Rais: Deferment of Tanda Putera decided by cabinet

by Zulaikha Zulkifli

Malaysiakini

Nov 8, 2012

The decision to postpone the airing of the film Tanda Putera to next year was made by the cabinet, said Information, Communications and Culture Minister Rais Yatim.

Rais said the decision was made after the cabinet ministers found that there were elements that are “inappropriate” to be screened.

“The cabinet has decided for the benefit of the people, that the official premiere of the film is postponed as it contains scenes that may cause conflicts.

“This is because it shows the tragedy of May 13 which is disputed by various parties,” he added.

He said this in reply to reporters after launching the state Himpunan Kasih Sayang at Kampung Puah Lembah this evening.

The controversial film had been postponed for the second time, to next year.

Prior to that, the film was initially scheduled for screening on Sept 13, this year but was delayed to Nov 15, citing lack of promotion.

The historical film revolves around the second prime minister Abdul Razak Hussein and his deputy Ismail Abdul Rahman in their effort to pull the country together after the race riots on May 13, 1969.

‘Some scenes found to be bias’

Rais had defended the delay, claiming that some of the scenes were not reflective of actual history.

The RM4.8 million film was produced by Pesona Pictures Sdn Bhd in cooperation with the National Film Development Malaysia (Finas).

“The cabinet and its members who had watched (the film) thought that it was proper for it to be postponed because some scenes were found to be bias, for example in the murder (scenes).

“There was decapitated head and secondly, for example, urinating on the flag pole,” he said.

Asked if the film will be remade in light of this, Rais replied: “I don’t think so. I think there will be an evaluation meeting between the director and Finas because this film is Finas’ and the government spent money on it, it was not produced privately”.

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 8 November 2012, 10:19 pm and is filed under
Media
,
nation building
,
Rais Yatim
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Secular or non-secular: What history tells us

— Art Harun

The Malaysian Insider

Nov 08, 2012

NOV 8 — Lately there has been a public discourse on whether Malaysia is a secular country or otherwise.

Let us take a break. And take a visit down memory lanes. Perhaps history might shed some lights on the issue.

To begin with, Article 3 (1) of our Federal Constitution provides as follows:

“Islam is the religion of the Federation; but other religions may be practised in peace and harmony in any part of the Federation.”

Initially, when the Reid Commission was set to draft our Constitution, the Alliance (Umno, MIC and MCA) presented a 20 page memorandum to the Reid Commission. On Islam, the memo says:

“The religion of Malaysia shall be Islam. The observance of this principle shall not impose any disability on non-Muslim nationals professing and practising their own religion, and shall not imply that the State is not a secular State.”

After 118 meetings, the Reid Commission wrote its report in Rome and published it in February 1957. On the position of Islam, it says:

“We have considered the question whether there should be any statement in the Constitution to the effect that Islam should be the State religion. There was universal agreement that if any such provision were inserted it must be made clear that it would not in any way affect the civil rights of non-Muslims — ‘the religion of Malaysia shall be Islam. The observance of this principle shall not impose any disability on non-Muslim nationals professing and practising their own religion and shall not imply that the State is not a secular State’.

There is nothing in the draft Constitution to affect the continuance of the present position in the States with regard to recognition of Islam or to prevent the recognition of Islam in the Federation by legislation or otherwise in any respect which does not prejudice the civil rights of individual non-Muslims.

The majority of us think that it is best to leave the matter on this basis, looking to the fact that Counsel for the Rulers said to us: “It is Their Highnesses considered view that it would not be desirable to insert some declaration such as has been suggested that the Muslim Faith or Islamic Faith be the established religion of the Federation. Their Highnesses are not in favour of such declaration being inserted and that is a matter of specific instruction in which I myself have played very little part.”

Justice Abdul Hamid, a member of the Reid Commission from Pakistan however disagreed. He proposed to include the following article;

“Islam shall be the religion of the State of Malaya, but nothing in this Article shall prevent any citizen professing any religion other than Islam to profess, practice and propagate that religion, nor shall any citizen be under any disability by reason of his being not a Muslim.

A provision like one suggested above is innocuous. Not less than fifteen countries of the world have a provision of this type entrenched in their Constitutions.

Among the Christian countries, which have such a provision in their Constitutions, are Ireland (Article 6), Norway (Article 1), Denmark (Article 3), Spain (Article 6), Argentina (Article 2), Bolivia (Article 3), Panama (Article 36) and Paraguay (Article 3).

Among the Muslim countries are Afghanistan (Article 1), Iran (Article 1), Iraq (Article 13), Jordan (Article 2), Saudi Arabia (Article 7), and Syria (Article 3).

Thailand is an instance in which Buddhism has been enjoined to be the religion of the King who is required by the Constitution to uphold that religion (Constitution of Thailand, Article 7).

If in these countries a religion has been declared to be the religion of the State and that declaration has not been found to have caused hardships to anybody, no harm will ensue if such a declaration is included in the Constitution of Malaya.

In fact, in all the Constitutions of Malayan States a provision of this type already exists. All that is required to be done is to transplant it from the State Constitutions and to embed it in the Federal.

In proposing as such, Justice Hamid was actually mirroring the memo by the Alliance. He said:

“It has been recommended by the Alliance that the Constitution should contain a provision declaring Islam to be the religion of the State. It was also recommended that it should be made clear in that provision that a declaration to the above effect will not impose any disability on non-Muslim citizens in professing, propagating and practising their religions, and will not prevent the State from being a secular State. As on this matter the recommendation of the Alliance was unanimous their recommendation should be accepted and a provision to the following effect should be inserted in the Constitution either after Article 2 in Part I or at the beginning of Part XIII.”

In “The Making of the Malayan Constitution” by Joseph Fernando, the author states:

“The Umno leaders contended that provision for an official religion would have an important psychological impact on the Malays. But in deference to the objections of the Rulers and the concerns of non-Muslims, the Alliance agreed that the new article should include two provisos: first, that it would not affect the position of the Rulers as head of religion in their respective States; and second, that the practice and propagation of other religions in the Federation would be assured under the Constitution. The MCA and MIC representatives did not raise any objections to the new article, despite protests by many non-Muslim organizations, as they were given to understand by their Umno colleagues that it was intended to have symbolic significance rather than practical effect, and that the civil rights of the non-Muslims would not be affected.”

Shortly after the London Conference the British Government issued a White Paper in June 1957 containing the Constitutional Proposals for independent Malaya. Paragraph 57 deals with the Religion of the Federation and reads:

“There has been included in the Federal Constitution a declaration that Islam is the religion of the Federation. This will in no way affect the present position of the Federation as a secular State, and every person will have the right to profess and practice his own religion and the right to propagate his religion, though this last right is subject to any restrictions imposed by State law relating to the propagation of any religious doctrine or belief among persons professing the Muslim religion.”

The Constitutional Bill was then was passed without amendment.

In an effort to mollify them, the Colonial Secretary, Lennox Boyd, wrote to Lord Reid on May 31, 1957 offering tribute and gratitude to the “remarkable” work done by the Reid Commission and stated:

“The Rulers, as you know, changed their tune about Islam and they and the Government presented a united front in favour of making Islam a state religion even though Malaya is to be a secular state.”

It is interesting to note that Justice Abdul Hamid, the sole member of the Reid Commission who proposed article 3 (1) to be inserted had described the provision as “innocuous”. What does that innocuous little provision mean then?

Professor Sheridan, a well-known expert on Malaysian Constitution opines as follows:

“A Federation, as opposed to the people within its territory, having a religion is a difficult notion to grasp….. It has been suggested that the probable meaning of the first part of Article 3(1) is that, insofar as federal business (such as ceremonial business) involves religious matters, that business is to be regulated in accordance with the religion of Islam” – The Religion of the Federation”, [1988] 2 MLJ xiii

Considering recent events, that provision has however ceased from being innocuous. Hopefully, it would not be monstrous instead. — art-harun.blogspot.com

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 8 November 2012, 10:51 pm and is filed under
Constitution
,
Islamic state
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Hiring Discrimination in Peninsular Malaysia Study: A Half Finished Product

By Koon Yew Yin

Last week I received a copy of an email invitation to a joint seminar by two academics, one from University of Malaya and the other from Unversiti Kebangsaan Malaysia.  The title of their talk was “Does race matter in getting an interview? A field experiment of hiring discrimination in Peninsular Malaysia.”.

As I have been an employer with over 40 years experience, the seminar topic intrigued me. Unfortunately I was not able to attend.  Subsequently, I have been following the internet discussion generated by the seminar.  This includes the recent letter from the two researchers requesting an apology from an online news site which reported on the seminar findings.

Is Racial Bigotry an Issue in Hiring?

According to the letter, the online website had through its headline “Malaysian employers practise racial bigotry, study shows” grossly misrepresented the study. Although the two academics conceded that the article “fairly accurately conveys our main findings and conclusions”, they were upset by the politically incorrect term “racial bigotry” used in the headline.

In my view, the two academics, Lee Hwok Aun and Muhammed Abdul Khalid, would serve the policy public better if they put their energies into answering the question that they posed in their work – does race matter in getting an interview?  If it does matter, then they need to explain why instead of making a mountain of a mole-hill over the use of the term “racial bigotry”.

According to their abstract the researchers conducted a field experiment by sending fictitious résumés of Malay and Chinese fresh graduates to real job advertisements. They then analyzed differentials in callback for interview attributable to racial identity.  According to them there were statistically significant differences in callback rates, “indicating racial discrimination” since “Chinese are substantially more likely than Malays to be called for interview, and the difference is more acute in engineering jobs compared to accounting/finance.”

The Bigger Question: Why Are Malays Less Likely to be Interviewed?

It is not rocket science to know that private sector employers – not only in Malaysia but all over the world – are not totally racially blind in whom they chose to interview or hire. Although their findings confirm this, they also found that “in engineering jobs, estimated discrimination against Malay applicants is highest among foreign-controlled companies, followed by Malay-controlled companies, then Chinese-controlled companies”.

