Looking back to look ahead

Conversations

The Sun

23rd August 2007

Looking back to look ahead

Zainon Ahmad and Maria J. Dass

Parliamentary Opposition Leader Lim Kit Siang likes to believe his contribution to nation-building has been his efforts to keep alive the aspirations of Malaysians for democracy, justice, freedom and integrity. The man who has been in parliament since 1969, except for an absence for one term following his defeat in 1999, tells ZAINON AHMAD and MARIA DASS that many people are sad because many institutions that had been established 50 years ago have lost their effectiveness.

theSun: We are coming up to 50 years soon, so what do you think we have achieved in that time?

LKS: I think it’s a very mixed result. I think when we achieved independence 50 years ago and then with Sabah and Sarawak we formed the Malaysian federation, we all had one aspiration – that we would become more Malaysian over the years.

Which means we would become less Malay, less Chinese, less Indian, less Kadazan and less Iban and so on, but on the 50th year looking around, especially with the events in the last two months, we seem to have become less Malaysian and more Malay, more Chinese, more Indian, more Kadazan and more Iban than anything else.

What has happened? Of course, after 50 years that seems the most important question to ask.

Of course. But in terms of development if you compare to Ghana which also achieved independence in the same year, I think we are 10 times ahead.

But we should not compare ourselves with the not-so-well-off nations. We should compare ourselves with those countries that are at the same level as us. Maybe even with Japan.

And if you look back on that perspective when we achieved independence, we were second in Asia after Japan in terms of development. But since then we have fallen behind. Other countries have moved ahead to become first world and developed countries – Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan, not to mention Hongkong.

Whereas for us it is still a distant vision. Why?

It’s not that we lack potential, capabilities, resources and brain power. The problem is with our nation-building policies. These policies, over the decades, have not been able to fully develop our human capital. Instead we see the grave problem of brain drain among our best and brightest. All because of nation-building policies and problem with our education system. And these problems are still going on.

So that’s what you mean by very mixed results.

Yes. But what concerns me most is the people, “us” – that we are not able to identify ourselves more as being Malaysians. Instead we are identifying ourselves more as Malay, Chinese, Kadazan and so on.

That should be more alarming, don’t you think?

Yes, very alarming. In particular the issues that came to the fore during the last one or two months has brought us to the very core. In fact many people are wondering what is the meaning of this 50th Merdeka anniversary if they are feeling more alienated, more divided and more polarised.

That should in fact be the focus of attention.

In fact, the MCA general assembly is the best illustration – that it is not to celebrate the 50 years of greater nationhood but to highlight a greater division.

Sometimes a small case become the obsession of an entire cabinet while there are more important issues about integrity, development, corruption and how Malaysia can compete with the rest of the world.

We should move away from this Malays vs non-Malays or bumis vs non-bumis situation. More and more we should think about Malaysians vs the rest of the world. But we seem to be losing more of that focus.

Don’t you think that we have reached a stage of intolerance that at the slightest provocation we shout “withdraw his citizenship.” Seems like the queen in Alice in Wonderland forever shouting “off with his head.” A bit extreme isn’t it?

More than that, it is seditious. When Parliament was reconvened following the May 13 incident the Constitution was amended to address four sensitive issues that cannot be questioned. These are those relating to the special privileges of the Malays, language, the Rulers and a person’s citizenship.

If you remember back in the 1960s Umno leaders were very fond of shouting “strip him of his citizenship” at those they thought were being disloyal. For a while the amendment stopped that. But it is still a sensitive issue to demand for the removal of your citizenship.

Now it is suddenly fashionable again to call for the stripping of someone’s citizenship. Is that what you want to say?

Yes. Now, you even have ministers, mentris besar and chief ministers shouting “withdraw his citizenship”. Aren’t they going to be charged for sedition? They can be charged for sedition per se – just based on that. Because on that constitutional amendment there is no need for proof of malice or no malice.

There have been many incidents where the government acted hastily. No to this, no to that. No more discussion on this, no more discussion on that. Also there was this allegation of mass conversions of Muslims to Christianity, for instance. And it involved mariner Datuk Azhar Mansor.

Some double standard in their reaction here. You want to talk about seditious, it is seditious because it incited the feelings of some 500 Muslims who surrounded a church near Ipoh because they believed that Azhar had become a Christian and he was going to baptise other Malay-Muslims who had been converted to Christianity. As it turned out it was not true whatsoever.

If we want to talk about seriousness, that is very serious. It was capable of creating a riot, but no action was taken against the person who made the allegations.

Do you think all that has happened is an over-reaction? For instance the prohibition to set up an Interfaith Commission and the cancellation of the Article 11 debates. There are recent developments.

The impact is that these have entered into party politics – this element of religious sensitivity or polarisation. There is now a greater discomfort among the various religious groups which we did not have before. But they are raising their ugly heads after more than four decades of nation-building.

Is it because the Muslims have increased in number? Around 1957, Muslims formed about 48 or 49 percent of the population but now they are around 60 percent. Do you think this has caused the problem?

I don’t think that should be a problem. I think the problem is the lack of direction being given by the government to show very clearly that what we agreed upon just before Merdeka must continue. After all our social contract involves a multi-religious, multi-racial society, diversity and pluralism. This must be celebrated and not just talked about in speeches and not just be used for tourist promotion.

You mean like we flaunt them as mere slogans. Like they are meaningless slogans, no feelings in them. Is that it?

Yes. We say all these things but they have not been internalised. No commitment to them. No real belief in them. And not just that but more and more they have been regarded as peripheral issues.

It wasn’t always like this. I am sure you know that.

It wasn’t always like this. In the early years of independence our first Prime Minister, Tunku Abdul Rahman, initiated those inter-religious discussions. He set up what was know then as inter-religious organisations or IRO, which is what the Article 11 is all about. Basically the Tunku believed all religions can come together to promote greater religious understanding, goodwill and dialogue.

But now such a concept seems to be unthinkable and unacceptable even. And the promotion of religious dialogue is just for international forums, but not for internal purposes.

I think something has gone very wrong and I think unless we are prepared to address this issue, we seem to be heading for stormy waters.

Everywhere we go we proclaim that we are a multi-racial and multi-religious Malaysia with the various races living peacefully together. But this, as you said just now, is not internalised, not spoken from the heart. But what can we do?

I think the leadership should set an example with all institutes and organisation in society following them from behind. To internalise the diversity in this country you must be sincere and faithful to these fundamental principals.

Actually when we started we never established clear directions on what nation-building entails. There was no road map on how we are going to build up this nation. Do you think we need something like that, to have an actual road map on what we are going to do.

The general principles have always been there. There is the social contract which says we are a democratic, multi-religious, multi-racial, progressive country where Islam is the official religion of the Federation but not an Islamic state.

We have the formula. Not true to say we do not have a formula. But it so happen that those in authority are seemingly moving further and further away from this basic formula.

Even those at the top are seemingly reluctant to admit that Malaysia is now a secular state even though the courts have declared so.

You know for 44 years we can see that there is no questioning that Malaysia is a secular state. Islam is the official religion, it is not an Islamic state. There were instances of course when there were marginal peripheral voices asking that we move towards an Islamic state. They were not in the mainstream. But now the whole thing seems to have been reversed.

Those who call for the the secular state have been marginalised and regarded as a periphery and those who feel that Malaysia is an Islamic state has now occupied the mainstream.

How did this change take place? This is a whole question of a tectonic shift in nation-building. And now these things cannot be talked about, cannot be discussed even. I don’t think this will solve any problem.

Many things seem to be so sensitive now that they have been taken out of public discussion. Is this healthy?

No. But why is it happening? If we can have public discussion on a social contract in 1956 and 1957, why can’t we have a public discussion as to why this social contract must be maintained, and should be reaffirmed? Everybody talks about social contract, today, but behind closed doors.

It is important to remember that this social contract is not the property of the ruling parties. It is a heritage and legacy of all Malaysians and all Malaysians today have a right to give input on the status of a social contract today.

It is going to be totally lacking in credibility if discussions on this social contract are held behind closed doors.

Every Malaysian should be involved. It cannot be something that you can go to a corner and discuss it in the closet. Where is participatory democracy? You are now shutting down avenues of expression.

How should we go about doing it then?

I think there should be a national consultative council to openly discuss and address this issue. You continue to sweep these problems under the carpet and they become bigger and bigger and finally the whole country is going to suffer.

What you are saying is that we should come together – representatives of all groups – to assess all that we have done in the last 50 years, where we have been successful and where we have failed and to plan for the future. And the best way to do it is through something like a national consultative council. Is that it?

Yes. In fact that should be the way to celebrate the 50th anniversary. We should have planned for it. A year or two ago we should have said that we are planning for a review when we reach 50. All then would be prepared for it – a big review to see where have we failed, where have we succeeded. And representatives of all sectors of the population must be involved. We don’t want just a small group of people around the prime minister to do it. It would be lacking in credibility. It should involve the national process.

