever coalition that is able to win across the traditional fault lines of race, religion and regions takes Federal power.

Barisan Nasional is now the world’s oldest elected government still in office. Its predecessor, the Alliance party, first won the Federal election for self-government in 1955.

BN’s longevity in government can be attributed to successful manipulation of the carrot and stick. Carrots range from contracts for big tycoons to rural patronage for the Umno base while the sticks are really big – dissenters can be put behind bars without trial for years while the mass media are muzzled.

But there is something deeper: there is no alternative.

Or more precisely, the ultimate use of the carrot and stick is to ensure that no BN-clone is allowed to exist.

Instead of fighting a single opposition, BN perpetuated a structure which has two flanks — PAS for the Muslims and DAP for the non-Malays — and styled itself as the indispensable pseudo “centrist” coalition that caters for the interests across racial, religious and regional boundaries.

Without a clean and fair electoral system and an unbiased mass media, the moment a moderate centrist coalition emerges it is destroyed without mercy.

Elections in 1964, 1974, 1982, 1995, and 2004 saw a general swing of all ethnic groups in favour of Barisan Nasional for various reasons. Elections in 1978 and 1986 witnessed Barisan Nasional winning across the races but losing heavily among ethnic Chinese voters.

A general anti-establishment swing across races in various degrees towards the Opposition occurred in elections in 1959, 1969, 1990, 2008 while the 1999 election was an oddity with Malays swinging massively towards the Opposition while more than 50 per cent of the supposedly more anti-establishment voted for the ruling coalition out of fear of the Islamic state claim and copycat violence a la Indonesia’s anti-Suharto days.

The de facto centre plus two flanks structure was almost broken in the 1990 general election until the final days of campaign when BN depicted Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah as a traitor to the Malays for wearing a Kadazan headgear with a symbol that looks like a cross. At the time, the majority of the ethnic Chinese and nearly half of the Malays were psychologically ready for a change of government.

Since the 2008 general election, BN’s formula to win the next election is not to recognise the two-party reality that it received only 51 per cent of popular votes. In fact, only 49 per cent in peninsular Malaysia voted for BN.

Instead, apart from starving the Opposition of material resources and fair mass media coverage, the strategy is three-pronged – to destroy Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim’s credibility as the alternative prime minister at all costs, to lure PAS’ leaders into the Malay/Muslim exclusivist discourse and to paint DAP as an extremist villain.

It is no small feat that for the last three-and-a-half years since the formation of Pakatan Rakyat as a consequence of the March 2008 election, it has so far been able to hold Middle Malaysia.

The alternative media channels are more mature compared to two decades ago while 70 per cent of Malaysians are now living in the urban areas which allow greater exposure and access to alternative views. In 1980, only 35 per cent of the population live in urban areas.

Umno has also effectively ceded Middle Malaysia to the Opposition since the waving of the keris by Hishammuddin Hussein in July 2005. Its right wing is now dictating policies.

And, to the credit of Pakatan Rakyat, it has stayed in Middle Malaysia all this while.

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 28 September 2011, 9:50 am and is filed under
Elections
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Hukum hudud is not Pakatan Rakyat agenda

KENYATAAN BERSAMA MAJLIS PIMPINAN PAKATAN RAKYAT

28 September 2011

Mesyuarat Pakatan Rakyat malam ini memperakui dan mempertahankan dasar-dasar bersama yang telah dipersetujui sebelum ini sepertimana terkandung dalam Perlembagaan Persekutuan, Dasar Bersama dan Buku Jingga.

Pakatan Rakyat terus memperteguhkan iltizam politik bagi mempertingkatkan daya-saing ekonomi, pendapatan rakyat, mutu pendidikan, kesihatan dan menangani kos kehidupan yang semakin menekan.

Mesyuarat juga memperakui dan menghormati perbedaan ideologi setiap parti dalam Pakatan Rakyat sebagai sebuah permuafakatan demokratik, termasuk  pendirian PAS berkenaan hukum syariah.

Mesyuarat juga memperakui kewujudan Enakmen Jenayah Syariah II Kelantan 1993 dan enakmen Jenayah Syariah Terengganu 2003 yakni sebelum wujudnya muafakat Pakatan Rakyat. Keadilan dan PAS menghormati perbezaan pendirian oleh DAP dalam perkara ini.