Why are Malays less likely to be called for interviews despite apparently similar credentials?  That is the important question to ask and answer. To this question all we have is the suggestion that employers are less disposed toward Malays due to “compatibility factors and unobservable qualities”.

In less academic jargon or plain terms, what the two academics are saying is that they do not know why Malays are less likely to be interviewed although but they see this as indicating racial discrimination.   What the two researchers have done is to allege the factor of racial discrimination without even interviewing the employers in their sample and examining deeper the reasons! Now what kind of research is this?

Of course race is a consideration in the employment market place and economy.  Whether one is selling products or hiring staff, this factor is part of the calculus of business. In some cases it emerges as a major factor, in others less so, and in some cases not at all.

What are the reasons to explain this partiality or bias in interviewing for hiring? Is it because of ignorance? Is this reflective of attitudes and beliefs amounting to racial stereotyping? Is this a result of past experiences with incompetent staff from a particular race which have resulted in these so-called racially discriminatory practices?  Does language competency play a role in this?

 What explains the finding that foreign controlled firms are the most prejudiced when in fact it is often assumed that they are the most race blind or least discriminatory. And why do Malay controlled companies discriminate against applicants from their own race even more than Chinese firms?

All of these questions as well as other larger factors are completely ignored by the research.  In my experience as an employer I have found that the Barisan Nasional’s pro-Malay bias in education and employment has resulted in sharply lowered standards.  This has brought about a glut of Malay graduates, many of who are virtually unemployable as they lack English and Chinese language and social marketing skills.

Suggestions for Follow Up Work

The two academics claim that they have conducted the research to bring about a more informed and level-headed understanding of a contentious and difficult subject.  To arrive at their objectives, I suggest that they take into account the feedback provided by members of the public to their work as well as conduct detailed fieldwork with the sampled employers.

Also, for their study to have policy significance, they should place their findings in the larger national context.  This will require the employee breakdown of private (and public) sector employers in the country according to racial grouping as well as the racial composition of their employees.

This national picture will provide a better picture of who are being employed in the country and by whom, and will help to minimize any ugly finger pointing arising from the work.

Finally, I propose that they complement this study with one examining hiring and employment patterns in the Government, Petronas and GLCs where tax payers’ money is being used to hire staff and where racial discriminatory practices should be much less tolerated.

                This entry was posted on Friday, 9 November 2012, 11:18 am and is filed under
Labour
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Najib is a copycat of Dr M

By Martin Jalleh

                This entry was posted on Friday, 9 November 2012, 11:12 am and is filed under
Mahathir
,
Martin Jalleh
,
Najib Razak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Obama’s victory of hope over hate

by Bridget Welsh

Malaysiakini

Nov 8, 2012

COMMENT

When the presidential election was finally called, the results confirmed what most people expected – Barack Obama was returned to office for another four years.

It was not quite the nail-biter the media hyped it up to be, but there certainly were moments of uncertainty and anxiety on both sides.

In terms of the popular vote, Obama’s margin was extremely slim, although the electoral college system gave him a comfortable margin as he picked up the key swing states, including Florida (where I voted).

The election had a record turnout as Americans took their right to vote seriously (with some queuing for hours) and the process carefully monitored by observers.

The US 2012 election offers some simple lessons on understanding electoral behaviour and what can deliver political victory in close contests.

Women, minorities and the youth

Obama’s victory shows that in order to win you have to be careful not to alienate powerful constituencies. Among the groups that were critical to Obama’s victory, women were one of those at the top of the list.

The gender gap was large – 55 percent of women supported Obama with only 44 percent voting for Romney. The reason was simple – members of Romney’s party repeatedly and disgracefully suggested that rape was legitimate and went further to argue for the denial of a women’s right to control her own body after she was raped.

NONEAbortion, birth control and equal pay – issues at the core of women’s right in the United States – were prominent in what became a ‘gender war’ in the campaign. Ultimately, the Republicans alienated a majority of women.

It did not help matters that Republicans also went on the offensive against women candidates, crossing the line of acceptability. Previous studies show that attacks on women politicians can backfire, especially if they are seen as unfair or unsubstantiated.

The women that were unfairly attacked – such as senators Elizabeth Warren and Tammy Baldwin – won in close races and were made stronger by the attacks.

It is not a coincidence that this election saw an unprecedented number of women running for Congress, and large numbers were elected, notably for the Senate. Women also make up the majority of voters in most electorates.

They are loyal and they came out to vote. In this US election, they showed they have power!

Racial undertones

It was a historic moment when an African American was elected US president in 2008. This election may not have been a barrier breaker, but it is perhaps even more meaningful.

To re-elect an African American – a minority candidate who was vilified disgracefully by the birther movement that challenged his citizenship in a climate where racism was a not-so-subtle undertone in the campaign and the economy is still recovering – illustrates that Americans are moving toward greater tolerance.

An important facet of this campaign is greater acceptance of minorities in political leadership and an embrace of ethnic diversity.

Much has been written about the end of the American dream amidst a broader economic decline. This election suggests that this view is premature – that minorities can rise, and be supported in their advancement. Obama’s campaign this time may not have had much of the rhetoric of hope and change, but the final result illustrates that hope and change are very much alive.

This is not to say that ethnic identity was not important in this campaign. Racial voting played a role. African Americans came out in large numbers to support Obama, and these numbers in part comprise the record-breaking turnout.

Latinos who now comprise 16.7 percent of the population contributed to the incumbent’s victory, especially after the Dream Act which gave citizenship to children of immigrants. Whites, on their part, disproportionately made up the Romney base.

The picture of supporters in the halls when the election was announced shows however that there were two Americas – one embracing diversity and the other holding onto the past of a white-majority America. Diversity won out.

To think that you can win without minority support in a close contest is foolhardy.

Money alone is not enough

The third group that played a vital role was young people. Many youth were undecided. But when it came time to touch the screen, they voted for inclusion and Obama.

His campaign continued to inspire young people to a greater degree than his opponent. Youth disproportionately did the ground work in the campaign and energised the campaign by making sure the machinery stayed well-oiled.

Part of the reason that Obama’s campaign was so successful was that it relied on this network of young people, tied together through social media and smart phones.

This was the most expensive campaign in history of the US, and the Republican campaign had millions of dollars in advantage. But in the end, the money was not enough.

What Obama did better was to get his machinery to work effectively, to reach out and to bring people out to vote. Make no bones about it – the election was about hard labour, not spending money.

Obama’s victory speech highlighted a central tenet of his campaign approach – the election was not about what the government could do for citizens, rather it was about what citizens could do for others. This belief in the power of people brought people together and assured that campaign offices performed. Indeed, empowerment inspires people.

Inspiration was also part of Obama’s final campaign approach. He finished his campaign with positive clear and dichotomous messages: Hope not hate. Unity not division. People not politics first. Needless to say, he was aided by Hurricane Sandy that allowed these positive messages to reach a wider audience.

Graciousness in defeat

Mitt Romney showed graciousness in his concession speech and highlighted that elections are a means toward governing. Power is not just about acquiring it or holding onto it, but knowing how to use it and when to let it go.

An election is judged by the actions of all sides, and a respect for the process as a whole is essential – especially in defeat.

Obama will face a difficult second term, and he is bound to disappoint many in the contested polarised political reality of US politics and on the increasingly complex international stage.

He does have a mandate, however, to bring people together and focus on bringing sustainable and meaningful benefits to ordinary citizens.

Yesterday’s election shows that the competition for power – even a fierce one – does not have to be a zero-sum winner-take-all game. Such a competition can open the way to compromise and empowerment, and the process itself holds promise.

DR BRIDGET WELSH is associate professor of political science at Singapore Management University and she can be reached at
[email protected]
. She voted for Obama by absentee ballot and received an email acknowledgment that her vote was counted.

                This entry was posted on Friday, 9 November 2012, 12:03 am and is filed under
Elections
,
International
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Things Fall Apart The Centre Cannot Hold

By Martin Jalleh

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 10 November 2012, 9:39 am and is filed under
Martin Jalleh
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Umno leaders cannot be more wrong as Umno’s biggest problem in 13GE is not the perception but the fact of their corruption

Umno secretary-general Tengku Adnan Mansor cannot be more wrong in claiming that Umno’s biggest problem in the 13th General Election is the perception that it is a corrupt party.

The real problem is the corruption in the Umno leadership, which must bear the full responsibility for Malaysia’s worst ranking in the past 17 years of Transparency International (TI) Corruption Perception Index (CPI) and losing out to more and more countries not only in the region, the Asia-Pacific but even to Islamic countries in the Organisation of Islamic Conference (OIC) in the fight against corruption.

When the TI CPI was first introduced in 1995, Malaysia was ranked No. 23. I can still remember the condemnation by the then Prime Minister Dr. Mahathir Mohamad who accused it as part of the Western “white men” conspiracy to demonise Asian countries as the global anti-corruption NGO was headquartered in Berlin.

What is most ironic is that in the months before he stepped down as Prime Minister in October 2003, he was singing a different tune, according legitimacy by  giving his bessings to the annual TI CPI when he urged the country to aim to be among the top countries among the least corrupt nations in the annual TI CPI.

When Mahathir stepped down as Prime Minister, Malaysia’s ranking in 2003 had dropped from 23rd in 1995 to 37th position!

In the five-year premiership of Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, Malaysia’s TI CPI plunged another ten places from  37th to 47th ranking in 2008 despite Abdullah’s five-year National Integrity Plan to achieve at least 30th ranking in 2008.

But the sharpest drop in TI CPI ranking took place in the three years under the sixth Prime Minister, Najib Razak falling another 13 places to 60th ranking with the lowest TI CPI score of 4.3 in the TI CPI 2011.

With this backdrop of worsening corruption in Malaysia in the past two decades, with Malaysia under Najib even more corrupt than under the two previous Prime Ministers Mahathir and Abdullah, how can Umno leaders trivialise the grave problem of corruption of Malaysia under Umno?

Unless Umno leaders can present an iron-clad case that it is not Umno but the other Barisan Nasional parties like MCA, Gerakan, MIC, the Sabah and Sarawak BN parties which must bear the greatest responsibility for the critical corruption problem in Malaysia?