You have been an MP since 1969, what have you contributed towards this process of nation-building?

I would like to believe that I have kept alive the aspirations of Malaysians for democracy, justice, freedom and integrity. As an opposition in a Malaysian political system without a majority, nobody thinks you can change the government at the moment and introduce laws and policies on your own. But as an opposition MP I think I have contributed enough to keep alive those aspirations and building up enough pressure for the government of the day to take the necessary actions to be accepted. Some have been accepted and others remain as benchmarks.

Elsewhere education plays a significant role in helping young people to think as members of a nation instead of members of a race, tribe or ethnic group. Has our education system helped in our process of nation-building?

I think our education system has not produced young citizens who are critical and mature in their thinking. It is a disappointment. Education is one of those things we should take a closer look at in our review on the occasion of our 50th year. And the government should take brave and bold steps to dismantle all factors which impede freedom in universities, in civil society and in the country.

You think there is no indication yet that we are moving that way? Isn’t there some openness already?

No indication. After 50 years we still have four emergency proclamations which has not been annulled. We seem to be more comfortable with this state of repression rather than a brave free new world and that’s why they are still there. The emergency declared as a result of the Indonesian confrontation in 1965 is still there, so is the emergency declared as a result of a political problem in Sarawak in 1967. Then there is the state of emergency declared following the racial clashes in May 1969, and also the emergency declared in Kelantan in 1977 following some disturbances.

Shouldn’t they have been annulled a long time ago? The reasons for their declarations have long gone? What is the government waiting for?

You see, under these four proclamations, various ordinances have been passed. And these ordinances the authorities can still use. But they are lazy and they do not want to do anything. You see, once you annul the four proclamations – and they should have been annulled – the ordinances also lapse.

So if they still want to use those ordinances then they have to be brought to Parliament to be enacted into laws.

One of them is the ordinance on Rukun Tetangga. If they want Rukun Tetangga to continue legally then they will have to bring it to Parliament so that it becomes a law legislated by Parliament. But then it is sheer laziness or just tidak-apa, lack of accountability, lack of that culture of responsibility.

Are those institutions that we put in place when we became independent in 1957 still intact?

I think that is another major woe of the country. After 50 years the institutions, the integrity, the independence and public confidence have suffered grave setbacks. Parliament, judiciary, executive, and the major institutions like the police, Anti-Corruption Agency, Elections Commission, civil service mentality have suffered. I think we are going backwards, we are not going forward.

We should be more first world than many other countries which have already achieved first world status. The media for instance. Freedom of the press, that is very important. The media is an important institution.

Many are saying we don’t have to compare with 50 years, we only need to compare with 45 months from Mahathir’s time. Are we moving forward or are we going backwards?

How do you foresee the future, isn’t there any optimism as far as the nation is concerned?

Well I think this 50th anniversary, following all that has happened in the last two or three months, can make people think. Of course, they should have started thinking one or two years earlier. The recent events are now forcing people to think of these fundamental issues. If that happens then there is some saving grace!

Updated: 07:38PM Thu, 23 Aug 2007

                This entry was posted on Friday, 24 August 2007, 8:38 am and is filed under
nation building
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


27 charges against Zakaria dropped – another grave blow to public confidence less than a week to 50th Merdeka celebrations

As if there were not enough setbacks in the past two months to shatter public confidence in the independence, integrity and professionalism of institutions of state causing more and more Malaysians to ask the real meaning of the 50th Merdeka anniversary celebrations, another grave blow was  delivered to such public confidence yesterday.

I am referring  to the extraordinary  dropping of the 37 charges against the so-called  “Sultan of Klang” Datuk Zakaria Md Deros and five of his business partners pertaining to contravening the Companies Act 1965 — less than a week before the 50th Merdeka anniversary celebrations.

It would appear that the so-called “Sultan of Klang” enjoys immunities and privileges to the extent  that he is a law unto himself and is not subject to the ordinary laws of the land binding of all Malaysians and even members of the true royalty.

Zakaria would have very exultant reasons to celebrate the 50th Merdeka anniversary on Friday, but he has left more and more Malaysians wonder what has happened to the country after half-a-century of independent nationhood that there is a lengthening catalogue of things very wrong with good governance, justice and nation-building in Malaysia.

Were the authorities serious in charging Zakaria with 37 offences under the Companies Act 1965 in the first instance, and if so, how could these charges be so summarily and flippantly withdrawn?

If the original 37 charges against Zakaria were just a sandiwara never meant to be taken or to be pursued seriously, then the reputation of the impartiality, independence, professionalism and integrity of the state institutions responsible for upholding law and order have been seriously tarnished, and suitable punitive action should be taken against the offenders.

If the original 37 charges against Zakaria had been preferred with a full sense of seriousness, then why were they dropped so summarily and frivolously?  Was there interference with the process of law and the administration of justice, and if so, Parliament and the Malaysian people are entitled to a full explanation.

The Attorney-General Tan Sri Gani Patail told the Star that he would ask the Companies Commission of Malaysia (CCM) for a detailed report on why the charges were dropped.

However, the New Straits Times reported that   the CCM senior prosecutor Azmil Haron told the Klang magistrate Fadzilatul Isma Ahmad Refngah that the deputy public prosecutor had instructed him to drop the charges.

Apart from Gani Patil as the Attorney-General, is there someone else who has even greater powers in deciding questions on whether to continue prosecution or to drop charges? If so, isn’t this most unconstitutional and a grave travesty of justice?

These conflicting reports are not conducive to the maintenance of public confidence in the professionalism, independence, impartiality and integrity of the justice l system to uphold law and order without fear of favour.

The Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi should present a ministerial statement in Parliament on Monday to give satisfactory accountability as to why the 37 charges against Zakaria had been dropped so summarily and frivolously and assure Malaysians that the 50th Merdeka anniversary will not be accompanied by  the erosion of fundamental  liberties and constitutional guarantees agreed by the forefathers of the major communities in the social contract on the attainment of independence half-a-century ago.

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 25 August 2007, 2:36 pm and is filed under
Constitution
,
Court
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


RM4.6b PKFZ scandal – Kong Choy should seriously consider resignation

The reasons why Transport Minister, Datuk Seri Chan Kong Choy chickened out from personally appearing at  the  Transport Ministry press conference on the Port Klang Free Zone (PKFZ) on Thursday seem to have become clearer — that he not only wanted to avoid hard and embarrassing questions about his role and responsibility  in the RM4.6 billion PKFZ scandal, but he also  wanted to evade questioning on the Transport Ministry’s five-page statement on PKFZ.

This is because more and more  questions are surfacing over the accuracy and correctness of the statement, which strangely was   issued anonymously, without the Transport Minister or anyone of his deputies daring to put their name on it!

Some of these questions include:

Firstly, was the  Transport Ministry right in putting the whole blame of the ballooning of the cost of the PKFZ from RM1.1 billion to RM4.6 billion on Jebel Ali Free Zone Authority (Jafza), the former PKFZ operator?

Was Jafza responsible for the scandalous price of RM1.8 billion or RM25 psf  paid  by Port Klang Authority (PKA) for the 1,000 acres for the PKFZ from Kuala Dimensi Sdn. Bhd which had four years earlier bought it for  RM95 million or RM3 psf?

The Transport Ministry has failed to explain why it insisted on paying Kuala Dimensi Sdn. Bhd. RM25 psf in the teeth of opposition of  the Finance Ministry and the Attorney-General’s chambers which proposed  that the land be acquired compulsorily at the market value of RM10 psf.

The Transport Ministry said the PKA’s purchase price was reached because of work done on the site, including land reclamation, drainage, construction of access roads, installation of street lights, water services and payment to various utility agencies.

If the recommendations of the Finance Ministry and the Attorney-General’s Chambers had been followed, the price of the 1,000 acres for the PKFZ would be RM720 million instead of the exorbitant RM1.8 billion — an astronomical difference of RM1.1 billion.

Is Chan really justifying the RM1.1 billion difference in the land price on the ground of “work done on the site, including land reclamation, drainage, construction of access roads, installation of street lights, water services and payment to various utility agencies”?

Let Chan make public the costs of such “work done”, whether it was  more than RM10 million or RM20 million — when the difference is the gargantuan sum of RM1.1 billion.

Secondly, the Transport Ministry statement said that to further promote the PKFZ,  PKA will participate in overseas trade missions, seminars and exhibitions to attract investors.  This gives the false impression that such promotion had not been done before, when in fact PKA officials had taken part in previous overseas trade missions, seminars and exhibitions to attract investors with very poor results.

Thirdly, I challenge Chan to give the full list of the 30 companies which had invested more than RM700 million in the Port Klang Free Zone (PKFZ), enumerating the investments of each company, as I have been informed that the RM700 million figure is grossly inflated.