Mesyuarat Pakatan Rakyat juga mempertegaskan bahawa kami tidak akan terheret dengan mainan politik terdesak Umno-Barisan Nasional untuk memecah belahkan kesatuan Pakatan Rakyat. Kita percaya penuh di atas kematangan dan kebijaksanaan rakyat untuk menilai suasana ini.

Mesyuarat sekali lagi mempertegaskan bahawa muafakat dan objektif utama politik parti-parti komponen PR dalam Pilihanraya Umum (PRU) ke-13 ini adalah untuk membina kembali asas-asas kenegaraan yang telah dirosakkan oleh Umno-BN, dengan berpandukan prinsip Keadilan Sejagat (UniversalJustice), Pentadbiran yang Baik (Good Governance), Kebertanggungjawaban (Accountability), Ketelusan (Transparency), Kompetensi (Competency) bagi mencapai  Kemaslahatan Umum (Public Good) untuk semua rakyat.

YB DATO SERI ANWAR IBRAHIM            YB TUAN LIM KIT SIANG                              YB DATO SERI TUAN GURU HJ ABDUL HADI AWANG

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 29 September 2011, 2:30 am and is filed under
Islam
,
Pakatan Rakyat
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Kedah-Kelantan pipeline carrot for Umno men, claims US cable

By
Clara Chooi

The Malaysian Insider

Sep 29, 2011

KUALA LUMPUR, Sept 29 — A leaked US diplomatic cable issued in 2007 said that Malaysia’s RM21 billion trans-peninsula oil pipeline was likely launched as a means to reward Umno loyalists with lucrative contracts if Kelantan’s PAS government fell in Election 2008.

The cable pointed out that no Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) reports were prepared nor economic viability studies conducted for the project as ecological risks were not a major concern to the then Abdullah administration.

“Domestic politics may be a bigger driver for the project than the potential economic payoff,” said the cable, leaked by whistleblower site WikiLeaks and published by the Malaysia Today news portal today.

It said the government viewed the pipeline, which was to run from Kedah to Kelantan, as an opportunity to reward Umno supporters “regardless of whether or not the project makes long-term sense”.

“The refinery and pipeline in Bachok would be seen as a potential Umno deliverable and might just tip the balance in a PAS-controlled state shortly before the election,” the cable said.

It added that such order of business for major projects in Malaysia was “typical”.

“Someone has vision, companies rush in to acquire ‘exclusive rights’ and only after that are feasibility studies conducted, numbers crunched, and environmental impacts (possibly) assessed,” it said.

According to the cable, the proposed 309km pipeline launched in 2007 was to run from Yan in Kedah to Bachok in Kelantan, with a storage facility in Jeli. The first phase of the project, estimated to cost some RM7 billion, was to be operational this year in order to finance phases two and three, it added.

But it claimed numerous oil and gas industry experts had already expressed doubt over the feasibility of the megaproject, which was to be developed by Trans-Peninsula Petroleum Sdn Bhd (TPP), a “small, loss-making company owned by two little-known Malaysian businessmen”.

TPP, it said, was not listed on Bursa Malaysia and “parliamentary sources” had characterised the company as a “very small entity” registered in Perak with a listed capital base of RM150,000.

One shipping industry executive reportedly told the US envoy that he was sceptical of the project’s economic viability, given the high costs involved in building it and the minimal time and distance saved.

“However, he pointed out that economic viability might not be the driving factor.  Rather, he saw the project as part of a broader attempt by Malaysia’s leaders to cosy up to the Islamic world,” he said.

The cable added that a local executive working for a large energy company here had also claimed of speculation that TPP was merely a “front company for someone else” and expressed doubt over how a “small, unknown company” could have the capacity to develop the massive, multibillion ringgit project.

“At this stage, deals have been struck on paper, but there appears to have been no solid analysis of the economic viability or the environmental risks of this project.

“However, these might not be the deciding factors. If Malaysian federal and/or state governments step in to assist, construction contracts and other deliverables to favoured parties may become more important than the payoff from the completed project,” the cable said.

According to a media report last year, Putrajaya announced on March 31 the cancellation of the pipeline project and the withdrawal of the approval in principle granted to TPP.