Instead of the Denial Syndrome trivialising the grave problem of corruption in Malaysia, Umno leaders should accept full responsibility by.demonstrating the political will and commitment to fight “grand corruption” involving top political and government leaders, starting with a full public inquiry into the RM40 million “Sabah political donation” scandal involving Sabah Chief Minister Datuk Seri Musa Aman and Sabah timber trader Michael Chia.

[
Speech by DAP Parliamentary Leader and MP for Ipoh Timur Lim Kit Siang at the launch of Angkatan Perubahan Sabah (APS) in Papar at Kg Tamui on Friday November 9, 2012 at 8pm
]

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 10 November 2012, 12:30 pm and is filed under
Corruption
,
Sabah
,
UMNO
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Why I have nothing much to say at the moment (Part 1)

By
Clive Kessler
 | November 07, 2012

UPDATED @ 07:04:27 AM 08-11-2012

The Malaysian Insider

People are kind.

They have been writing to ask how I am.

I have not said or written anything serious for weeks.

And they are beginning to wonder.

The “Phoney War” Interlude

“What is the problem?” they ask.

The problem, I reply, is not me. It’s the situation.

The situation?

Yes, we are now in a situation where there just isn’t much to say.

Not much that is really worthwhile, consequential. Worth the effort of putting on paper. New.

Everybody is waiting for the election to be called and held.

They have been for a while now.

The terms and ground of the next national election have been laid down pretty clearly. They were set some time ago.

So there is not much to say or do in the meanwhile, until the election is called.

We are in the political equivalent of what was once called the “phoney war.”

A time when war was declared but the battle yet to be seriously engaged, for the opposed troops to throw themselves into desperate action.

But people can’t simply stand still or keep quiet.

So the available space is simply packed these days with “noise.” With distractions, with “filler”, with ambit claims and posturing.

In all the political parties it is a time simply for maintaining their troops “at the ready.” For the voicing of shop-soiled stock phrases, for the repetitious declaration of familiar positions and claims.

But is there nothing at all to say?

Well, yes, perhaps there is.

Nothing new, mind you.

Just a brief stocktaking. A look, as we sit in our stalled vehicle, into the rearview mirror.

Just to see where we are, and the road along which we got here.

“The Writing on the Wall”

The terms for the coming election have long been set: certainly since the first of the two great Bersih marches.

Since then the issue has been clear.

With vast popular support the two Bersih marches made, in a very practical “feet on the ground” manner, one powerful symbolic statement.

State and society, government and people, must be credibly conjoined if a modern democratic political order is to be created and sustained.

In a modern democracy, the connecting device between state and society, or seen from other direction between citizens and their rulers, is periodic popular elections.

It is through elections that the people’s representatives in the legislature are chosen and, from among them and with their support, a government is formed.

The credibility of the government, and more than that of the entire political order and governing regime, rests upon the credibility of the elections.

Even, and especially, from the government’s own standpoint, the only serviceable election system is a credible one. If it’s not credible it is simply useless, a waste of time and effort.

If the mechanism is a good one and its processes are clear and clean and transparent, a plausible government can result, one that had legitimacy, one that even those who did not vote for it can and must accept.

But if the electoral mechanism, the hinge between citizen and government, is defective, no plausible government can emerge. What can emerge can enjoy no real or substantial legitimacy.

Power, claims to authority, that lack legitimacy affront democratic sensibilities.

They cannot gain, still less hold over the longer term, widespread and principled acceptance.

So they simply cannot provide any grounds to rule.

Not effectively, anyway.

That issue has been “on the table”, that challenge to the continuity of Malaysian politics in its current dispensation, has been starkly posed, at least since the Bersih march of July 2011.

That is, and has for some time now been, Umno/BN’s dilemma.

Since 2008: The Challenge “On the Table”

But the terms of the forthcoming election, the “existential challenge” facing Umno/BN, were set even well before that.

The basic challenge of Umno/BN’s survival, and very survivability, were decisively set by the previous national election of 2008.

The challenge has been there since then.

The question whether Umno/BN can continue to rule, and of what the “old governing firm” needs to do to ensure that it might still do so, has been facing it squarely since then.

For Umno/BN the challenge of facing and winning the next election, the question of its very viability and survival, was clearly posed — for those who were ready to see it — by the nature of the election results of 2008.

The job of addressing that challenge has confronted it since then.

How did this situation come about?

What Happened in 2008?

Malaysia’s first post-independence political dispensation lasted from 1957 to 1969, when it came crashing  down in the regime crisis triggered by the 1969 elections.

Hence the design and creation around the Barisan Nasional governing coalition of the second post-independence political dispensation or framework: that centred upon the NEP that was intended to last for 20 years, from 1970 to 1990.

But even before 1990, from the mid-1980s, people began asking the big question, “after 1990, after the NEP, what?” Tan Sri Abdullah Ahmad [Kok Lanas]’s influential Singapore lecture on Ketuanan Melayu was offered as a notable and early answer, or ambit claim, in response to that looming question.

In the event, as after 1990 the NEP quite seamlessly “morphed” into the NDP, the NEP era and the second dispensation did not end but were indefinitely extended.

And as Dr Mahathir Mohamad’s long prime ministership stretched out, soon dramatically focused upon managing the Asian Economic Crisis of 1997 and the ensuing Reformasi crisis ignited by Anwar Ibrahim’s challenge, that second post-independence dispensation was eventually extended, shored up, and stretched out for well more than decade after 1990.

So, rather than being replaced, the second post-independence political dispensation or framework ended up having an unnaturally long afterlife. It lasted, or lingered on, well past its originally intended “use-by-date.”

And as it did, the ground upon which it stood was changing rapidly, transformed by many forces but none greater than the impact of the Umno’s own NEP policies.

Those policies, as they were intended to do, totally transformed Malaysian society by irreversibly diversifying peninsular Malay society. They did so along all its key axes and dimensions — economically, occupationally, professionally, socially, culturally, intellectually. Their product was a rich diversity of new Malay “lifestyles”, configurations and social groupings.

But as they did so the gap or “mismatch” between the post-1970 political framework and the increasingly complex character of the society upon which it stood, and whose public life it had to shape and channel and regulate, became ever greater and more problematic.

Above all, calls for “Malay unity” and mounting pressure to conform to conventional standards of Islamic rectitude could never suffice to counterbalance and contain the effects of that massive diversification of Malay society. Not that people in charge did not try, or keep on  trying.

But the effort was misconceived. Those in charge kept trying to force this new society back into the old political mould, rather than creating a new mould that was more congruent with, and hospitable to, their society’s evolving character.

The need for a new, post-NEP third post-independence political dispensation was becoming ever more clear. But the need was not recognized or met. So long as the credibility of Malaysia and its leadership had to be salvaged from the economic crisis of 1997 and the ensuing political eruption of 1999, the second dispensation remained in force.

Other matters had priority, and the familiar NEP framework would continue to provide the context and basis to resolve them.

As with the US space shuttle vehicles, ways were found simply to prolong its useful life, keep it operational and in service, avoiding the need to develop and launch a replacement.

The Abdullah interlude, Najib’s succession

That was the situation when, eventually, Dr Mahathir handed the nation’s leadership over to  Abdullah.

Yet, through no fault of Abdullah’s, that third post-independence dispensation did not then emerge. It still has not. Instead, as noted, with Dr Mahathir’s fairly seamless introduction of the NDP as the 1990s began, the NEP-era dispensation lived on and was assiduously preserved.

Even then the long afterlife of the second dispensation had continued. With Dr Mahathir at its head, it had been challenged by Anwar. But that ill-considered and incoherent challenge had been blocked. Thereafter, with Dr Mahathir’s determination to oversee the nation’s recovery from global economic recession and national political upheaval, the long and strange afterlife of the NEP-era political dispensation was further prolonged.

It was to remain in place so long as Dr Mahathir himself did. He remained in charge, and was determined to do so, until economic and political recovery, and with it his own political legacy and reputation, had been assured.

Eventually welcomed into office in a mood of national relief and goodwill, Abdullah went to the polls and received a heartening popular response, and a personal mandate, in 2004.

That was the personal aspect.

But, for the Umno, it was a political reprieve, not a message of forgiveness, a probation notice, not a pardon. The new prime minister and Umno/BN were “on notice.” There was serious work to be done, they were in effect told, and urgently.

But that was not how things were understood. The personal endorsement of Abdullah created in many party loyalists a false sense of comfort.

It anaesthetized any sense of urgency for political reform, in the Umno itself or the overarching political framework through which it managed Malaysian national life. Even when Abdullah seemed inclined to make some modest changes, he found himself blocked and resisted by those who felt that all was fine, that no change was necessary.

Unable to assert himself or to change the terms of party, government or national politics in any chosen direction of his own, Abdullah simply plodded on grimly towards his moment of truth in the March 2008 elections. When they came, the elections provided the occasion, the political opening and opportunity, for all the diverse social forces — many of them the direct and intended products of the NEP itself — that had been slowly building up during the long after-life of the second post-independence dispensation but which had been unable to express themselves, or to develop any serious political traction under it, to burst out.

In doing so they swept the old structure away. The familiar old governing logic was undermined, the tight political framework and paradigm under which they had long been kept under ever more tenuous restraint and control was shown to be obsolete.

“Not relevant” any more, some said with a certain irony.

No longer plausible or convincing, it now simply collapsed. Or rather, at the 2008 elections Malaysia’s second post-independence political dispensation, after its unnaturally long afterlife, was belatedly blasted away, exploded.

These long gestating but newly assertive forces were powerful enough to sweep away the old political structure and its governing logic. But they were not strong or cohesive enough to create a new third post-Merdeka political dispensation or paradigm of their own.

As a result Malaysia now stood, and still stands, stranded between the collapse of the second and the fervently awaited arrival, the effective production, of the third.

That has been the task, the challenge.

It is one that must be faced courageously, and with imagination.

As prime minister, Najib has preferred to be cautious: to express continuity with Umno’s and the Malay political past and to couch, even hide and disguise, his muted aspirations for innovation and change within narrowly managerial terms: within the technical terminology and in numbingly soporific talk of administrative transformation.