Fourthly,  on the Transport Ministry announcement  that the government has approved a soft loan to the tune of RM4.6 billion  to  the PKA, will the terms of the soft loan be so “soft” as to tantamount to a “give-away” and bailout as PKA would have no means of repaying the RM4.6 billion government “soft loan”?  Furthermore, why is nobody taking responsibility for the RM4.6 billion PKFZ scandal when the whole project was conceived to be self-financing without having to incur a single ringgit of public funding?

Chan should clarify and respond to these four points so that MPs, whether from the ruling coalition or Opposition parties, would have the necessary information to  take part in an informed debate on the RM4.6 billion PKFZ bailout scandal when Parliament reconvenes on Monday, starting with my urgent motion on the subject.

In fact, Chan should seriously consider whether he would have to resign as Transport Minister for his role and responsibility in the RM4.6 billion PKFZ scandal.

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 25 August 2007, 2:24 am and is filed under
Constitution
,
Good Governance
,
Transport
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


50 Years of Merdeka: Past and Future — A Reflection

The nation  achieved independence in 1957 at the same time as Ghana, when both countries were almost on par economically. Both countries are celebrating their golden jubilee of national independence this year, but Ghana is a failure in economic development, with its per capita income only about one-tenth that of Malaysia.

Should Malaysia feel proud that we are now ten times better off than Ghana, as had been suggested by a Barisan Nasional MP in Parliament?

This depends on whether we want to compare with the best or with the worst. There is no point in talking about” excellence, glory and distinction” if we are only proud to be compared with failed states and not prepared to compete with our equals or betters.

Malaysia was No. 2 in Asia after Japan in terms of prosperity and income when it achieved independence in 1957, despite having a per capita income of only US$200 per year. However, South Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong and Singapore have caught up with us and gone ahead.

Although Malaysia’s per capita GNP had started to trail behind Hong Kong and Singapore in the first decade after independence, we were still ahead of South Korea and Taiwan. Malaysia’s per capita GNP in 1967 stood at US$290 as compared to Taiwan’s US$250 and South Korea’s US$160.

In 1967, Singapore’s per capita GNP was US$600 while Hong Kong US$620.

In the past four decades, South Korea’s per capita income multiplied about a hundred-fold, Taiwan by some 60-fold, Singapore by 45-fold, Hong Kong by some 40-fold with Malaysia lagging with an increase of only some 17 fold.

The brain drain of over a million talented, creative and enterprising Malaysians in the past four decades as a result of the New Economic Policy  must bear primary responsibility for Malaysia trailing so behind Singapore, Hong Kong, Taiwan and South Korea.

Let us not indulge in any finger-pointing exercise but let us own up to our mistakes and have the courage to correct them in the best interests of the nation and future generations.

The most meaningful way for the nation to celebrate our 50th Merdeka Anniversary is for the government to end the denial complex and recognise that driving over a million talented, creative and enterprising Malaysians from our shores in the past four decades because of discriminatory policies is one of our greatest nation-building failures and  to summon a national resolve to end the root causes to prevent another wave of such   brain drain.

The future of Malaysia in the globalised economy lies in the ability of Malaysia to compete with the rest of the world, and not the competition between Malays and non-Malays in Malaysia.

This challenge holds the key to the success, prosperity and greatness of Malaysia in the next 50 years.

(Contribution to Technology Business Review 50th Merdeka Anniversary special issue)

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 26 August 2007, 11:33 am and is filed under
nation building
,
NEP
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Tun Razak would have recoiled in horror at RM4.6 billion Port Klang Free Zone scandal and bailout

A marathon 50-hour forum was told yesterday why Malaysia’s second prime minister, the late
Tun Abdul Razak Hussein
, had called off a plan to build a swimming pool at his official residence.

Razak had felt that the estimated RM60,000 to be spent on the construction of the swimming pool could be better used in building three rural health clinics.

This episode from the past was related by Datuk Mohd Annuar Zaini, chairman of the Malaysian National News Agency, Bernama, at the Merdeka Forum “Sembang-Sembang Kopi `O’ Nasi Lemak” organised by the Culture, Arts and Heritage Ministry and the Federation of National Writers Associations of Malaysia (Gapena) in kuala Lumpur.

There can be no doubt that  Razak who cancelled a plan to build the RM60,000  swimming pool at his official residence,  would have recoiled in horror at the RM4.6 billion Port Klang Free Zone (PKFZ) scandal and  any government  bailout when the money could be better used for the poor of all races.

The second Prime Minister would have been utterly shocked at the mentality of the present batch of Cabinet Ministers in general and the Transport Minister in particular who  clearly had no notion whatsoever about responsibility, accountability, transparency, integrity and good governance as there had been no proper explanation whether to the Malaysian public or to Parliament as to how such a RM4.6 billion PKFZ scandal could have been allowed to happen when the government had been assured right from the beginning that the PKFZ was a feasible and self-financing project which would not require a single ringgit of public funding.

I have no doubt that if the RM4.6 billion PKFZ scandal had happened during Razak’s premiership, the then Transport Minister would have no choice but to tender his resignation, especially when it was the Transport Minister’s unlawful “letters of support” which had been used as government guarantees to induce  investors to subscribe to the  RM4.6 billion bonds for the PKFZ project.

A quarter of a century ago, the premiership of the fourth Prime Minister, Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad, was marred by the then biggest financial scandal, the RM2.5 billion Bumiputra Malaysia Finance (BMF) scandal which Mahathir admitted was “a heinous crime without criminals”.

Are Malaysians to celebrate the 50th Merdeka anniversary in an increasingly somber mood with an even bigger “heinous crime without criminals”  than the RM2.5 billion BMF scandal 25 years ago –  the RM4.6 billion PKFZ scandal?

It was reported by
foreign agencies
on Friday that at a meeting between the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi and the Transport Minister, Datuk Seri Chan Kong Choy late last Thursday, the Prime Minister gave the green-light for a RM4.6 billion soft-loan to bailout the PKFZ.

Abdullah may have been persuaded personally to approve a RM4.6 bailout of the PKFZ scandal, but the RM4.6 billion bail-out is not final unless and until there is approval by Cabinet and Parliament.

As a Prime Minister who is committed to “hear the truth”, Abdullah must be prepared to change his mind to approve a RM4.6 billion bailout of PKFZ if the weight of public opinion is against it — even more so when there had been no full parliamentary accountability and prior parliamentary sanction.

I call on Abdullah to honour his undertaking to be a Prime Minister for all Malaysians, and not just for MCA, Umno and Barisan Nasional cronies, and this must be fully demonstrated in his fair and wise handling of the RM4.6 billion PKFZ scandal.

Is Abdullah prepared to respect the views of Parliament and withdraw any blanket approval for the RM4.6 billion bailout of PKFZ, which will be a blank cheque for waste and misappropriation of public funds, abuses of power and all forms of malpractices?

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 26 August 2007, 12:16 pm and is filed under
Good Governance
,
Transport
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


2nd urgent motion – Dropping of Zakaria’s 37 charges and new crisis of confidence in justice system

I have submitted to the Speaker of Parliament, Tan Sri Ramli Ngah a second urgent motion for debate in Parliament  on Wednesday –  the extraordinary  dropping of the 37 charges against the Selangor State Assemblyman for Port Klang  Datuk Zakaria Md Deros and five of his business partners under the Companies Act 1965.

The nub of the argument is that the dropping of Zakaria’s 37 charges have illuminated the new crisis of confidence in the system of justice in the country.

This is the latest setback in the past two months before the 50th Merdeka anniversary celebrations on 31st August 2007 shattering public confidence in the independence, integrity and professionalism of  national institutions causing more and more Malaysians to ask what has gone wrong with nation-building.

The failure to give satisfactory explanation for the withdrawal of the 37 charges against Zakaria has reinforced public perception that there are  politically-powerful people in the country  who enjoy  immunities and privileges to the extent  that they are a law unto themselves and not  subject to the ordinary laws of the land binding on all Malaysians.

This is a great blow to public  and investor confidence in the just rule of law, especially efficient upholding of law and order and the fair administration of justice, which had reached increasingly critical level because of a series of incidents including:

	Sloppy police investigations of crimes and sloppy prosecution even  resulting in many accused charged with serious crimes being acquitted without their defence being called;

	Long delays  by judges to deliver grounds of judgments — in one case involving nine years and three months and with one Federal Court judge with 33 outstanding grounds of judgments for criminal and civil cases dating back to his High Court tenure.

	The seven-month constitutional crisis over the appointment of the new Chief Judge of Malaya which highlighted the urgent need for judicial reforms including having a Judicial Commission to recommend appointment and promotion of judges.

                This entry was posted on Monday, 27 August 2007, 1:56 pm and is filed under
Abdullah Ahmad Badawi
,
Court
,
Parliament
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Can civil servants utilise government facilities for personal profit?

by Milton Combe

As leader of the opposition and a lawyer I would like to bring to your attention and query some incredible policy changes implemented overnight by the current Health Minister who appears to have a penchant for running roughshod of this country’s laws.