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 29 September 2011, 6:41 pm and is filed under
Abdullah Ahmad Badawi
,
Elections
,
UMNO
,
Wikileaks
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Pakatan: Hudud only if all parties agree

By Shannon Teoh

The Malaysian Insider

Sep 29, 2011

KUALA LUMPUR, Sept 29 — Pakatan Rakyat (PR) agreed today that the contentious hudud or Islamic criminal law is not part of its joint policy until all parties agree to it, stepping back from the brink of a major difference that broke an earlier opposition coalition.

Opposition Leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim told a press conference just after midnight that the set of Islamic laws was “certainly now not PR policy and DAP’s objection has to be respected.”

Anwar said PR will continue to allow its members to air different views. — File pic

“Yes, very clear, it has to be together,” the PKR de facto leader replied to a question on whether any move to implement hudud would need the unanimous agreement of all three parties in the pact.

He had earlier backed imposing the law in Kelantan, just like political foe Umno whose former leader Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad dredged up the issue last week.

Close to 30 top PR leaders had met for over three hours last night to resolve the longstanding hudud issue which has seen the DAP and PAS repeatedly at loggerheads.

Dr Mahathir, who opposed hudud when Kelantan passed the law in 1993, dared Datuk Nik Aziz Nik Mat, the state’s mentri besar, to implement hudud now that the country’s longest-serving prime minister was no longer in power.

The PAS spiritual leader then called on Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak to propose amendments to the federal constitution to allow the Islamic law, which prescribes stoning, whipping and amputation as punishment for criminal offences.

But the DAP has insisted that it is not part of PR’s common policy, leading to the three-year-old pact’s unity being questioned.

Secretary-general Lim Guan Eng vowed this week that his entire central leadership would resign their posts if hudud became part of the coalition’s joint stand.

PR issued a gag order earlier this week, barring their members from speaking on the issue until the pact’s emergency meeting last night.

Anwar also said PR will continue to allow its members to air different views but that no policy would become part of its common platform without the consensus of all.

“Why must PAS be denied the right to articulate their views? We cannot deny the right of any party to bring forward any view. PR respects PAS’s initiative and aspiration but we have to reach a consensus,” the former deputy prime minister said.

He added that he could not understand “why (hudud) cannot be discussed? Why the strong abhorrence?”

The Permatang Pauh MP also said that the hudud enactments that were passed in PAS-ruled Kelantan and Terengganu in 1993 and 2003 respectively were done before PR had been formed.

Anwar said that “both enactments are there, but it requires PR consensus and an amendment to the constitution. DAP is not supportive of that particular position.”

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 29 September 2011, 8:19 am and is filed under
Islamic state
,
Pakatan Rakyat
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


S’wak deports Haris Ibrahim

Patrick Lee | September 29, 2011

Free Malaysia Today

PETALING JAYA: Human rights activist Haris Ibrahim has been denied entry into Sarawak and is currently awaiting deportation.

Haris, the Malaysian Civil Liberties Movement (MCLM) president, said that he was detained by Sarawak immigration authorites after landing at the Kuching International Airport at about 5.30pm today.

“The order of notification is the same as the one in April (this year). (But) I haven’t seen any papers (about this deportation) yet,” he told FMT through a telephone conversation.

He will be sent back to KLIA on a 7.30pm flight.

“They asked me to pay for the air fare but I told them to ask (Sarawak CM) Taib Mahmud for it,” he said.

Haris also said that his trip to Kuching today was to host an MCLM event known as the Rakyat Reform Agenda (RARA).

He added that MCLM had held similar RARA events in both Tawau and Kota Kinabalu prior to Kuching.

Haris was barred from entering the state in April this year during the Sarawak state election. At the time, it was believed that he was stopped from entering Sarawak under Section 65 of the Immigration Act 1959/1963.

Under the Malaysia Agreement, Sarawak has the power to bar anyone from entering the state, including persons from Peninsular Malaysia.

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 29 September 2011, 7:07 pm and is filed under
Human Rights
,
Sarawak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Any DPP can charge A-G

Letters

Mat Zain Ibrahim

30.09.2011

IF YDP AGONG CAN BE DECIEVED,WORST THINGS CAN HAPPEN TO US

The Attorney General has been challenged to account for the three expert reports, he was alleged to have fabricated in an investigation into a particular case. Notwithstanding mounting public outrage for the AG to come clean on this issue,he chose to maintain a deafening silence, instead of making known his position.

Should he finds it tough though, to account for all the three,which is understandable, he should at least show his sincerity by giving an account for just one of them. Any one of the three that he is comfortable with, will do.