That is hardly the way to invite, encourage and provoke the nation to re-imagine itself in the terms of today, and as an agenda for the days and years to come. It is a dour management blueprint, not a mobilizing national vision.

And for the rest — for all that lies beyond administrative restructuring — for the “bigger picture”, the wider issues of evolving national identity and destiny, Prime Minister Najib has sought to bridge the gap between past and future with his woefully inchoate, vague and contradictory the “1 Malaysia” concept.

Since his accession to the highest office, the nation has accordingly been caught, in the poet Matthew Arnold’s famous typification of his own times, “between two worlds, the one dying, the other powerless to be born.”

That, too, has been Prime Minister Najib’s own dilemma. That has been his predicament, as he yearns for a political mandate of his own, both in his party and from the nation as a whole, and as he searches for a “good moment” to put his popularity to the test.

But a favourable moment has never come. Yet he has continued to hope for one. But none can ever really offer itself so long as he remains cornered in that dilemma of his own and his party’s making, in a predicament born of his own — and his party’s — lack of political clarity, of a temporizing political indecisiveness.

A bifurcated nation, divided over “Ketuanan Melayu”

Put simply — perhaps a little too simply but not misleadingly so — by 2008 one part of the electorate, mainly non-Malays, had resolved that they would no longer accept Umno’s repeated displays of “blood-and-soil” bravado expressed in the public and ceremonial, but also intensely political, brandishing of the keris, together with what that action was unashamedly intended to symbolize.

In increasing numbers many non-Malays now refused assent to the Umno-led government’s commitment to the view that the nation was, and since independence had always incontrovertibly been, founded upon the principle of Ketuanan Melayu, upon a constitutionally inherent, or immanent, yet universally accepted basis of Malay ascendancy or categorical ethno-historical primacy and supremacy.

Meanwhile another part of the electorate, mainly Malays, who had been persuaded by (or who themselves had sought to persuade most Malays of) the opposite view thought otherwise.

On that side were those who, especially since Abdullah’s Singapore speech in 1986, had sought to argue that Ketuanan Melayu had been an integral and accepted foundational part of the Merdeka agreements.

By 2008 they had spent more than two decades assiduously promoting that revisionist view. At times ingeniously — often audaciously and even brazenly — they sought to “read back” the Ketuanan Melayu principle into the Merdeka Constitution, to “build it back” and “retrofit” it into the nation’s founding charter.

If the principle was not to be found there explicitly (and even if it had been disavowed and repudiated by all the principal actors in the “Merdeka Process”), it was, they argued, immanently there, implied not so much by the actual clauses of the Constitution but within the spaces between them.

Those who were of this “retrospectively expansionist” inclination were now persuaded — quite wrongly as a matter of historical fact — that the new spirit of “defiance” that the other side’s refusal of their own new, revisionist view signified, and substantively amounted to, a repudiation of an existing and long-standing national covenant. It was, for them, a denial of the terms of non-Malay inclusion as citizens in the nation, a broken promise, a breach of citizenship contract.

Having persuaded themselves that Ketuanan Melayu had been “in there at the outset”, that it was an inherent part from birth of the nation and state’s very flesh and blood and sinews, they were now shocked to see that the other side simply did not accept that view.

More and worse, they saw that refusal not as historically based and arguably or conceivably legitimate but as historical betrayal.

Even if the champions of Ketuanan Melayu had not persuaded others of their own view, they had convinced themselves extravagantly. They had persuaded themselves not only of the justice of the Ketuanan Melayu principle itself as the nation’s bedrock but also of the “the other side’s” supposed acceptance of, and perpetually binding agreement to, it. For them, that fantasy of agreement to “subordination in perpetuity” had become an incontrovertible historical fact. Hence their disagreement was perceived and understood as more than simple disagreement. It was seen as treason.

So, on the one side: Ketuanan Melayu seen as an excess and distortion that could no longer be accepted and condoned, and therefore had in good conscience to be opposed. On the other side, Ketuanan Melayu as both a sacred covenant and also a hard-nosed “deal” or bargain, that was now being faithlessly repudiated. Betrayed, treacherously.

To some very surprising but to others hardly so, the 2008 election outcome resulted from and gave expression to the ever increasingly explicit emergence of that national bifurcation or dichotomy.

That was the central issue. It was an issue that people who were deeply disquieted by the unceasing expansionism of the Ketuanan Melayu claims had not talked much about before the election, preferring to hold their attitude quietly to themselves — until they voted upon it as the key issue of national choice.

The election outcome signalled that for many Malaysians this was now the key issue, above all others, and one which, if it were to survive, the Umno would have to address.

It was an issue that it would have to address by choosing, soon and decisively and unapologetically, to become once more a genuinely “centrist” party, a party of the “middle ground”, a party of national and especially ethnic moderation and inter-communal conciliation.

In other words, to be a champion of everything that the boasting of Ketuanan Melayu was not.

(
To be continued in Part 2
)

____

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

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 10 November 2012, 9:15 am and is filed under
Abdullah Ahmad Badawi
,
Bersih
,
Elections
,
Mahathir
,
Najib Razak
,
NEP
,
Post-2008 general election
,
UMNO
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Why I have nothing much to say at the moment (Part 2)

By
Clive Kessler
 | November 09, 2012

The Malaysian Insider

NOV 9 — The challenge facing Umno/BN after the 2008 elections, I have suggested, was not to embrace ever more closely Ketuanan Melayu and to capitulate to its vociferous partisans. Instead, it was to make itself the champion of everything that Ketuanan Melayu was not.

The outcome of the 2008 elections had displayed for all to see the exhaustion, even collapse — after its long and strangely prolonged afterlife — of Malaysia’s second post-independence political “dispensation”, the “regime framework” that had been designed for the initially intended NEP era from 1970 to 1990.

The outcome made explicit and evident, above all, the repudiation by many non-Malays (and Malays too!) of the Ketuanan Melayu zealots’ definition of the Malaysian nation. That was a view which, with at least tacit Umno complicity, had been stridently promoted over the preceding years: a limitlessly expansionist view of the constitutional entrenchment of perpetual, and perpetually undiscussable, Malay political ascendancy.

The election results made it clear, above all to the Umno and its leaders, that a very large part of the nation’s non-Malay citizenry were no longer prepared to accept, and now unambiguously wished to repudiate, the “blood-and-soil” Malay nationalists’ insistence — contrary to the terms and spirit of the Merdeka agreements of 1957 — that all non-Malays were, and had from the very outset  and perpetuity had been, incorporated into the nation as categorically subordinate.

They signalled that they would no longer offer the complicity of silence to the Ketuanan Melayu view of their congenial, complaisant and uncomplaining acceptance of that view: the view that — since the majority sets the rules and may always continue to change the rules as it may see fit — they as members of the minority had to be, and so would reliably be, satisfied with whatever the champions of Ketuanan Melayu might at any time offer them.

They would no longer accept the view that theirs was a citizenship not of equal and equally legitimate participation but of an obligatory and silent consent in the face of expanding Malay assertiveness grounded in expressions of Malay historic grievance.

In great numbers those non-Malay citizens signalled that they were no longer prepared to accept, and that the majority were no longer entitled to hold, this view of their affable, uncomplaining, congenial and undemanding subordination within the Malaysian nation and its political life.

Yet this was a view of “terms of non-Malay” citizenship to which many Malays had by now come to take for granted. It was a view to which many Malays had even come to feel entitled to have permanently acknowledged and affirmed by all their non-Malay fellow citizens — not least because of the powerful promotion and widespread diffusion of those ethno-supremacist ideas, and their quasi-official elaboration as covenantal national doctrine, since 1986.

A Nation Divided, But in Basic Agreement

On this question the nation was now divided, bifurcated.

Yet strangely, both sides were in basic agreement.

The basic perception on both sides was the same, and it was correct.

Both sides saw that the familiar “old game”, that of the second national political dispensation, had been challenged and was now over.

The two sides were agreed on that. They differed, and differed diametrically, only in how they saw it.

On the one side, that of those who rejected any notion of non-Malay “subordination-in-perpetuity” or “second-class citizenship”, their defiance was for them not just a timely declaration of principle but a necessary affirmation of a basic truth, the truth of the nation’s origins in its formative moment in 1957.

For the other side, those of the Ketuanan Melayu persuasion who felt that the subordinate incorporation of non-Malays into the nation was not only constitutionally entrenched but had always been accepted by the generality of non-Malay citizens, this stance was shocking. It was an affront. It was perceived, and also by many of them it was personally experienced, as nothing less than treason, derhaka. The non-Malays, to them, had ungratefully rebelled (memberontak) against the “core Malay character” of the country and nation, against the Constitution, and even against the Malay rulers and their sovereign status.

Hence the dramatic rise and growth, following the 2008 elections, of the panoply of powerfully encouraged Malay NGOs devoted to upholding, and further promoting, Ketuanan Melayu, together with the accompanying revisionist or “retro-fitted” view that this doctrine had been part of the nation’s innermost nature since the time of independence itself.

A Stark Choice, A Challenge “Squibbed”

That was now the stark and evident choice. In May 2008 I wrote a letter to the New Straits Times making the point:

“… Umno, I suggest, cannot go on forever maintaining itself electorally as a sectional [Malay] communitarian party and, at the same time, rule the country as a moderate and mediating centrist party.

“Sooner or later — and with the accelerating momentum of political developments in this country, it may come sooner than many people expect — the Umno will have to choose, and find a way, to be a genuine and consistent centrist party and to live with the consequences.

“Among those consequences, it will not be able to command all of the Islamist Malay vote or the Bangsa Melayu Malay [cultural supremacist] vote.

“It may have to concede some of those votes in order to position itself as the credible leader of a widely-supported governing party that enjoys the confidence alike of many Malays who recently voted against it and of the supporters and leaders of its non-Malay partner parties in the governing coalition.

“It may have to accept openly that it is not as Islamist as PAS. It may also have to recognise that it cannot forever — in the face of the vast transformation and diversification of peninsular Malay society that it has promoted over the last half-century — call for or expect ‘Malay unity’ as the basis of national political life.