The Health Minister recently made a decision in allowing its specialists at the Putrajaya and Selayang hospitals to charge patients private sector fees.  The primary reason of this policy appears to be to enable such specialists to remain in government service instead of opting for private practice for financial reasons.  No doubt efforts must be made to ensure the continual presence of senior specialists in government service to enable tax payers the benefit of proper treatment in especially these trying times of declining medical standards. But is this modus operandi legal? These changes appear to have the support of the MCA’s Star columnist V.K. Chin who is notorious for his writings of skewed wisdom on many topics just so it pleases his political masters although they may defy logic. But we cannot blame V.K. Chin as his very existence depends on advocating such articles which unfortunate readers of the Star have to sometimes endure.

1.         Unlike private hospitals which are built and managed through private financial initiatives, public hospitals are built with public funds sourced via income tax, etc. Is it lawful for government doctors who are civil servants to charge or profit using such facilities without undergoing a corporatisation exercise like TNB, Telekom, Klang Port Authority etc that is usually endorsed by our courts and advertised accordingly in the newspapers after of course the whole exercise is agreed upon in parliament and an Act passed? This is a dangerous legal precedent. If by all means policy makers feel that this is the way our specialists or skilled staff need to be rewarded then indeed this is what needs to be done. Which will then bring into question how is it the other GLCs took the right legal steps to privatization but the Health Minister, who is known for his lack of tolerance for “illegal” clinics but instead promotes traditional medicine in our hospitals, has suddenly decided it is OK if his ministry does not follow the rules?

2.         Secondly, the report states that government policy is – general hospitals and clinics are meant for the lower income group and it was difficult to verify the financial status of everyone seeking treatment.  The implication is that, those with financial means should seek private treatment. Now this is indeed news. Government hospitals are put up using tax payer’s money. It does not matter if the tax payer drives into GHKL with a Rolls Royce but he may indeed be paying far higher taxes then the average person. He should, like every other tax payer, be entitled to proper treatment and not be told that he needs to pay additional private specialist fees or shooed away to seek treatment at a private facility. Has the Treasury, Auditor General and Attorney General Chambers been advised of these arrangements?

3.         More alarmingly is, who is going to screen if a patient has the ability to pay or not?  Is there going to be subtle lobbying to solicit patients and information regarding their illnesses modified to compel apprehensive patients to seek earlier paid specialist treatment? Worse still if touts, as in GHKL’s infamous mortuary appear, who will be there to monitor and protect ignorant distressed relatives who may mortgage their houses in a rush to save a loved one? Will the Minister then set up yet another Health Special Branch Police Unit to prevent this from happening?

4.         Is this a pilot project? Will specialists in Temerloh, Muar, Batu Pahat and Gua Musang also benefit ultimately from this exercise or will it be confined to presumably urban hospitals whose populace may perhaps afford this new endeavour? And if it is restricted to only these urban hospitals, would it mean that our specialists located in these rural towns will be making a bee line to Putrajaya and Serdang Hospitals using whatever cables necessary and in the process abandon their posts in these not so profitable rural district hospitals?

5.         The Health Minister has further stated that some of these Hospitals will be internationally accredited so that the medical tourist dollars could be raked in. Again, will dollar and euro rich patients have priority in being treated in a hospital built on government and tax payer’s funds at the very expense of our own citizens who helped put up the institution in the first place. And indeed, if these “arrangements” go awry, will the average Malaysian patient, after fifty years of Merdeka, be actually left on the wayside, as depicted by LAT.

6.         And while the Minister dwells on which specialist gets to do what, perhaps he should consider the fact if this scheme indeed becomes successful there is a real possibility that specialists earmarked to earn from this program may then be tempted to keep the cake to themselves and prevent other specialists from coming in as is now rampant in UKM and UM. What will he do then when he is faced with such a situation? Will he overrule sometimes self-seeking heads of departments who currently have the final say to conjure an excuse to keep a specialist out? Or will the Minister decide to cross the bridge when he gets there, by which time he may not be in office.

These patchy policies to fix chronic problems the Ministry has been facing is in danger of not only failing but more importantly may bring this government to greater disrepute then it already is in.  The Minister clearly appears to be in short supply of proper informed or experienced advisors. There are of course better ways and methods in solving these issues contrary to V.K. Chin who thinks that this is the “best arrangement for the time being”.   Perhaps the Minister should read the book “An Old Man Remembers” written by a previous DG of Health as to why Resident Generals and this country’s earlier Prime Ministers took Healthcare seriously and personally looked into it themselves.

It is also important to note why Prime Ministers of that genre paid special attention to the post of Director of Planning and Research at the Ministry which was almost always reserved for only the most able and experienced officer and how Malaysia, a third world nation, was able to achieve first world standards in health care statistics with the minimum of budgets in its early years. The adage that the ultimate healthcare objective is to provide the population with the highest obtainable standard of health and medical care must still be this government’s objective. And this can only be attained by long-term planning. There are no shortcuts.

                This entry was posted on Monday, 27 August 2007, 2:23 pm and is filed under
Health
,
public service
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


RM4.6 billion PKFZ scandal – Liong Sik telling the truth or a pack of lies?

I am very disappointed that my motion for an urgent debate of the RM4.6 billion Port Klang Free Zone (PKFZ) scandal and a government bailout has been denied, casting not only a dark shadow on the 50th Merdeka Anniversary celebrations on Friday by raising grave questions about good governance, an accountable and honest Cabinet and an effective “First-World Parliament”.

It would appear that no Barisan Nasional MP is prepared to take a principled stand demanding full parliamentary accountability of the RM4.6 billion PKFZ scandal and that there should be no government bail-out unless there is prior Parliamentary sanction, especially as the government had earlier been giving an assurance that the PKFZ was feasible and self-financing which would not require a single ringgit of government funding.

Although the rejection by the Speaker, Tan Sri Ramli Ngah of my urgent motion on the PKFZ is a setback in the campaign to hold the government to the National Integrity Plan launched by the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, I will continue to demand full and proper accountability for the RM4.6 billion PKFZ scandal in the current budget meeting of Parliament.

Yesterday, former MCA President and Transport Minister, Tun Dr.
Ling Liong Sik
broke his silence on the RM4.6 billion Port Klang Free Zone (PKFZ) scandal which was initiated when he helmed the Transport Ministry but what he said raised the question whether Ling was telling the truth or just a pack of lies.

How can  Ling hide his head under the sand and claim that the PKFZ plan to “emulate Dubai’s Jebel Ali Free Zone was a good strategic idea” when it has become a national calamity, which is the candidate for a RM4.6 billion bail-out — the biggest financial scandal for  the start of any Prime Minister in the nation’s 50-year history?

Ling said yesterday that the intention of PKFZ was to copy Jebel Ali Free Zone, which had 4,500 factories supplying to the whole of the Gulf, by combining port trade with Jebel Ali and bring at least half the factories to PKFZ to supply to Asean.

After spawning the monster of a RM4.6 billion mega-financial scandal, what has PKFZ to show in terms of achieving the target of attracting 2,250 factories from Jebel Ali Free Zone to Port Klang?  Has it achieved 10, five  or even one per cent of this target so far?

What is worse, the  Jebel Ali Free Zone (Jafza) which originally had  a 15-year contract to be management consultants of PKFZ  to tap into Jafza’s expertise in this field had been driven out of the country because of hanky-panky in the administration and management of PKFZ.

It is intriguing why Ling had brought out the name of the former Prime Minister, Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad, specifically saying that the Cabinet meeting chaired by Mahathir had approved his (Ling) recommendation “to acquire the land” for the PKFZ project.

Is Ling trying to pass the buck by implying that it was Mahathir who must bear  full and final responsibility for the RM4.6 billion PKFZ scandal?

However, Ling seems to have a very selective memory about the Cabinet decision on the acquisition of the 1,000 acres of land for PKFZ, claiming that he could not remember the actual price paid for the land.  Is this credible?

As revealed in various media reports, the Treasury and the Attorney-General Chambers had proposed that the 1,000 acres be acquired by the government under the Land Acquisition Act at the market price of about RM10 psf but it was the Transport Ministry which insisted that the land be bought at RM25 psf for the PKFZ on the ground that  it was feasible and self-financing and would not require a single ringgit of public funding.

Wasn’t Ling the Minister who was the strongest advocate in Cabinet for the purchase of the 1,000 acres for PKFZ for RM1.8 billion when the land had been bought by Kuala Dimensi Sdn. For RM95 million or RM3 psq in 1999?

Ling should explain why he could remember that it was Mahathir who chaired the Cabinet meeting which approved the acquisition of 1,000 acres of land for PKFZ but could not remember the price of the land acquisition?