For the benefit of all, the first expert report was dated 26 October 1998.The said report together with the second expert report was properly tendered during the Black-Eye RCI proceedings in 1999, which was duly recorded by the Commissioners. However, before the RCI’s final report was presented to YDP Agong ,the said first report went missing.

No other persons other than the maker of the documents and the AG himself have personal interests over those expert reports.

The onus to account for the making and the subsequent disappearance of the said report dated 26.10.1998 before it reached The Agong, lies solely on Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail,the AG. Fabrication of evidence is one thing, how it was disposed of, is another.

If such a disloyal and despicable act can befall on the King, then more serious and heinous act can befall on His ordinary subjects.More worrying when the AG appears to be immune to criminal prosecutions,ostentatiously protected by the powers that be.

If making the  first expert report to disappear suddenly, before it was presented to the Agong, is no big deal to the AG,then the sudden and timely appearance of a “suicide note”  in the late Teoh Beng Hock’s Inquest and making the material CCTV footage to disappear into thin air, in Allayarham Ahmad Sarbani’s Inquest,are just peanuts to him.

The “now you see,now you don’t” tricks have been practiced one too many times right before our eyes, to the extent that not even a simple minded person, like many of us, can accept  them as mere coincidences any more.

Prosecution of an AG

Quite many people hold the perception that the AG cannot be prosecuted in any criminal courts, except by himself, since he is also the one and only Public Prosecutor.This contention however is unfortunately  inaccurate.

For the avoidance of doubts, Section 376(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code(CPC),is quoted below;

“The Public Prosecutor may appoint fit and proper persons to be Deputy Public Prosecutors who shall be under the general control and direction of the Public Prosecutor and may exercise all or any of the rights or powers vested in or  exercisable by the Public Prosecutor by or under this Code or any other written law except any rights or powers express to be exercisable by the Public Prosecutor personally and he may designate any of the Deputy Public Prosecutors as Senior Deputy Public Prosecutors.”

Quite simply, this passage means, that a DPP can do what the AG can, except which the AG has to do personally, as required by law which no other DPP can do on his behalf,under any circumstances. Such as the following;

a)Appointment of DPPs under Section 376(4)CPC.

b)Transfer of cases from Majistrate/Session Courts to The High Court under Sec.418A CPC.

c)Proceedings against the editor,proprietor,printer or publisher etc under the Printing Presses and Publications Act 1948 under Section 68(2)CPC.

d)Any others specified as above under any laws.

For the records,the Solicitor General only have the powers of a DPP.Like any other DPPs the SG can exercise all the powers of the AG except those meant to be done by the AG personally (There is no such provisions for a Deputy AG or Acting AG).

It is clear from the above explanation that any DPP for that matter, from a one day old DPP,to the most senior in their hierarchy,the Solicitor General included, have the powers to prosecute the AG if they want to, or by anyone amongst them who have the courage and will.No one can stop them,not even the Prime Minister.I stand to be corrected on this.

After all,it was just a DPP and not the Solicitor General or the Head of the Prosecution Department of the AG’s Chambers who closed the investigation on the AG.

As for the Prime Minister,in so far as his authority over the conduct of the AG is concerned, is defined under Article 125(3) to be read together with Article 145(6) of The Constitution.This simply means that when the PM is satisfied that the AG have breached any provision of their code of ethics or for any other reasons,he can represent to the Agong, to appoint a Tribunal to adjudicate the conduct of the AG and thereafter  take the appropriate actions based on the findings and recommendations of the Tribunal.

The issue whether the AG can be prosecuted or otherwise should not arise.The laws to deal with this kind of situation have long been in place.

We have in our history where a Chief Justice of the country, being unceremoniously removed from ofiice for  writing some letters to the Agong.So why the different treatment when it comes to the Attorney General,when what he did are criminal in nature.

If for some strange reasons, the Cabinet considers that deceiving and/or misleading and/or insulting YDP Agong and/or the Government by the Attorney General so blatantly is still a non-issue, then we are in serious trouble.

                This entry was posted on Friday, 30 September 2011, 12:27 pm and is filed under
Court
,
Law & Order
,
Letters
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Please walk the talk

—
Lucius Goon

The Malaysian Insider

Sep 30, 2011

SEPT 30 — One day soon, I hope a Malaysian leader will emerge who will say what he means and means what he says.