“The big question facing the Umno, and the country as a whole, is whether the Umno will prove itself smart enough to decide upon, and brave enough to achieve, this impending inner transformation.”

But, rather than facing that challenge, Umno/BN has shirked and avoided it.

Umno/BN has preferred a strategy of denial, buttressed by a lot of “whistling in the dark”, the ritualistic repetition of exhausted mantras and similar bravado, all augmented by the importation of fancy but dubious consultancy expertise and expensive “new media” gimmickry and mumbo-jumbo.

The result of that avoidance, of shirking the central challenge, has become clear.

It has been on public display every day for a year and more now. Ever since the moment of prime ministerial succession, in fact.

Umno/BN and its leader need to call and hold an election. They need to reaffirm and renew their legitimacy by means of electoral success and its ensuing validation.

But to take that course, they have to do so under what may plausibly offer themselves as promising circumstances. Circumstances that provide some decent prospects of success.

And no “good moment” has ever presented itself, or has ever seemed likely to do so. Not since the present prime minister’s accession to the highest office. He and his advisers have always kept a “weather eye” attentively cocked to the prospect of some fine political weather, a brief season to collect the desired political harvest. But it has never come.

So Umno/BN and its leader, the prime minister, have been “caught in a wedge”, trapped in one of their own making.

They know they must go forward, that they must make the fateful wager on their own political triumph, but cannot.

So all they can do it to hang on and hope, like Mr Micawber, that something will turn up, that for no good or apparent reason things will simply improve.

This is hardly the strategy of those who are, or wish to project themselves and be seen as, the masters of circumstances — which is what all successful politicians and leaders must do.

Again, how did this situation come about?

Again, it is a predicament of Umno’s own making and authorship.

The Challenge Refused, History’s Gambit Declined

The 2008 elections placed Umno at a political and historical crossroad.

It could continue under the Ketuanan Melayu banner in its grim march along the path to the periphery or could return to where it had been in 1957, and throughout its better times since then, to the political centre.

And the centre is where modern politics is played and won.

Did the Umno take that path?

No.

That was the challenge, and Umno “squibbed” it when the moment came.

When was the fateful choice made?

In my recollection it occurred several months after the election, on June 28, 2008.

It occurred when the Bar Council — responding to the new “post-communalist” spirit that was evident and to the now  growing interest in and curiosity about the Merdeka agreements and the idea of the “social contract” that many, following Abdullah Ahmad’s lead, were now imputing to and reading back into it — sought to hold a public forum on the origins of the notion of the Malaysian Social Contract.

For some, that was to prove “a step too far.”

The forum, and those attending it, were curious to explore, historically and constitutionally, what the idea of a foundational Malaysian Social Contract entailed, and specifically whether it contained, and had done from as early as 1957, the idea of Malay political ascendancy or Ketuanan Melayu.

The forum began calmly but ended in uproar, when a group of Malay nationalists activists — by declaring their wounded feelings rather than by making any substantive argument — made all further discussion impossible.

An ensuing Bar Council forum scheduled for the following month on the question of religious conversion and family law was still-born. It was dead even before it could ever take place.

Why? How?

In my memory of those developments, the public lead in resisting any “move to the centre ground” by Umno was provided not by the more radically nationalist elements within the party but by three of its main “moderate” leaders from what was ever routinely described as the progressive state of Johor and its Umno party: by Tan Sri Syed Hamid Albar, Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Hussein and Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin.

Within a day of the Social Contract Forum ending (more in confusion than in uproar), all three made strong statements. The Bar Council’s action had been impertinent, they insisted, and the attitude behind it was intolerable. This kind of initiative, and any further repetition of the affront to Malay political sensibilities that it has caused, had to be stopped.

And it was. Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi issued a statement affirming his support for what the Three Strong Men of the South had said.

Once again, as in the earlier Article 11 dispute over the constitutional right of religious freedom and the right of citizens to discuss it peaceably and publicly, his hand was forced. He moved against those who sought to open up legitimate national questions to informed and reasonable public discussion.

That was the fateful moment.

And what was the fateful error here?

A Nation whose Origins Must Remain Shrouded in Mystery?

The matter is simply put.

There is something inherently wrong, broken and crippled about a nation that cannot bear to acknowledge and publicly contemplate its own origins.

That will not let its founding moment and character be a matter of principled discussion among its citizens.

That feels obliged to respond instead to a strange imperative to shroud its own birth in secrecy, to cloud its founding moment and processes in a blinding fog of  cultivated ignorance.

To protect itself from any clear knowledge of the nation’s basic “facts of life” by hedging them around, just as those other biological facts of life often are, with all manner of taboos and prohibitions.

Umno’s Fateful Choice

That is the fateful choice that Umno then made.

And, by making it, Umno also at the same time chose not to reform itself. In that action it also decisively resolved not to move to the centre, to become a force and focus for national conciliation and renewed unity.

It chose, instead, to turn decisively in the opposite direction: to shore up its support, and to try to rescue its credibility, among those to whom the Ketuanan Melayu “true-believers” were appealing and among whom — now more than ever once they had the Umno-led government panicking and “on the run” — they were becoming ever more credible, authoritative and powerful.

The Ketuanan Melayu front, both inside Umno and outside it — in Perkasa and Pekida and the rest, now openly encouraged by an iconic giant, in the form of a long-serving ex-prime minister, and driven forward by the restless energy of the great “political gymnast” from Pasir Mas — had now become not just a pressure group or an NGO coalition but a “veto group.”

It was now, thanks in part to Umno’s own fearfulness, an independent force exercising a formidable veto power upon the embattled Umno itself.

In the short run Umno might perhaps have shored up its position in that way.

That was the temptation to which it succumbed, the easy option that it was happy fearfully, and out of weakness, to grasp.

But in the long run, even the medium term, it could not possibly have saved itself in that way.

Yet — and this is the source of its predicament today, and of the prime minister’s cruel dilemma in choosing an election date — by making that all-too-easy choice the Umno created for itself a situation in which, after another term of office, it would have no basis to go plausibly to the electorate, to the nation as a whole, for a new mandate at the next elections due by 2013.

To do that, the job of party reform, and of credibly repositioning Umno (and also of “rebranding” it, if you see things that way!), had to begin in 2008, by year’s end at the very latest.

A Forward Step?

To say this is not just “hindsight wisdom.”

It is what the some perceptive and thoughtful political commentators said at the time. I was one of them. In late 2008 I wrote (and in early 2009 had published, in that now extinct and much lamented “leading Malaysian monthly of political analysis, cultural commentary and unwelcome ideas”, Off the Edge) a serious analysis entitled “Can BN Win Again? — Malaysia’s Next National Elections: A ‘Last Hurrah’?”

The choice was clearly laid out there, and the Umno’s present pre-election predicament was directly foreshadowed.

But the Umno chose a different path. But that path, as is now evident, was not a plausible “Way Ahead”.

Umno did not “Melangkah Kehadapan”. Instead, it tried to make a clever sidestep, and it has only blundered backwards. It has retreated into a past that never existed, a spurious simulacrum of what once was — a past that is the creature purely of its own wishful yet historically defective imagination.

So now it stands cornered, politically handcuffed, deprived of options and the initiative, simply waiting upon events and hoping for the best.

Again, it is not the master of events, not the captain of its own fate. Hope is a fine attitude, but it is not a policy or a strategy.

Nor is hope or trust in managerialist mumbo-jumbo (the acronymic chorus, or more often the cacophony, of GTP, KRA, KPI and the rest). Nor in the marketing gobbledygook of “branding”, as in the “I Choose Malaysia” multiplatform “new media” exercise that seeks to promote and “sell” Umno/BN without mentioning their name.

There is no alternative to simple leadership, genuine leadership. This involves, above, all the ability persuasively to deploy the capacity to teach people, or help them learn, what they need to know about themselves — and may already sense inchoately — but which they cannot yet put into words. That is what all the currently fashionable chatter about “narratives” is trying to get at, lazily.

Here the Umno of 2010 to 2012 is like a ship at sea, with a brave and willing captain on deck, but rudderless. Worse, without an adequate map and compass.

In Umno thinking in 2008, short-run tactics trumped longer-term strategic analysis and choice.

Convenient and “easy” in the short run, perhaps, but disastrous for its own and the nation’s future.

The key issue was clear at the time to those who wished to see.

When elections would next come, when the Umno-led government would next have to seek endorsement and a new mandate from the Malaysian people as a whole (and not simply approval from and security with the Malay core), it would be able to do so only from the political centre.

Umno chose not to claim that ground as its own and to position itself unambiguously there.

And there, in that choice made in the immediate aftermath of the 2008 elections, Najib’s and Umno’s dilemma of 2010 to 2012 began.

That is the source of their current impasse.

That is Najib’s political legacy, here not from his distinguished father but from his two immediate prime ministerial predecessors. And, however loyal he may have been to his father’s way and memory, it can hardly be said that he has here made the best, and bravely, of what was bequeathed to him by the two national leaders in whose political footsteps he now follows.

From those two predecessors he inherited a cul-de-sac, a dead end. And he has failed to find, for himself and his party, a way out of it.

He still hopes to do so. He looks for promising signs and portents, for good auguries.

And the nation holds its breath.

As they do, weary political commentators hold their words, maintain a patient silence.

I have been doing so for some months now.

Trapped in a Corner of One’s Own Making

So that is why I do not have all that much to say at the moment.

I don’t, because Umno has backed itself into a terrible corner.

Eventually, it will have to make a move and try to get out of that tight place.

But until it does, there is nothing much to say.

The Umno/BN party’s situation resembles the dilemma, with which some may be familiar, of Buridan’s ass.

In that parable, the poor ass stands halfway between two equal-sized and equally appealing (or unappetising) bundles of hay.

The ass is not an idiot. It is practical. Its approach is nothing if not, as the consultants approvingly say, “strategic”, ever responsive to finely pitched and subtly modulated incentives. It calculates things, it likes to make rational choices.

That is its problem here.

It knows that it must eat. But it can see no good reason for moving towards either bundle, and the reasons for not moving away in either direction it can see equally well.