                This entry was posted on Monday, 27 August 2007, 12:25 pm and is filed under
Good Governance
,
Parliament
,
Transport
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Good Intentions Perhaps, But What Were They Thinking?

By Farish A. Noor

There are blunders and there are blunders. There are blunders that are done

out of ignorance and are, upon hindsight, pardonable. But there are also

blunders that tell us more about the blunderers themselves and are at best

laughable and at worse deplorable.

The recent fiasco to come out of the deserts of Iraq falls in the latter

category and tells us a lot about the thinking going on among the real

powers-that-be in Iraq today; namely the Americans. When American soldiers

dropped footballs to Iraqi children from their attack helicopters, few of

them realised what the repercussions might be. Little did they realise that

not every Iraqi — football crazy some of them might be — would be all that

happy to receive free footballs with the flags of the world on them, when

one of those flags happen to be that of Saudi Arabia with the Kalimah, or

Muslim declaration of faith, on it.

Needless to say, some of the less tolerant Iraqi clerics were not about to

take the matter lightly as they pointed out that the footballs would have

been kicked around, and at some point or another an Iraqi child was more

than likely to kick the Saudi flag and thus the Kalimah as well. Tempers

flared, the footballs were confiscated by irate Muslims and the Americans

have once again had to flee the scene with egg on their face.

One should not go so far as to accept the claim that this was yet another

deliberate attack on Islam and insult to Muslims. After all if the Americans

wanted to insult Muslims they have other means to do so, like bombing their

countries back to the middle-ages and reducing their capitals to burning

embers. The likelihood was that this was a public relations move that went

embarrassingly wrong, to the detriment of all concerned- not least the

children of Iraq who could do with some decent toys to play with after more

than half a decade of civil strife and the daily horror of having to live in

a country torn apart first by a foreign invasion and now by increasing

sectarian violence.

However one needs to ask the obvious question: Who on earth advised the

Americans on this move, and did nobody check to see if the Saudi flag was on

the ball itself? This leads one to suspect that the grand plan to bring

about regime change and stability to Iraq is and has always been an in-house

matter, where all decisions from grandest to the most trivial are the

exclusive purview of the self-proclaimed ‘liberators’ of Iraq. Was not a

single Muslim consulted on the matter, or do the opinions and advice of

Muslims no longer count in the calculation of the Americans when dealing

with the Iraq issue?

Faced with this latest debacle, one can only sympathise with the plight of

the Iraqi government and the leader of Iraq Prime Minister Nouri Maliki, who

in his latest outburst has asked the Americans to come to their senses and

realise the limits to America’s own power in the region.

The leaders of Iraq have asked again and again for the USA and the

International community to heed their advice and opinions, and have warned

that by encouraging the political activism of the component groups and

religious communities of the country they risk tearing Iraq apart. Now, with

a government that is almost devoid of support from the Arab Sunni

communities, it would appear as if Prime Minister Maliki’s warnings have

come home to roost and the situation in Iraq can only deteriorate further.

The ridiculous farce that is the so-called ‘football controversy’ is just

another instance in a long catalogue of blunders and errors that could have

been avoided had the USA and international community give a modicum of

credit to the ground-level intelligence and experience of the politicians of

Iraq, who have, after all, been living in the country long before the

Americans were flown in by helicopters. Yet as many observers have noted,

empires with long-term overreach ambitions seldom heed the advice of others,

and seldom still learn from their own mistakes in the past. One is reminded

of the sentence from the film ‘Apocalypse Now’, when the narrator wryly

notes: “We shoot them up and bomb them, then we give them band-aids”.

Dropping footballs from helicopters can only serve as a PR stunt at best

when the Iraqis know that those very same helicopters can also rain death to

the enemies of the United States. How many more blunders will it take before

the administration in Washington realises that it can only bring about a

peaceful solution and a safe exit from Iraq if and when it takes the Iraqis

themselves into confidence? Free footballs do not a liberation movement

make, and when those footballs carry the Kalimah on them as well then the

stakes in the game can only be raised higher.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 28 August 2007, 8:59 am and is filed under
Farish Noor
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Higher Education Strategic Plan Beyond 2020 – what for if no “political will” for meritocracy and colour-blind policies

The bubble of the
“Strategic Plan for Higher Education: Laying the Foundation Beyond 2020”
launched by the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi yesterday was punctured by the  irresponsible denial syndrome of the Higher Education Minister, Datuk Mustapha Mohamad in Parliament the very same day.

Abdullah announced a three-prong strategy to turn Malaysia into a world education hub, viz:

	Apex University: where only the best brains — academic staff and students — will be admitted;

	Autonomy:  public universities to be self-governing in funding and research & development;

	Audit Panels:  Standard of all universities to be assessed by independent committee comprising only experts.

The Malaysian Government has  honed to a fine art the preparation of grandiloquent plans (which is why every Minister wants to have a Masterplan of his own rejecting that drawn up by his predecessor and which is what happened in the short history of the Higher Education Ministry) although there is no political will to implement them — best example being the National Integrity Plan which has seen  the country plagued with more rampant and uncontrolled corruption since its launch by the Prime Minister three years ago.

The “Strategic Plan for Higher Education: Laying the Foundation Beyond 2020” however must take the cake for being the first of such grandiloquent plans to have its bubbles punctured on the very same day of its launch, exposing the lack of political will to take all the necessary decisions and actions to restore Malaysia’s former international standing  in terms of academic excellence and quality .

When I stood up in Parliament during question time yesterday to ask a supplementary query on unhappiness among lecturers in public universities over promotion to higher academic grades including professorship, I pointed out that  Malaysia was again  left out for the fifth consecutive year in the recent Shanghai Jiao Dong University’s Ranking of World Top 500 Universities.

I asked Mustapha how Malaysia could get back on track to university excellence and quality when academic appointments and promotions are still not based on merit and colour-blind.

I asked why non-Malay academicians can only find recognition overseas like Prof Eric Tan who became Chancellor of Curtin University in Australia, Dr. Danny Quah who rose to become the head of the most prestigious Economics department of the London School of Economics, recognized as one of the world’s leading institutions of higher learning with many Nobel Prize laureates to its credit or previously Dr. Wang Gung Wu as Vice Chancellor of Hong Kong University.

The reply by Mustapha did not inspire confidence that there is the political will to promote a culture of excellence and meritocracy which is colour-blind, without which the “Strategic Plan for Higher Education: Laying the Foundation Beyond 2020” would just remain empty words.

Mustapha just issued a bald denial claiming that what I said was untrue and accusing me of being irresponsible  and when I protested and demanded that he substantiate his allegation and not make wild and baseless statements, the Minister just sat down in the ensuing din.

If Mustapha is not prepared to admit to the maladies  responsible for the plunge in academic standards in our public universities, what hope is there that the “Strategic Plan for Higher Education: Laying the Foundation Beyond 2020” would be more than empty promises?

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 28 August 2007, 2:08 pm and is filed under
Education
,
Parliament
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


“Malaysia an Islamic State” – Now Pak Lah says it, in a threatening manner

My first question for the first day of the budget Parliamentary meeting  which started yesterday asked the Prime Minister whether on the occasion of 50th Merdeka anniversary, the Cabinet will reaffirm the Merdeka social contract and Malaysia Agreement that Malaysia is a secular state with Islam as the official religion but not an Islamic state.

The question was  placed No. No. 24 out of 28 questions – no chance whatsoever to get answered during the 90-minute question session  which saw only the first 10 questions answered.

It was a very simple and  straightforward question which would have found favour and support from the first three Prime Ministers, Tunku Abdul Rahman, Tun Razak and Tun Hussein who were publicly committed to the Merdeka social contract and Malaysia Agreement that Malaysia is a secular state with Islam as the official religion but not an Islamic State.

In his written  answer, the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi has broken ranks with the first three Prime Ministers on this fundamental issue and has now come out into the public to  give support to his deputy, Datuk Seri Najib Razak declare that Malaysia was  an Islamic state – and in an unusually threatening manner which seemed to presage repressive times ahead.

This is the Q & A on Abdullah’s reply:

Tuan Lim Kit Siang (Ipoh Timur)
 minta Perdana Menteri menyatakan sempena Ulang Tahun Kemerdekaan Ke 50, adakah Kabinet akan berikrar semula kontrak sosial merdeka dan Perjanjian Malaysia bahawa Malaysia ialah sebuah negara sekular dengan Islam sebagai agama rasmi dan bukan sebuah negara Islam (Islamic State).

Perdana Menteri
 –

Semakin dekat kita menghampiri ulangtahun kemerdekaan negara yang ke 50, semakin kerap kita mendengar pihak Pembangkang mempersoalkan isu seperti kontrak sosial dan status Malaysia sebagai sebuah negara Islam ataupun sekular. Walaupun telah beberapa kali penjelasan saya berikan, namun isu ini tetap dibangkitkan, sehingga menyebabkan saya membuat kesimpulan, bahawa ianya sengaja dipanjangkang untuk kepentingan politik pihak Pembangkang. Oleh itu, saya berdiri di Dewan yang mulia pada hari ini untuk menjawab isu ini dengan sejelas-jelasnya, agar isu ini tidak dipanjangkan sehingga menimbulkan ketidakselesaan di kalangan penduduk pelbagai kaum di Malaysia.