This leader will not tailor his message to his audience, be in love with symbolic acts and depend on image makeovers.

This leader will not be afraid of making unpopular but necessary decisions and policies for the country and will not allow family members or associates to plunder the country at will.

Prime Minister Najib Razak last night spoke at a gathering of Malay business and economic NGOs. He told them not to be too infatuated with protectionism. That was good but in the same speech he also reminded them that the government had reserved more than 40 per cent of the massive MRT project for Bumiputera companies.

That certainly sounds like protectionism to me, and molly-coddling a group of businessmen and creating unnatural business conditions for them.

Najib’s mixed-signal speech last night would be the equivalent of a parent warning a spendthrift son that the days of loans to settle debts were over and then slapped the boy on his back and reminded him that money had been credited into his bank account.

Do you think that the son would be persuaded to change his profligate ways? Similarly, how many of the Malay NGOs last night would actually take to heart that message of cutting the reliance on protectionism, etc?

The more I see it the more I am convinced that Malaysia will only prosper and be a healthy democracy if we have leaders who mean what they say and say what they mean.

                This entry was posted on Friday, 30 September 2011, 1:22 pm and is filed under
Najib Razak
,
NEM
,
NEP
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Come to the light(-hearted) side

—
Yow Hong Chieh

The Malaysian Insider

Oct 01, 2011

OCT 1 — So Jabba the Hutt has struck the first blow against Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak’s new reform package barely two weeks after it was announced.

Despite promising to give more latitude to the media, his administration’s knee-jerk response to the “Undilah” video has only demonstrated that old habits die hard — if something disagrees with you, ban it.

The issue for me is not whether Pete Teo had intended to draw parallels between Najib and the hermaphroditic mob boss.

Only Teo truly knows the answer to that and, even if the allegation were true, the last time I checked it wasn’t a crime to be a hypocrite (in this case, to be allegedly partisan in what was intended to be a non-partisan project).

The issue is the disproportionate reaction of government to the perceived slight. To think the wheels of our state machinery were put in motion for what is, at worst, a sly but harmless dig at the current administration.

Lighten up, guys.

If online news portals can shrug off an arson threat from Umno Senator Ezam Mohd Nor, you should be able to take a joke too.

Let’s be clear. The message of the video is simple: Take ownership of your country by registering to vote and casting your ballot come polling day. If not, don’t come a-whinging when government enacts policies you’re opposed to.

The rest is irrelevant, including all two seconds (in a five-minute video) of what must’ve been a very sweaty cosplayer standing at a bus stop next to a poster of the prime minister.

In any case, if votes could be diverted so easily by such mind tricks, Barisan Nasional (BN) should expect nothing less than a clean sweep in the next general election.

The ruling coalition does, after all, have absolute control of the airwaves, through which an unending barrage of subliminal and not-so-subliminal messages praising the establishment are beamed straight into the homes of millions of Malaysians every day.

But obviously, that’s not how it works. Four opposition-led states and the biggest electoral rout in the nation’s history prove voters’ minds are a bit more resilient than that.

Voters tend to worry about more critical issues, like stagnant wages in the face of runaway inflation, appropriate use of public funds as well as quality education and healthcare.

So here’s the bottom line. As oxymoronic as it may sound, the Najib administration must learn to take a joke if it wants its promises for more freedom of expression to be taken seriously.

If the government wishes for Malaysia to become a truly robust democracy, it must be prepared to be skewered on a weekly basis. Watch The Jay Leno Show, Jon Stewart’s Daily Show, Bremner, Bird and Fortune or Spitting Image if you think “Undilah” was out of order.

Anything less, and the joke really is on you.

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 1 October 2011, 4:29 pm and is filed under
Elections
,
Media
,
Najib Razak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


DAP lawmaker claims offered RM150,000 to run for BN in GE13

By
Debra Chong

Oct 01, 2011 | The Malaysian Insider

KUALA LUMPUR, Oct 1 — A suspended Johor DAP assemblyman today revealed he had been offered RM150,000 and 50 acres of land to quit his party and stand as an independent candidate aligned to rival Barisan Nasional (BN) in the coming national polls.

First-term Bentayan state lawmaker Gwee Tong Hiang said he was approached last Tuesday by a Chinese man claiming to be a representative from the Prime Minister’s Department who caught him while he was feeling down over his six-month suspension for alleged power abuse.