Because there is no preponderance of attraction or repulsion either way, it stands stranded in the middle where, if nothing changes, and if it cannot make up its troubled mind, it will simply die of hunger.

Umno’s situation these days is a bit like that.

Or again, those who play chess may be familiar with the notion of “Zugzwang.”

This term applies when you have a fairly bearable, even acceptable position on the board.

It would be fine if only you could just go on standing there, if you didn’t need to move.

But you must.

The game must be played, it must go on.

You have to make a move.

And that’s the problem.

While the present status quo is bearable, you cannot stay there, you have to move, and the two best moves away from it are both bad, and likely to lead to disarray and defeat.

So what move will you make?

Only a bad one.

You have a choice.

But only between bad alternatives.

Again, that is rather like Umno’s situation today. That is a situation in which it positioned itself and in which it has been cornered for the last year or two, as it has kept trying to decide when to call and face the next general election.

It has been in that situation ever since it failed in 2008 to recognise and face up to the meaning, and the dire implications for its own political future, of the election results of that year.

Meanwhile, as it anguishes over its fateful choice and the troubling alternatives, there is nothing much for political analysts and commentators to say at the moment.

The nation and its political life are at a standstill. Malaysians and the world simply await Umno’s choice, its decision about when it will put itself up again for the people’s verdict on its political stewardship of the nation’s affairs.

It ponders, it calculates, it hesitates, it even dares to hope, and it makes brave noises.

But, with no good choices available, and in the face of the clear fact that no “good moment” for the election was or ever will be likely to present itself, the Umno’s leadership stands stalled.

And, as they do, the pungent smell of fear in their sweat pervades the words that they now use.

So why don’t I have much to say these days?

Because Najib and Umno/BN are in Zugzwang — where, by choosing not to do what was necessary, they placed themselves in 2008 — and until he decides and finally opts to make his move, there just isn’t very much any more to say.

That’s why.

Meanwhile, Malaysia remains stranded between two worlds: between the old dying world and the new one waiting impatiently to be born.

That is a challenge which faces both sides of politics, government and opposition alike.

It is a challenge in which the success of neither side is guaranteed — or precluded.

It is never too late for courage, even if people may come to it only belatedly.

____

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

< < Part 1

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 10 November 2012, 9:29 am and is filed under
UMNO
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Why listen to discredited politicians?

By
Lucius Goon
 | November 09, 2012

The Malaysian Insider

NOV 9 — What have Malaysians done to deserve discredited politicians like Shahrizat Jalil, Chua Soi Lek, Nazri Aziz, Mahathir Mohamad, Ibrahim Ali, Musa Aman, who still tell us anything or advise us on anything.

I mean, what moral standing, or for that matter any standing, does:

A) someone who shamelessly defends a family venture gone awry and then attempts to airbrush history;

B) someone who was a serial adulterer until being caught out.

C) someone whose defence of his son included industrial language and convoluted but ultimately unconvincing explanation of the political donation to Sabah Umno.

D) someone who does not stand for anything, too long. Check his statements when he was the prime minister and now, and there is an ocean of difference.

E) someone who is used to switching parties just to push his own agenda, dividing Malaysians along racial lines just to remain relevant.

F) someone who is not fussed about unknown sources of cash for his party and doesn’t care to explain it in the interest of transparency.

Why listen to them? They should all be ignored as they have lost their moral authority.

We need to listen to a better sort of people. Those who have integrity. Not these people. Consign them to history’s rubbish bin if possible.

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 10 November 2012, 9:22 am and is filed under
Corruption
,
Financial Scandals
,
MCA
,
UMNO
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Getting to the Bottom of the Automatic Enrichment Scandal (AES)

By Koon Yew Yin

Slowly but surely, the ugly side of the AES is emerging and revealing itself to be yet another scam of the Barisan regime.  This one aimed at enrichment of a small group has been cleverly camouflaged in the name of public interest.

Fortunately, this time around the scope for undeserved enrichment is so overwhelming and the disregard for prudent principles of transparency and accountability so obvious that even some UMNO leaders are protesting.  These late protestors from Barisan are way behind the curve on the issue and are jumping on the bandwagon of opposition political and public protest to prevent damage to their own election prospects but it is an indicator of how unacceptable the current AES proposal is.

I predict that the AES will be dead in the water before long.  But it is important that any suspension or abandonment of the system does not prevent the authorities and the public from having a full and open inquiry on how this particular scam has managed to get through all the responsible authorities, including the cabinet at the highest level.

Such an inquiry is necessary to ensure that the full truth comes out, lessons are learnt and an appropriate speed deterrent system is implemented – a system that is not riddled with weaknesses and drawbacks, and does not enrich a few at the expense of the public.

Who are responsible for the debacle?

Poor Minster of Transport, Kong Cho Ha must be having sleepless nights trying to defend the indefensible.  And he must be kicking himself for foolishly putting his job on the line in repeatedly pushing for the implementation of the system.

It is likely that Kong will be made the scapegoat for this debacle. But let us not forget that this scam was cooked up some time ago. Various other crooks, sorry – slip of the finger, I mean cooks – as yet unnamed – were involved in the preparation of this billion dollar dish.  According to federal estimates for the budget year 2013, the government expects an additional RM1.02 billion in revenue from AES enforcement – all this coming from the Malaysian road user.

The origins of the outsourcing of speed cameras and speeding tickets go back to the Abdullah Badawi administration – possibly during Dr. Ling Liong Sik’s time as Minister of Transport.  Apparently, despite objections from some ministers who argued that enforcement should remain within the government’s domain, the project was pushed through by the Transport Ministry during Chan Kong Choy’s tenure.

After 5 years as the Transport Minister, Chan stepped down officially due to health reasons in the midst of the RM4.6 billion Port Klang Free Zone scandal. Following Kong Choy’s resignation, Ong Tee Keat was at the helm of the ministry, and the project was finalized during his time. Since Tee Keat has been dubbed Mr. Clean by his MCA supporters, he should come clean on the AES and provide an explanation on his role in it and answer the questions raised.

Why so much outrage?

Firstly, there is more than a strong whiff of cronyism about the project and the way in which it has been privatized which runs against principles of responsible government and common sense.

Allegations have been made that Ates Sdn Bhd and Beta Tegap Sdn Bhd which have been awarded the contract have strong political connections.  According to PKR assemblyman Chang Lih Kang, the major shareholder of Beta Tegap Sdn Bhd is the niece of a Johor Umno assemblyman and comes from a family of “renowned Umno political figures” whose parents were previously elected to the state legislative assembly.

“With the extraordinary connection between the largest shareholder of Beta Tegap and Umno, another instance of sheer cronyism is evident. If this is not cronyism, how on earth does the government deem a dormant company without expertise in the related field is worth rewarding a lucrative AES contract?”  Chang asked at a recent press conference.

Secondly, the system comes embedded with an extremely lucrative revenue sharing arrangement to benefit the project concessionaires.  According to reports, the two companies can claim between RM600 million to RM800 million for the services and the equipment involved in installing 831 cameras in traffic hotspots nation-wide.

This disclosure has infuriated members of the public who strongly support road safety but are concerned at the opaqueness of the implementation process and are suspicious that the main purpose appears to be to benefit various cronies.

Claim for AES Compensation Coming Up Next

The two firms awarded the contract to implement the enforcement system claim to have spent between RM300 million and RM400 million each to set up and operate the system.  If the system is to be abandoned, they will insist on being compensated for their expenses to date.

But how believable are their estimates of expenditure?   One skeptic has worked out in great detail the expenses involved in the establishment of the AES.  According to him a total of $24 million would be more than adequate in setting up the company, main office, staffing , maintenance and vehicles; establishing a roving maintenance team at 8 locations; setting up the server, monitoring and control system; and purchasing cameras for one year’s operation (see http://unofficialversion.wordpress.com/ for the full breakdown )

As a long time engineer and business man, I find the breakdown of expenses provided by the skeptic credible and believable and the concessionaires’ estimates incredible and unbelievable.

Should Compensation be Paid

We can be sure that the two companies will have insisted on full compensation clauses built into the contract should the Government back out. They will have the paper evidence to show that they have spent hundreds of millions in setting up the system.

So it looks like either way – whether the AES is implemented or not – the two companies could be laughing all the way to the bank with their bloated claims.

There is only one way to stop this daylight robbery.  This is for the Malaysian public to kick up the biggest fuss possible and to demand that the full truth of the Automatic Enrichment Scandal – including its real costs – emerge before any compensation is to be paid.

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 11 November 2012, 6:05 pm and is filed under
Transport
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Let Deepavali 2012 usher in a festival of light over darkness and the triumph of truth, freedom and justice over all forms of corruption, discrimination and exploitation

  Let Deepavali 2012 usher in a festival of light over darkness and the triumph of truth, freedom and justice over all forms of corruption, discrimination and exploitation especially in the impending 13th general elections.

Fifty-five years after Merdeka in 1957, many Malaysians have been left out of the mainstream of developments with the fruits of growth and progress hijacked by a small group of privileged people and their cronies, while the large majority of Malaysians regardless of race, religion and territory have been marginalised and discriminated against.

Deepavali 2012 will be most meaningful if it set into motion a train of developments culminating in the 13GE where these historic injustices and inequalities, whether political, economic, educational, social, cultural and religious, are put right.

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 11 November 2012, 5:57 pm and is filed under
nation building
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Pakatan Rakyat’s 13GE call and objective is positive “Unite and Rule” unifying all races and religions while Umno and Barisan Nasional resort to the traditional polarising “Divide and Rule” tactics

For the first time in the nation’s history, voters in Sabah and Malaysia have become very impatient of waiting for the general elections as they have been waiting for more than two years for the most crucial and critical 13th General Elections.

Everywhere throughout Malaysia, whether in Sabah, Sarawak or the peninsular states, whether at ceramahs,  dialogues or walkabouts, the question most frequently asked is: “When is the general elections?”

Although it has become the national guessing game for more than two years, only one man in the country has the answer – the Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak.