Seperti yang telah saya nyatakan sebelum ini, Malaysia bukanlah sebuah negara sekular ataupun negara teokratik. Malaysia adalah sebuah negara Islam, yang ditadbir berlandaskan prinsip-prinsip Islam, dan pada masa yang sama, berpegang teguh kepada prinsip-prinsip demokrasi berparlimen yang berpandukan kepada undang-undang tertinggi negara, iaitu Perlembagaan Persekutuan.

Prinsip Islam yang saya maksudkan di sini dapat dilihat melalui pendekatan Islam Hadhari yang telah saya perkenalkan. Di bawah pendekatan Islam Hadhari, kerajaan memberi penekanan kepada pembangunan yang menjurus kepada pembinaan peradaban dan memberi fokus kepada usaha mempertingkatkan mutu kehidupan melalui penguasaan ilmu, pembangunan insan, kesihatan dan fizikal. Pendekatan Islam Hadhari adalah satu panduan kepada Kerajaan dalam melaksanakan tanggungjawabnya dengan adil dan saksama kepada semua rakyat Malaysia. Pendekatan Islam Hadhari ini juga memenuhi keperluan untuk mengekalkan keharmonian di kalangan penduduk yang berbilang kaum dan berbilang agama di negara kita ini.

Pemakaian pendekatan Islam Hadhari, bagaimanapun, tidak bermakna kita adalah sebuah negara teokratik. Kerajaan yang saya pimpin adalah sebuah kerajaan yang berasaskan kepada prinsip demokrasi berparlimen dan bertanggungjawab kepada Parlimen. Pada masa yang sama, Kabinet terdiri dari menteri-menteri yang beragama Islam, Buddha, Hindu, Kristian dan lain-lain, sama-sama bermuafakat membincang dan menghasilkan dasar-dasar pembangunan negara. Kerajaan sentiasa memberi perhatian dan menjaga kepentingan rakyat, termasuk memastikan setiap seorang penganut agama bebas untuk mengamalkan ajarannya sendiri. Semua pihak mendapat bantuan daripada Kerajaan sama ada masjid, surau, kuil atau gereja. Pembangunan negara telah dilaksanakan dengan adil, tanpa menindas mana-mana kaum atau agama. Sebenarnya, inilah juga yang dimaksudkan oleh YAB Timbalan Perdana Menteri ketika beliau menyatakan bahawa Malaysia adalah sebuah negara Islam.

Cara pemerintahan sebeginilah yang telah dipakai oleh Kerajaan Malaysia selama lebih 50 tahun lamanya. Formula unik ini telahpun diuji dengan jayanya dan saya tidak nampak kenapa Kerajaan yang dibentuk seperti ini tidak boleh diteruskan pada masa hadapan. Saya juga menolak hujah bahawa ia adalah bertentangan dengan kontrak sosial yang telah dirunding sesama pemimpin kita dahulu. Kita perlu mengingati bahawa Perlembagaan Persekutuan telah berjaya digubal atas sikap tolak ansur dan kerjasama yang ditunjukkan oleh ketiga-tiga kaum terbesar di negara ini sewaktu menuntut kemerdekaan, dan ianya mengandungi artikel yang mengambil kira keperluan pelbagai kaum untuk hidup dengan aman-damai. Contohnya, walaupun agama Islam menjadi agama rasmi Persekutuan, penganut agama-agama lain adalah bebas mengamalkan agama masing-masing. Pemakaian prinsip-prinsip Islam dalam pentadbiran negara, seperti yang telah saya nyatakan tadi, tidak sesekali mengubah kontrak sosial atau asas Perlembagaan kita.

Kerajaan sememangnya memberikan ruang kepada pelbagai pihak untuk bersuara. Namun amat salah sekali sekiranya ada pihak yang menyangka bahawa ruang tersebut tiada batasnya. Bukannya menjadi maksud Kerajaan untuk menyekat kebebasan menyuarakan pendapat, tetapi sebarang perbuatan atau kata-kata yang boleh membangkitkan emosi atau perasaan marah antara kaum di Malaysia sememangnya melampaui kebebasan yang dibenarkan. Kita mesti sedar bahawa terlalu banyak yang dipertaruhkan di sini — kestabilan ekonomi, politik dan sosial semuanya akan musnah sekiranya sensitiviti keagamaan atau perkauman tidak diambilkira. Oleh itu, Kerajaan tidak akan teragak-agak mengambil tindakan undang-undang sekiranya ada pihak yang cuba mengambil kesempatan dan menyalahgunakan kebebasan bersuara yang telah diberikan.

Sempena kita menyambut ulangtahun kemerdekaan negara yang ke-50 ini, saya menyeru agar kita semua memperbaharui semangat cintakan negara dan bukannya mencari ruang untuk mempolitikkan sesuatu yang telah diterima pakai dari dahulu lagi. Kita mesti mendahulukan keperluan menyatupadukan rakyat, dan bukannya menimbulkan isu yang hanya menimbulkan ketegangan sesama kita.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 28 August 2007, 8:15 am and is filed under
Constitution
,
Islamic state
,
Parliament
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Malaysia’s axis mysteriously shifting

By Ioannis Gatsiounis

Asia Times Online

KUALA LUMPUR – When Abdullah Badawi became Malaysia’s prime minister in 2003, many thought the mild-mannered leader would take a more moderate approach to international relations than his prickly predecessor Mahathir Mohamad, who often locked diplomatic horns with the United States and other Western countries.

But a string of scandals and crimes with international dimensions, some even linked to Abdullah’s family members, have put his government’s relations with Washington on an uncomfortable footing.

US authorities last month arrested and charged Pakistani national Jilani Humayun for his alleged role in shipping contraband military goods to Malaysia, from where they were re-exported to Iran. He was also charged with conspiracy to commit money-laundering and mail fraud. The sensitive dual-use hardware, which was funneled through an as yet unnamed Malaysian company, included parts for F-5 and F-14 fighter jets and Chinook helicopters.

In April the US imposed sanctions on 14 companies, individuals and government agencies it accused of dealing in advanced weapon technology with Iran or Syria. Two of the companies listed were Malaysian, the Challenger Corp and Target Airfreight.

Moreover, a federal jury in New York last year convicted Singaporean businessman Ernest Koh Chong Tek of smuggling dual-use US military parts to Malaysia for transshipment to Iran’s military – a violation of the 1995 embargo the US placed on all exports and re-exports of commodities to Iran without approval by the US Office of Foreign Asset Control. He was also charged with laundering millions of dollars through his Singapore bank accounts in the smuggling scheme.

The US and Iran are currently at diplomatic loggerheads over Tehran’s nuclear program, and Washington has frequently accused Iran’s military of arming radical Muslim militias in the Middle East, including the Lebanon-based Hezbollah as well as Iraqi insurgents who have targeted US troops. However, at least on the surface, bilateral relations with Malaysia remain cordial.

US officials who spoke with Asia Times Online would not comment on the investigations involving Malaysia on the grounds that they involve sensitive intelligence information. And so far there is no evidence to link recent violations of the US embargo directly to Abdullah. Yet security analysts say the recent incidents have put the crucial bilateral relationship on edge.

“I am absolutely sure that the US is watching these developments closely and pressing hard on Malaysia behind the scenes,” said Tim Huxley of the Singapore-based International Institute of Strategic Studies.

The US is Malaysia’s largest foreign investor, and the two sides are negotiating a wide-ranging free-trade agreement. Kuala Lumpur relies heavily on the United States’ military presence to maintain the region’s balance of power, particularly vis-a-vis its heavily armed neighbor Singapore. At the same time, Malaysia has been a key ally to the US administration’s “global war on terror” in the region.

“Malaysia needs the US and doesn’t want to do anything that will tilt the US toward Singapore, Thailand and Indonesia,” said Richard Bitzinger, a security specialist at the S Rajaratnam School of International Studies in Singapore. “Both sides will be willing to accept some [security] deficiencies, if they remain at low levels.”

Family matters

Yet the recent security lapses have been traced to the highest echelons of Malaysia’s business and political elite, raising questions about Abdullah’s underlying foreign-policy objectives. There are still huge question marks surrounding the 2004 proliferation case involving Scomi, a company owned by Abdullah’s son Kamaluddin, which was allegedly involved in supplying dual-use technology to Libya’s clandestine nuclear-weapons program.