The allegation comes on the heels of Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak’s latest charge to win back support from ethnic Chinese voters nationwide, following the dismal performance from the ruling coalition’s Chinese parties, notably the MCA, which has been practically written off as irrelevant.

The allegation also recalls the controversial takeover of Perak, which was won in the 2008 general election by the PAS-DAP-PKR pact.

Jepalang MP and Perak state assembly Deputy Speaker Datuk Hee Yit Fong had quit the DAP to become a BN-friendly independent, tipping the balance in favour of the BN.

Najib, who is also BN chairman, carried out a whirlwind tour into enemy territory in DAP-controlled Penang last weekend, but support towards the BN government in Umno-controlled Johor appears to be eroding as well if Gwee’s claim is to be believed.

Gwee told reporters the man, whom he named as Wee Pao Chin, had arranged for him to meet Najib in Putrajaya on Monday where the BN chairman would announce the news at a media conference.

He said the RM150,000 would be provided by Putrajaya and would be paid to him in one lump sum through the Wee clan association in order to avoid detection.

He also claimed that he was promised more than RM5,000 a month as extra funds and would be given an office and staff to take care of his constituents if he agreed to quit the DAP.

“Their terms were ‘you must stand as independent candidate in the next election to fight DAP candidate’,” Gwee, 44, disclosed at the DAP headquarters here today.

The Bentayan state seat is in the Bakri parliamentary constituency and was until 2008 an MCA stronghold. Gwee beat the MCA’s Lee Chin Yong in the last general election with a comfortable 2,798-vote margin.

Asked why the BN wanted him as a candidate there for the next polls, Gwee said he was told: “Top management kau-tim [has been fixed]. MCA will not put a candidate in Bentayan constituency.”

Gwee said he made an audio recording of his conversation yesterday with the alleged agent — carried out entirely in Mandarin — and handed out copies of the transcript, in Chinese and English, to back his claim.

A DAP member since 1990, Gwee said though he was upset after being suspended six months for alleged power abuse, he would not accept the BN offer.

“Although the past last week I’ve been very down…,” he managed to get out before breaking down into tears.

“I’m still a DAP man. The BN offering me this is not right. That’s why I expose it, to tell BN not every DAP ADUN or MP can be bought over. I love the DAP. My party is DAP,” he said in an emotion-choked voice.

He will be filing a police report later today in Muar and also plans to file a report with the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) in Batu Pahat.

DAP publicity chief Tony Pua, who was also at today’s conference, said the party will be seeking clarification from the Prime Minister’s Department and called on Najib to disclose if he had instructed his men to entice opposition representatives or investigate and act against imposters.

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 1 October 2011, 8:35 pm and is filed under
DAP
,
Elections
,
Najib Razak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Guan Eng pohon ampun, Umno bila pula?

— by
Aspan Alias

The Malaysian Insider

Sep 30, 2011

30 SEPT — Saya ingin mengucapkan sekalung tahniah kepada Ketua Menteri Pulau Pinang, Lim Guan Eng kerana bertindak untuk memohon ampun kepada Sultan Johor kerana isu kenyataan beliau di Singapura baru-baru ini. Kenyataan beliau itu telah di isukan sebagai kenyataan yang memburuk-burukan negeri Johor serta Sultan yang menaungi negeri itu.

Guan Eng telah memohon ampun dan maaf kepada Raja yang menaungi rakyat dan negeri Johor. Beliau memohon ampun jika kenyataan yang belum tentu kesahihannya itu menyinggung perasaan kebawah Duli Tuanku Johor.

Tindakan Guan Eng ini melambangkan sifat gentleman beliau dan memahami yang negara kita mempunyai Raja-Raja Melayu yang rakyat patut menzahirkan ketaat setiaan kepada Raja-Raja Melayu sentiasa. Tindakan memohon ampun ini adalah satu sifat kepimpinan yang tinggi dan merendah diri yang ada kepada pemimpin muda ini.

Sekarang saya ingin pula menunggu bila pula Umno untuk memohon ampun dan maaf kepada Raja-Raja Melayu kerana menghina Raja-Raja Melayu semasa krisis Perlembagaan pada tahun 1993 dahulu. Sehingga sekarang Umno belum lagi memohon ampun kepada Kebawah Duli Raja-Raja Melayu kerana menelanjangkan kewibawaan Raja-Raja Melayu semasa krisis perlembagaan itu.