But the greatest irony is that even Najib does not have the answer as he agonises for over two years on  when to call for the 13th General Elections – not because of any high national consideration or reason of state but purely from the selfish standpoint of his own personal political survival.

The one and only sole consideration for Najib in deciding when to go for polls is not what is the best timing for Umno and the Barisan Nasional component parties whether MCA, MIC, Gerakan or the Sabah and Sarawak BN component parties, but how to ensure that he could not only secure his own mandate as Prime Minister but would not suffer the fate of his predecessor Tun Abdullah of being toppled in an Umno coup d’etat post-GE.

To ensure this, Najib must do better than Abdullah in the 2008 general elections by winning more than 140 parliamentary seats. It will be added bonus for Najib if he can  regain two -thirds parliamentary majority for BN, which means winning at least 149 parliamentary seats, or to recapture the Selangor state government from Pakatan Rakyat.

But nobody, including Najib and the Umno leaders, really believe that there is any real possibility that Umno/BN could regain two- thirds parliamentary majority or win back the Selangor state gocernment.

The real issue is whether Umno/BN can win a parliamentary majority as the estimates by the psephologists for the 13GE range from a 20-seat majority for BN or  PR either way.

In other words, the outcome for the 13GE is a toss-up – it could go either way with BN returned to Federal power or Pakatan Rakyat replacing    BN to break Umno hegemony to form the central government in Putrajaya.

This unprecedented politicall scenario has put the two competing political coalitions to a supreme test – whether in the final analysis, which political coalition is prepared to put national interest above all other interests.

For instance, Pakatan Rakyat’s 13GE call and objective is the positive and constructive theme of “Unite and Rule” unifying all races, religions and states while Umno and Barisan Nasional, in their desperate bid to hold on to power is resorting to the traditional but divisive “Divide and Rule” tactics polarising the races, religions and even the states.

PR has passed this national test while Umno and BN have failed dismally in the latter’s unscrupulous exploitation of the politics of hate,lies and falsehoods to pit the different races and religions against each other.

[
Speech by DAP Parliamentary Leader and MP for Ipoh Timur Lim Kit Siang  at  DAP UBAH ceramah in Inanam, Kota Kinabalu on Saturday 10th November 2012 at 9pm
]

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 11 November 2012, 1:11 pm and is filed under
Elections
,
Najib Razak
,
Pakatan Rakyat
,
Sabah
,
UMNO
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Will Najib take a leaf from Hu Jintao and give prominence to the grave problem of corruption in Malaysia in his Umno Presidential Address at the Umno General Assembly at the end of the month?

China’s President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Secretary-General  Hu Jintao warned at the 18th CCP Congress over the weekend that corruption could trigger the collapse of the Party and the fall of the State.

Would the Prime Minister and Umno President Datuk Seri Najib Razak take a leaf  from Hu Jintao and give prominence to the grave problem of corruption in Malaysia in his Umno Presidential Address at the Umno General Assembly?

There is in fact more reason for Najib than Hu Jintao to give priority to the grave problem   of corruption as in the last two decades, China have been making measurable progress in the battle against corruption while the reverse is the case for Malaysia.

In the first year of the annual Transparency International (TI) Corruption  Perception Index (CPI) in 1995, China was ranked in the lowly position of No.40 out of 43 countries with a CPI score of 2.16.

In contrast, Malaysia was ranked No. 23 with CPI score of 5.28 – sixth for Asian-Pacific nations after New Zealand (No. 1 – CPI score 9.5), Singapore (No. 3 – 9.2), Australia (No. 7 – 8.8), Hong Kong (No. 17- 7.12) and Japan (No. 20 – 6.72).

Seventeen years later, in the 2011 TI CPI, China was ranked No. 75 out of 183 countries with a CPI score of 3.6 – an improvement of 1.44 marks in 17 years – while Malaysia suffered the rare double ignominy of a worse ranking of No.60 with a worse score of 4.3.

In the past 17 years, Malaysia’s CPI score fell by more than one full point compared to Malaysia’s best CPI score of 5.32 in 1996.

If the trend of China’s improvement in the TI CPI and Malaysia’s regression continues unchecked, China will be placed in a better position in the TI CPI in less than five years.

Already in the past 17  years, Malaysia has lost her position as the sixth top Asian-Pacific nation in the TI CPI 1995 to another five countries,namely Taiwan, Bhutan, South Korea,Brunei and Macao while other countries like Thailand, Indonesia and even Philippines are closing the gap to overtake Malaysia.

To illustrate the gravity of Malaysia’s worsening corruption problem, Malaysia has also been overtaken by six Islamic countries when in 1997, Malaysia stood head and shoulders over all other Organisation of Islamic Conference (OIC) countries in terms of transparency and accountability.

Umno and Barisan Nasional have become synonymous with corruption in Malaysia and the 43 months of Najib premiership have shown that Najib is only good at mouthing anti-corruption slogans but totally lacking the political will and commitment to root out corruption, especially grand corruption involving political and government leaders.

Only a change of government, from BN to Pakatan Rakyat in Putrajaya, can create the conditions for a serious war against corruption to introduce a new political culture of zero tolerance against corruption.

This will be one of the priorities of a Pakatan Rakyat government in Putrajaya, starting with a Royal Commission of Inquiry into corruption including a full-scale inquiry into the scandal of the RM40million currency trafficking and laundering involving Sabah Chief Minister Datuk Seri Musa Aman and Sabah timber trader Michael Chia.

[
Speech by DAP Parliamentary Leader and MP for Ipoh Timor Lim Kit Siang at the DAP Ubah dinner in Kudat on Sunday 11th November 2012 at 8pm
]

                This entry was posted on Monday, 12 November 2012, 11:12 am and is filed under
Corruption
,
Najib Razak
,
UMNO
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Kalau terasa akan kalah, biarkan sahaja Parlimen terbubar dengan sendirinya

― Aspan Alias

The Malaysian Insider

Nov 13, 2012

13 Nov ― Ada dua perkara yang saya hendak sentuh sekali gus hari ini. Yang pertamanya ialah tentang program UMNO Seremban yang mengadakan majlis parti di Kem Tentera Sikamat, Seremban, dan yang kedua ialah isu Himpunan Rakyat 1Malaysia yang dianjurkan oleh UMNO dan BN melalui penganjuran oleh beberapa NGO pada 24 hb November ini.

Saya tidak berapa perasan bila program itu diadakan tetapi yang nyata ada jemputan Dato’ Ishak Ismail kepada semua penduduk Sikamat untuk mereka hadir di majlis anjuran beliau di dalam kem Rejimen Ke-4, Artileri Di- Raja, Sikamat dan ini amat memeranjatkan banyak pihak kerana ia dibenarkan oleh pemerintah Kem tersebut untuk UMNO mengadakan majlis politik itu.

Ahmad Zahid Hamidi, Menteri Pertahanan, yang berucap dalam majlis itu sepatutnya memberikan penjelasan kenapa UMNO mengheret tentera dalam politik dan jika tentera menjadi aktif dalam politik ini merupakan petanda buruk akan melanda negara dan tidak siapa akan dapat mengenali politik yang sebenarnya dalam tempoh yang terdekat ini. Ini merupakan satu fenomena baru di dalam UMNO dan ini hanya menunjukkan betapa terdesaknya parti yang telah memerintah negara sejak merdeka itu.

Jika tentera digiatkan dalam politik maka kita sudah tidak ada lagi sistem politik yang betul dan ia akan hanya membawa negara kepada keadaan dan situasi yang mana rakyat tidak akan tahu lagi yang mana satu sistem yang betul sebagai sebuah negara demokrasi kerana semua sistem dan tata cara bernegara itu sudah berkecamuk dan tidak menentu lagi. Anak-anak muda tidak akan lagi tahu siapa yang sepatutnya bergiat dan siapa yang sepatutnya duduk di tengah-tengah dengan ‘magnanimous’ kerana setiap rakyat sudah tidak tahu lagi yang mana yang sepatutnya mereka lakukan dan yang mana yang tidak boleh dan beretika untuk dilakukan.

Oleh kerana keadaan ini sudah mula berlaku ia sepatutnya menjadi pengukur kepada kemampuan untuk mempertahankan sistem demokrasi negara ini. Maka tidak boleh kita biarkan perkara seperti ini berlaku justeru pilihanraya inilah sebaik-baik masa untuk memperbetulkan apa yang tidak kena dalam negara kita ini.

Himpunan rakyat 1Malaysia

Ketua Penerangan UMNO, Ahmad Maslan, telah membuat sidang media semalam yang beliau sedang mengetuai satu sekatariat untuk menganjurkan himpunan rakyat 1Malaysia pada November ini di Kuala Lumpur. Ia bermatlamatkan untuk meningkatkan sokongan rakyat kepada kepimpinan pada hari ini dan UMNO sedang menggunakan badan-badan bukan kerajaan untuk menganjurkannya. Menggunakan NGO-NGO seperti ini merupakan satu-satunya jalan untuk mengumpulkan manusia yang sudah menjauhi UMNO dan BN itu.

Tetapi masalahnya UMNO menggunakan cara yang sama yang digunakan oleh Pakatan Rakyat dan ia bukan cara UMNO yang lazim mereka lakukan. UMNO terpaksa menciplak dan mengadakan perhimpunan seperti yang dilakukan oleh pembangkang. Tetapi perbezaannya amat jauh di antara UMNO dan pembangkang kerana UMNO sudah pasti terpaksa menggunakan badan-badan NGO dan tentulah ia memakan belanja yang banyak untuk menyempurnakannya. Saya tidak menjangka yang orang ramai akan memberikan sokongan padu terhadap perhimpunan ini kerana mereka dijemput dengan semua persediaan yang mahal-mahal dengan karipap dan minuman serta tambang menambang serta bas-bas percuma untuk mengangkut manusia yang kebanyakannya terdiri dari pelajar-pelajar dan budak sekolah.