Buhary Syed Abu Tahir, a Sri Lankan national with Malaysian permanent residency, sat with Kamaluddin on the board of Scomi-linked company Kaspadu. Buhary negotiated the controversial contract, which had Scomi Precision Engineering build components for centrifuges that were destined for use in Libya’s nuclear program. Scomi Group had since acknowledged that its subsidiary Scomi Precision filled a contract negotiated by Buhary to supply machine parts to Libya.

Documents obtained by the Associated Press reveal that Buhary was the chief financial officer of Pakistani nuclear scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan’s underground nuclear-proliferation network. How he was able to forge such high-powered alliances with Malaysia’s political elite is a question that remains unanswered. When the scandal broke, Abdullah said Tahir would remain free because there was no evidence of wrongdoing.

Months later, in May 2004, Buhary was arrested under Malaysia’s Internal Security Act (ISA), which allows indefinite detention without trial. Opposition leaders at the time accused Abdullah of detaining Tahir under the ISA rather than pursuing standard criminal procedures lest Kamaluddin be implicated. Now, Buhary’s whereabouts are unclear.

Amir Izyanias, assistant secretary of the government-sanctioned Human Rights Commission, says his staff made contact with Buhary on July 23 at Malaysia’s Kemunting Prison, where many ISA detainees are held. However, an official with the Department of Islamic Development said Buhary is not on his list of detainees.

This all comes on top of the 2005 independent inquiry into the United Nations oil-for-food scandal in Iraq, which cleared Abdullah of involvement but implicated two of his relatives. Abdullah’s sister-in-law Noor Asia Mahmood and her ex-husband Faek Amad Sareef were found to have paid US$10 million through their Mastek company, one of the largest payments among the the more than 2,200 companies implicated in the scandal.

The Iraq Survey Group, which the US set up to investigate weapons in Iraq, listed “Abdullah Badawi” on its names of recipients of the oil-for-food scam though did not clarify whether this was Malaysia’s prime minister. Abdullah has admitted to helping Malaysian business people to take part in the UN oil-for-food program, but said at the time the accusations surfaced that he was not personally involved. He has said he merely wrote letters supporting their bid in the program, but thereafter didn’t follow up what happened to their bids.

Diversified diplomacy

None of these scandals, of course, were necessarily state-sanctioned. Yet they have notably come at a time when  Malaysia’s governing elite has shown resistance to democratic reform, clean governance and cultural pluralism, while strengthening ties with non-democratic states like Iran, Sudan and Russia.

It’s apparently all part of a larger foreign-policy shift, which Foreign Minister Syed Hamid Albar said in May would help Malaysia “avoid being too dependent on one particular segment” of the global economy – read by some as a reference to the US, which currently receives nearly 16% of Malaysia’s exports.

Abdullah’s son-in-law Khairy Jamaluddin this month attempted to silence an opposition leader by labeling him “a puppet of the United States and the Jews”. Meanwhile, Abdullah’s information chief and other ruling United Malays National Organization (UMNO) elites have recently moved to intimidate bloggers and Web portals for exposing high-level government corruption. Malaysia’s courts, meanwhile, have recently handed down hardline Islamic legal interpretations by denying several Muslims the right to change their religion.

Foreign Minister Syed Hamid recently dismissed a US State Department report that cited Malaysia’s “failure to show satisfactory progress in combating trafficking in persons”. Elsewhere Syed has said that Malaysia and Iran hold “identical views” on a range of global issues, including Iran’s right to develop a peaceful nuclear program.

Kuala Lumpur is also playing a key role in integrating Iran into the Asian economy at a time Washington is attempting to isolate that country economically. Last year Syed Hamid urged member countries of the Organization of Islamic Conference, in line with Iran’s policy, to consider sending weapons to Hezbollah.

To be sure, it could all be politics as usual. Amid Malaysia’s ethnic- and religious-tinged political landscape, UMNO politicians are wont to pander to Muslim sentiment, while cooperating with the US and West behind the scenes. Even as former strongman Mahathir blustered on about US-led neo-colonialism and protecting Malaysia’s national sovereignty, he simultaneously forged close military ties with the US.

For instance, the two sides in 1994 signed an acquisitions and cross-servicing agreement that allows US Navy ships to visit Malaysian ports for repair and replenishment. The contract was most recently renewed in 2005, during Abdullah’s tenure. Each year, US Special Forces train at Malaysia’s jungle-warfare school, and bilateral military-to-military cooperation is growing rather than diminishing. And the administration of US President George W Bush has generally applauded Malaysia’s security and counter-terrorism efforts.

Muted complaints

Nevertheless, some quarters are growing more wary of Malaysia’s geopolitical role.

“The UK has become more circumspect of dealing with Malaysian leadership,” said Alexander Neill, head of the Asia Security Program at the London-based Royal United Services Institute for Defense and Security Studies. He said in particular the recent zealously Islamic statements by senior Malaysian leaders “are problematic to a counter-terrorism policy”.

There are other geopolitical differences. For instance, while the US and other Western governments fret about the unfolding genocide in Sudan, Malaysia has recently invested heavily in the regime’s petroleum resources. Abdullah also cemented military and energy ties with Russia during a visit there in June, according to Foreign Ministry Parliamentary Secretary Ahmad Shabery Cheek. Some have suggested that that overture could be designed to counterbalance the close economic and military ties the US shares with Malaysian neighbor and rival Singapore. Ahmad has denied that Malaysia is in any way becoming a proxy for Russian influence in the Southeast Asian region.

While the US aims to build an international consensus in dissuading Iran from pursuing a nuclear-weapons program, Malaysia has recently strengthened ties to the Islamic Republic, including recent negotiations toward a $16 billion oil deal. Malaysia is also constructing a $7 billion oil pipeline that will traverse the north of Malaysia, which industry analysts say will help Tehran deliver more oil to East Asia. The National Iranian Oil Co reportedly has a 30% stake in the joint-venture project, though the Malaysian government has failed to disclose specific details of the deal.

Those opaque dealings have predictably caused a stir in Washington. James Keith, the US ambassador-designate to Malaysia, who is to begin his posting in Kuala Lumpur next month, said at his Senate confirmation hearing in May that he would “emphasize that we are vigorously opposed to business as usual with Iran”.

He also said investment ties “offer great promise for further development” and that while he would work to nurture them, as well as military and security cooperation, he stressed, “It will be critical … for my country team and for me to speak forthrightly about our commitment to fundamental values, including those enunciated in the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights.”

US security and embassy officials here declined to comment on how the recent string of security lapses involving Malaysia have affected bilateral relations and what steps if any are being taken to prevent future misunderstandings. The two sides last year signed a treaty on mutual legal assistance covering a broad range of criminal matters, including evidence and witness sharing, though it’s still unclear whether the pact has actually been ratified by Malaysia.

But that doesn’t resolve the fact that US fighter-aircraft parts are, according to Koh during a secretly recorded conversation revealed in a US Justice Department press release, were regularly exported to Malaysia en route to Iran. Security analysts say one reason arms proliferators may gravitate toward Malaysia is that it does not have a comprehensive and specific law on export controls. According to the International Institute for Strategic Studies, “Malaysia lists only ‘radioactive and nuclear material, substances and irradiating apparatus’ for controls, and not dual-use items.”

Malaysia does not have any verification system in place to ensure that exported goods are used for their stated end use or truly sent to their listed end users. Officials with the Malaysian police, Defense Ministry, Internal Security Ministry, Foreign Affairs Ministry and International Trade Ministry did not respond to Asia Times Online’s requests to discuss how the government is acting to address these regulatory loopholes. Yet until they are closed, US-Malaysian relations will continue to be tinged with mutual suspicion.

(Ioannis Gatsiounis, a New York native, is a Kuala Lumpur-based writer)

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 28 August 2007, 7:49 am and is filed under
Foreign
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Unfit To Lead

M. Bakri Musa

After nearly four years as Prime Minister, Abdullah Ahmad Badawi has clearly demonstrated that he is not fit to lead the nation.  He does not have what it takes to hold the nation’s top post; he must be relieved of his office.

            The man is too incompetent to be even aware of his own incompetence.  His trademark answer to every serious query is a plaintive, “I dunno!”  There is not even a hint of embarrassment on his part, or the desire and curiosity to find out.  Truly revealing!

Consider this latest blunder:  As Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, Abdullah is blissfully unaware of the RM5 billion blunder now unfolding at the Port Klang Free Zone project.  If he is not aware (much less on top) of that impending financial implosion, chances are he is unable to comprehend the wider and more treacherous economic ramifications.  Abdullah is instead riled up over some sophomoric rap rendition of the national anthem.  Small mind, trivial preoccupation!

His election promises of 2004 turned out to be nothing more than the typical politician’s empty words, a cruel hoax perpetrated upon trusting citizens.  For all his talk about greater transparency and combating corruption, it is nothing more than, to put it in the vernacular, “cock talk!”  Under his “leadership,” all these are now much worse.  His overly displayed public piety and religiosity are obviously for show only, as he is not fearful of Allah for having not kept his promises to the people.