Jika Umno benar-benar parti yang melindungi orang Melayu dan Raja-Rajanya maka parti itu tidak sepatutnya teragak-agak untuk memohon maaf di atas sikap kurang ajar serta merendah-rendahkan martabat Raja-Raja Melayu pada tahun 1993 dahulu.

Perlakuan Umno terhadap Raja-Raja semasa itu amat memalukan kerana Umno menghina Institusi Raja yang menjadi teras kepada identiti dan maruah orang Melayu. Jika benar Umno sudah sedar yang Institusi Raja itu penting parti itu tidak sepatutnya teragak-agak untuk memohon ampun daripada Raja-Raja Melayu kerana keterlanjuran itu.

Umno sepatutnya mengikut langkah DAP dengan memohon ampun jika melakukan tindakan yang sangat mendhaifkan yang Umno lakukan semasa krisis perlembagaan itu. Guan Eng tidak menunggu lama untuk memohon ampun walau pun beliau belum mendapati rakaman ucapan beliau di Singapura dalam “private function” di Singapura itu. Yang penting bagi Guan Eng ialah beliau tidak mahu melihat Tuanku Sultan merasa tersinggung kerana pentingnya institusi itu dihormati dan disanjungi.

Umno sepatutnya memohon ampun di atas kerana besar parti itu kepada Institusi Raja-Raja itu. Umno patut mengadakan perhimpunan Agong Khas untuk memohon maaf kepada semua Raja-Raja Melayu.

Selagi Umno tidak memohon ampun selagi itulah Umno masih derhaka kepada Raja yang menaungi negara bertuah ini. — aspanaliasnet.blogspot.com

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 1 October 2011, 3:30 pm and is filed under
Constitution
,
Crime
,
Johore
,
Lim Guan Eng
,
UMNO
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


New Deal

Letters

by
Toh Leong

I read CSL speech (MCA 58th AGM). Sound okay in rhetoric, but can he match it with actions. Walk the talk as he expects others who are not in power to do.

The PKFZ scandal persisted since three previous MCA transport ministers. Are they going to continue keeping quiet, and hope the people will forget?

The MCA believes in peaceful dissent. How come they did not support Bersih in the first place. Tear gas and water cannons were fired into a hospital. Its minister promised an investigation, but nothing happens. Looks like empty vessel making noises. there is absolutely no concern of the two new laws to replace the repressive ISA. At least, state that detention without trail is not in the best interests of the rakyat. It is a weapon of colonialists and repressive regimes.

He is right to say, “the rakyat want a more just society and a fairer business environment that emphasizes meritocracy, inclusiveness and transparency.” Will MCA be able to even speak out against negotiated tenders, IPP’s and other rent seeking projects. All Petronas dealings are hidden. What transparency are they talking about. Even the PM himself is helpless. His ETP, NEM, 1Malaysia, People First, are nothing but a load of talk, talk, talk, but absolutely no walk.

Robert Kwok has only the hotel business left in Malaysia. Genting and YTL have already set up businesses in Singapore. A year ago, I heard the capital flight amounted to RM888 billion. Isn’t that an indication of capital flight for safer havens.

There should be a total review of the education system. It is in shambles because of too much political input. Primary education should be confine to the 3R’s or perhaps 4R’s, viz reading, writing, arithmetic and perhaps reasoning. All kinds of rubbish are introduced into the primary school curriculum. There are no remedial teaching in schools. We have some students finishing secondary school, yet unable to read and write.

CSL talks of supporting the teaching of science and maths in secondary schools, but do not have the courage of bringing the party’s idea out in the open. Merely saying at an AGM is not good enough.

When subsidies were removed, MCA says nothing. When you remove fuel subsidies, transport and production costs definitely go upwards. Now you are suggesting handouts. Damn, don’t you know that it is better to “teach a child to fish than to fish for him.” After one handout, what is the poor man suppose to do? Vote for you because you gave one handout? On the top of it, you are supporting GST and stating that it will lower costs. Can any taxes lower costs. Have privatization of many government companies lower the costs of living for the people? The gomen is short of money and is looking at ways and means of pinching from the people.

MCA is supposed to represent the Chinese. It has be unable to mitigate on our behalf at all. It can’t even mitigate for itself. It was called the abused wife, but could not say anything. If we have Chinese ministers, does it make much of a difference. Someone says, they are like mannequins.