He is consumed with the expensive trappings of his office, with luxury corporate jets ready to fly him and his family all over the globe.  It is amazing how fast this kampong imam from Kepala Batas, a backwater of modern Penang, is acquiring the extravagant taste of the jet set, all at public expense of course.

Those closest to him personally and politically are serving their selfish interests in indulging his fantasy, or more correctly, daydream.  The old man can hardly keep himself awake!

Unfortunately, it is the nation that is bearing the terrible consequences.  The longer he stays, the heavier will be the burden, and costlier the price.  We are now close to the point where the damages wrecked by this man would be irreversible.  We cannot risk such a fate; the time for action is now!

            This is a sobering thought, a definite damper on the current joyous mood in celebrating our 50th anniversary of Merdeka.  Fortunately, despite Malaysia’s short history, the nation is sufficiently rooted in democratic principles and practices that it could effect leadership change without resorting to unconstitutional means.

There is little to learn from other Third World countries, with their predilection for assassinations, military coups, and other unsavory methods, in getting rid of ineffective leaders.  Those who grab power are by nature ruthless and not likely to give it up willingly.  Consequently, the end result is invariably much worse.  However, considering Abdullah’s current sorry ineptness, such a scene is difficult to imagine for Malaysia.

Malaysia once suspended its constitution, following the May 1969 riot.  That was in response to an emergency, when the dangers and damages were physical and thus readily comprehended by the citizens.  Consequently there was general consensus to a rule by decree.

Today’s dangers are more subtle and insidious, but the consequences could be even more catastrophic.  The nation is being lulled into irreversible mediocrity, condemned to perpetual third-rate status.

Another major factor to the acceptance of the 1969 Emergency Rule was that we knew who would be taking over:  the able and decisive Tun Razak.  Malaysians had faith in the man’s ability and integrity.  They were not wrong.  A few years later with law and order established, Razak re-instituted parliament and voluntarily gave up his dictatorial power.  To this day, his action remains the rare exception; the general rule is for dictators to cling on to power until they die naturally, get killed, or are ousted.

I also do not think it necessary to strain the constitution with, for example, the King exercising his power to remove the Prime Minister.  That would create a dangerous precedent.  Besides, Abdullah is just not worth a constitutional crisis.

Tips From the First World

While the Third World cannot offer us lessons on changing leaders orderly outside of elections, we can learn from the First World.  Even hitherto able leaders could be removed without compromising constitutional or democratic principles.  Britain’s Tony Blair is a recent example.

Blair led his Labor Party to three successive electoral victories.  Yet when he overreached and joined Bush in invading Iraq, a few of his ministers resigned in protest.  That in turn emboldened Blair’s challenger, Gordon Brown.

While former Prime Minister Mahathir admitted to making a colossal mistake in appointing Abdullah, Malaysia should not and cannot be held hostage to the mistake of one man.  There is no reason to be fatalistic or just sit back and suffer the consequences.  While Mahathir is trying hard to undo his mistake, the primary responsibility in ridding Abdullah ultimately falls on the citizens collectively, not on any one person no matter how eminent and influential he or she may be.

That said, a single individual — even one of no particular distinction — can often initiate and effect significant change.  Again referring to May 1969, it was one man who initiated the process that eventually led to Prime Minister Tunku Abdul Rahman leaving.  The Tunku was a much-revered leader, the “Father of Independence,” yet the one man instrumental in Tunku’s downfall was a defeated government backbencher.

A defeated candidate normally would have little clout, yet there was Mahathir able to effect seismic changes in the nation’s leadership with his now famous letter to the Tunku demanding that he quit.

Easing Abdullah Out

The most effective way to disabuse Abdullah of his delusion and puncture his leadership fantasy would be for his ministers to have a vote of no confidence in him.  That would be dramatic, but unlikely to happen.  As some of his ministers are also leaders of the component parties, such an action could split the coalition and risk paying the ultimate price:  defeat at the general elections.

A more practical reason for this not happening is that his ministers are more followers than leaders.  There are no jantans in the cabinet, only jantan wannabes.  They were appointed not for their leadership qualities or executive talent but for their ability to grovel to and humor the leader of the day.

Recently in an unprecedented move, the entire non-Muslim ministers except one (he was abroad at the time) wrote the Prime Minister to express their displeasure over the increasing Islamization of his administration.  They quickly backed down when UMNO hound dogs snarled back.  That again reflected the spinelessness of these ministers.

Nonetheless their subtle message — they do not have confidence in Abdullah — was delivered.  The only problem was that everyone missed that too subtle a message.

As an aside, although I share their concerns I condemned those ministers’ action.  Far from challenging Abdullah, they merely exacerbated the Muslim/non-Muslim divide.  They would have been far more effective had they acted individually, and backed their words with actions, as with resigning and taking their party out of the coalition.  That would have startled Abdullah enough to wake him up.  His hound dogs in UMNO Youth would be too rattled to spring into action.  It might even embolden a few UMNO ministers to do their part and trigger a soft in-house coup.

Do not however, expect a Malaysian Gordon Brown, ready and able to take over.  Brown had proven himself formidable as Chancellor of the Exchequer, a more than worthy successor, while Abdullah’s deputy, Najib Razak, carries considerable political and personal baggage.  More than likely, the change process would also consume him.

When President Nixon was threatened with impeachment over the Watergate crisis, senior leaders of his party was able to persuade him to resign and thus spare the nation a constitutional crisis.  Unfortunately UMNO is bereft of senior leaders with stature.  Musa Hitam in theory would be a prime candidate, but since getting his Tunship, Musa is so beholden to Abdullah that he (Abdullah) can now do no wrong.

One leader (apart from Mahathir) who could tell Abdullah to his face would be Tengku Razaleigh.  However he would not be credible as his efforts would be viewed as self-serving:  to further his own ambition of becoming Prime Minister.

Alternatively, UMNO Supreme Council could express its lack of confidence in Abdullah.  With Abdullah no longer its leader, he would have to give up his office and UMNO would have to convene a leadership convention.  That would open wide the field and help ensure that the party would get a more capable and credible leader.

UMNO Supreme Council is a much larger and more independent body than the cabinet.  Except for the ten members appointed by and thus beholden to Abdullah, the others are voted directly by the members.  They are immune to his influence except in so far as promises of ministerial and other political appointments.  There would be enough members not beholden to him who could initiate a no-confidence vote.  Even if it fails, it may just rattle the old man that he may decide to spend more time with his new wife.

If all else fails, voters could always teach Abdullah a lesson.  If they were to give him and his party a severe thumping in the next election, that could precipitate an internal grumbling within UMNO enough to trigger an insurrection.

The next election however need not be held till May 2009.  By that time the country would have become irretrievably damaged under Abdullah’s leadership, or more correctly, lack of one.  Corruption would be so endemic and embedded such that the election itself would be meaningless; it would be effectively rigged.  At which stage Malaysia would join the ranks of Nigeria, Pakistan, and Zimbabwe, doomed to perpetual mediocrity.

It is thus urgent that we relieve Abdullah now of his job before it is too late.  We owe it to our children and grandchildren.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 28 August 2007, 2:47 pm and is filed under
Abdullah Ahmad Badawi
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


FC judge with 35 outstanding judgments from High Ct – why PM only aware after more than a month it was reported publicly?

The
Prime Minister
, Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi said yesterday that the Chief Justice must answer the allegation that a Federal Court judge had failed to write grounds of judgment in 35 cases since his High Court tenure, covering both civil and criminal cases.

DAP National chairman and MP for Bukit Gelugor, Karpal Singh, has named Federal Court judge Datuk Hashim Yusuf in Parliament on Monday as the judge concerned.

The Prime Minister said it was disappointing to discover that there may be judges who had not performed their functions and duties adequately in the pursuit of justice.

The Prime Minister is right — the  Chief Justice Tun Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim cannot continue to keep his silence after he had flatly denied that there was any Federal Court judge who had not written as many as 30 grounds of judgment and challenged for proof to be provided.

As such proof have been provided and the Federal Court judge concerned named, Fairuz should  publicly apologise for misleading the Malaysian public and explain whether he is heading a competent, responsible, accountable  and professional judiciary.

Will Fairuz take out the Federal Court judge concerned from all current Federal Court cases until he had written up all the grounds of judgments of 35 outstanding civil and criminal cases?

It is also equally disturbing that the Prime Minister has taken  more than a month to be aware of the problem of the manifest injustice of a Federal Court judge having more than 30 outstanding grounds of judgment from High Court tenure although it was reported publicly more than a month ago on July 23, raising serious question about the competence and responsibility of the Abdullah’s government.

Would Abdullah  continue to pretend that the injustices committed by judges in failing to give prompt grounds of judgments as required by the Code of Ethics for Judges do not exist if Karpal had not brought the matter to Parliament on Monday?

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 29 August 2007, 3:37 pm and is filed under
Court
,
Good Governance
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.