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 2 October 2011, 10:01 pm and is filed under
General
,
MCA
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Why MCA is finished

by
Thomas Lee

COMMENT

I think the MCA will be totally wiped out at the next general election for the following reasons:

(1) The people, especially the educated urban voters, are fed up and want a big and drastic change. So they will dump the MCA and Gerakan, and will go all out to vote for the alternative front, especially the DAP.

(2) Looking at the type of leaders the MCA currently has, it is obvious that almost none of them are fit and credible to be elected representatives. The MCA will lose if it fields its present leaders and those who lost in the last general election, including the foolish ones who talk rubbish all the time (like the fellow who wants to set up a “Chinese Perkasa” or that Penang wanita leader who attacked Guan Eng for giving projects to Malay contractors via open tenders).

(3) If the DAP fields candidates like the late Teoh Beng Hock’s sister against the MCA president’s son in Johore, he will lose his deposit. Donald will also be roasted and lose his deposit if he is fielded again. There is no hope for any MCA candidate in Penang, and the party should stay out of the state or risks having all its candidate lose deposits there.

(4) The people are wise enough not to be convinced by the so-called “achievements” MCA president Chua Soi Lek boasted about, as they know it is the massive rejection of the MCA and BN at the last general election that resulted in Najib and Umno giving the concessions to the people, not because of what the MCA has done.

(5) Even the MCA grassroots members have no confidence in the party, with many defecting to join the DAP or PKR. If the MCA claim that it has nearly a million members is true, how come its votes in the previous general elections are way below the million-mark? Even its previous president Ong Tee Kiat and ex-Wanita chief Chew Mei Fun have given the thumbs-down to the current leaders, especially the president, saying he should not be fielded by the BN.

(6) The educated and intelligent people know that the MCA is servile and subservient to Big Brother Umno in the BN, and all its leaders in the Cabinet are merely window-dressing political mannequins with no essential policy-making power. They are used to make announcements of policies, programmes and projects decided by their Umno bosses, but are not part of the real decision-making process in the government. The wise, intelligent and intellectual will obviously not support the MCA.

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 2 October 2011, 2:26 pm and is filed under
MCA
,
Thomas Lee
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


A vote for Najib is a vote for…

— Tan Teck Huat

The Malaysian Insider

Oct 02, 2011

OCT 2 — … Utusan Malaysia, The Star, News Sraits Times and other propaganda papers.

Today I made the colossal mistake of reading that MCA-owned ragsheet, The Star.

Under the pretence of caring about the future of Malaysia, they went on and on about hudud laws, trying to frighten Malaysians about PAS and Pakatan Rakyat.

But there was nothing in the paper about the theft of native land in Sarawak, about corruption in the country and abuse of power by Barisan Nasional politicians, including those from the MCA.

It is the same with Utusan Malaysia.

First they accused Lim Guan Eng of defaming Johor in an interview with a radio station in Australia.

When he showed them the transcript of the interview, they accused him of disparaging Johor during a talk in Singapore.

Lim apologised but Utusan and the slavish mainstream media never said sorry for going on a witch-hunt against him and getting it wrong about the interview in Australia.

And Utusan has the cheek to question the credibility of the DAP politician.

This, from a newsletter that has long forgotten the difference between facts and fiction.

The Star and NST are not too far behind.

The thing is this: These publications exist to further the interests of the political parties that own them.

They have no intention of making Malaysia a better country.

Their raison d’être is for their political masters to remain in power so that they can also milk the gravy train.

*************************

I find it amusing that there is a debate ensuing on whether MCA is relevant.

I think MCA, Gerakan and MIC are the equivalent of fixers or middlemen.

By themselves, they are powerless. But they make a living by leveraging on their connections to get things done.

So on his own, Dr Chua Soi Lek is just another Chinese politician.

He is sometimes useful when Nazri Aziz or Hishammuddin Hussein give him the time of day.

He and his party are not respected by Umno or the civil service.

If they disappear from the landscape, my life and yours will not be affected very much.

Truth be told, even in 2004, they did well in the polls only because there was such a strong feel good factor about Abdullah Badawi.

The only people who will be sad to see the back of MCA are the MCA office bearers and the people at The Star.

                This entry was posted on Monday, 3 October 2011, 2:00 am and is filed under
Lim Guan Eng
,
MCA
,
Media
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.