Berlainan dengan pihak PR yang hanya mengumumkan tempat dan waktu perhimpunan diadakan tanpa perlu membayar dan menyediakan makanan dan khemah-khemah untuk menarik orang ramai untuk datang. Kita telah melihat berapa ramainya kedatangan serta kehadiran rakyat jelata dalam perhimpunan rakyat di Senawang, Seremban pada 3hb Nov yang lepas. Mereka datang dalam hujan lebat dan berpayung dan berbaju hujan yang tidak diberikan oleh PR. Mereka berbelanja sendiri kerana yang memberikan motivasi mereka untuk hadir itu adalah semangat dan perasaan ingin kepada perubahan kerajaan dalam pilihanraya yang akan datang.

UMNO atau BN tidak mungkin mampu untuk memanggil kehadiran yang besar tanpa disediakan makanan, pengangkutan, topi serta baju T yang mahal-mahal. Sebaliknya bagi UMNO, mereka akan diberikan kontrak untuk membekalkan baju T dan topi. Mereka tentulah mendapat habuan yang besar dan mereka yang mendapat kontrak itu tentulah mereka yang hampir dengan pejabat setiausaha agong dan setiausaha kerja UMNO Pusat. Satu perhimpunan rakyat anjuran BN itu akan memakan belanja yang berjuta-juta.

Bagi UMNO ia hanya untuk menunjukkan kepada ramai yang mereka juga mendapat sokongan tetapi rakyat tahu tujuan pimpinan BN hanyalah untuk merawati jiwa mereka yang tertekan dalam menghadapi pilihanraya yang hampir tiba ini. Mereka (UMNO) hanya hendak menunjukkan dan menempelkan imej sokongan sahaja tetapi ia hanyalah ibarat seorang wanita yang mengenakan bedak sejuk di muka mereka sahaja. Bedak sejuk di muka-muka mereka akan hilang setelah baru bangun dari tidur dan selepas mandi. Bedak sejuk itu tidak kekal melekat di muka-muka mereka.

Mengikut kata-kata Ahmad Maslan di antara mereka yang berucap nanti adalah mereka yang mewakili berbagai-bagai bidang masyarakat. Beberapa professor kangkong serta mereka yang bergelar dan bernama yang mewakili berbagai pihak akan berucap. Mereka termasuklah Chandra Muzaffar dan Lee Lam Thye. Apa yang akan mereka perkatakan tidaklah dapat kita jangkakan kerana selalunya mereka akan memberikan retorik dan ucapan mengungkit-ngungkit tentang apa yang BN telah lakukan kepada rakyat dan sebagainya.

Mereka tidak akan berani bercakap tentang segala kemungkaran politik, ekonomi dan sosial yang BN telah lakukan oleh mereka selama ini. Satu yang pasti perhimpunan anjuran BN akan menggunakan belanja yang besar untuk menjayakannya. Untuk mengekalkan BN memerintah rakyat terpaksa berbelanja terlalu mahal tetapi tidak juga mendapat perhatian ramai.

Bagi pandangan peribadi saya jika BN tidak berkeyakinan dengan diri sendiri untuk menghadapi PRU ini biarkan sahaja penggal ini terbubar dengan sendirinya pada 28hb April yang akan datang. Mengadakan perhimpunan besar pun bukannya memberikan faedah apa-apa pun. Apa perbezaan di antara 29hb April dengan Mac? Yang pasti Najib merupakan satu-satunya PM yang belum mendapat mandat sehingga hari ini.

Kalau UMNO sudah masuk kem tentera untuk mengadakan ceramah, itu adalah petanda yang UMNO tidak relevan lagi kepada rakyat biasa.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 13 November 2012, 11:16 am and is filed under
Elections
,
UMNO
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


May the Light of Change Descend upon us this Deepavali!

By Martin Jalleh

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 13 November 2012, 10:06 pm and is filed under
Martin Jalleh
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Sabah voters will be the “kingmakers” in the 13GE to decide who will form the Federal Government in Putrajaya and who will be the Prime Minister of Malaysia

After my latest visit to Sabah and three-day “DAP UBAH tour” of Papar (Kg Tamui), Kota Belud ( Kg Nahaba), Inanam, Matunggung (Kg. Pinaurat) and Kudat, with Sabah DAP leaders, it is clear that the Pakatan Rakyat Sabah’s RM7.28 billion Alternative Budget 2013 announced last month has “hit the marks” and put intense pressure on the Sabah Chief Minister, Datuk Seri Musa Aman and the  Barisan Nasional Sabah leaders.

For instance, Musa was reported in the Sabah newspapers on Friday of handing over funds totaling RM30.9 million to 140 non-Islamic religious bodies and 266 schools including Chinese independent and missions schools in the state – made up of RM18 million to religious bodies including churches, Chinese temples and other non-Muslim places of worship and RM12.9 million to the schools.

Although Musa said that “the large allocation for non-Islamic religious bodies was reflective of the Barisan Nasional government’s commitment in upholding religious freedom in the country”, it was clearly in response though weak and inadequate to the fourth of five thrusts of  Pakatan Rakyat Sabah’s Alternative Budget 2003 on “Empowering Local Communities”.

However  the Sabah BN government has  fallen far short of what the PR Sabah Alternative Budget proposed.

The “Empowering Local Communities” thrust of the PR Sabah Alternative Budget proposed allocation of RM50 million for vernacular, religious, government-aided and independent schools but the Sabah BN government has responded only with a RM12.9 million allocation.

The PR Sabah alternative budget proposed RM50 million to non-Muslim religious organisations (and RM100 million for Muslim organisations including RM3 million for funding Haj pilgrimages by 300 people at RM10,000 per person) but  the Sabah BN government has only come out with RM18 million for non-Islamic religious bodies.

The PR Sabah’s fourth  thrust on “Empowering Local Communities” have 13 specific proposals which Sabah BN government have yet to respond, including:

•	Under Skim Graduan Anak Sabah, RM2,000 will be given to each student pursuing tertiary studies for households earning less than RM2,000 a month. This initiative is expected to cost RM14.4 million and is expected to benefit approximate 7,200 students.

•	RM50 million to provide scholarships for all those who seek tertiary education in the state. Priority will be given to train doctors and teachers.

•	RM20 million fund to showcase cultural diversity through innovation and creativity.

•	RM40 million for the purposes of cultural and heritage preservation.

•	Start up grant of RM20 million to set up Sabah TV for the purposes of making programs to showcase the cultural heritage and diversity of our state.

The other four thrusts of the PR Sabah Alternative Budget contained another 30 specific proposals to ensure that Sabah’s wealth is more equitably distributed, its growth reinvigorated and the marginalised in Sabah lifted out of poverty.

Although Musa and the Sabah BN state government have yet to give proper and commensurate response to the specific proposals of the PR Sabah Alternative Budget 2013, the Sabah Chief Minister and the Sabah BN have started a war of words against the DAP and Pakatan Rakyat.

Musa for instance reacted in a very irrational and most uncharacteristic manner when I pointed out  the great difference between the Barisan Nasional and Pakatan Rakyat when faced with the supreme challenge of the 13th General Election, which could see either BN returned to power or replaced by the Pakatan Rakyat in Putrajaya.

I had said that when put to the test as to which political coalition is prepared to put national interest above all other interests, UMNO and BN have in their desperate bid to hold on to power resorted to the traditional but divisive “Divide and Rule” tactics polarizing the diverse races and religions in the country, while Pakatan Rakyat parties of DAP, PKR and PAS have maintained a common theme and unifying message of “Unite and Rule” to all races, religions and states, underlining the need for all Malaysians to rally together as one Malaysian people to build an united nation with a common vision.

Another Sabah BN leader who has eyes on the office of Sabah Chief Minister, Datuk Seri Shafie Apdal, has also got into the act responding to the Pakatan Rakyat Sabah Alternative budget, calling for the rejection of PR’s promise to increase Sabah’s oil royalty receipts from five to 20 per cent.

Shafie has given the most ridiculous reason claiming that the increase of Sabah’s oil royalty to 20 per cent would cause a split between Sabah and the rest of Malaysia.

Shafie’s reasoning is flawed, as PR is not just asking for the oil royalty for Sabah to be increased from five to 20%, but for all oil producing states including Sarawak, Terengganu, Kelantan and soon, Pahang. Furthermore, there is the remaining 80% of the oil royalty receipts which could be devoted to national development.

So far Shafie is the only Sabah BN leader to openly oppose the increase of Sabah’s oil royalty from five to 20 per cent. Let everyone of the Sabah BN leaders declare their stand on this issue so that the voters of Sabah can decide whether they deserve support or repudiation.

Yesterday’s Sabah press carried headlines of  the call by UPKO President Tan Sri Bernard Dompok:
“PR’s promises ‘only good outside Sabah’”.

Bernard had not intended, but he was in fact conceding, that UMNO and Barisan Nasional are  facing an uphill if not a losing battle for the hearts and minds of the voters  in Peninsular Malaysia and that it is now left to the voters of Sabah to save UMNO and Barisan Nasional in the impending general elections.

Bernard is absolutely right and this is why I have stressed in my speeches during my UBAH tour of  Papar, Kota Belud, Inanam, Matunggong and Kudat during the past three days that the Sabah voters are the “kingmakers” in Malaysia as they will,  together with the voters of Sarawak and Johore,  decide who will be form the next Federal Government in Putrajaya and who is to be the next Prime Minister of Malaysia.

The Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak visited Kudat during his last visit to Sabah, but he did not travel by road to experience for himself what the common Sabahan had to experience – what  I had previously described as the “worst road in Malaysia” – the atrocious and hellish stretch at  Ulu Kukut.

Instead, Najib flew by helicopter, by-passing Ulu Kukut altogether, like the Deputy Prime Minister, Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin in his previous visit to the area.

After my August visit where I tweeted about the seven-year atrocity of the Ulu Kukut road condition, the Barisan Nasional state government gave a public assurance that the three-kilometre road upgrading project at Ulu Kukut would be sealed and completed by the end of September.

However, when I travelled to Kg Pinaurat in Matunggong and Kudat on Sunday, time seemed to have stood still at the Ulu Kukut stretch in the past three months as there is no sign of any improvement in the atrocious road condition.

Even Najib dared not make any mention of the atrocious Ulu Kukut stretch during his visit to Kudat last month, and he chose instead to announce that a study is being carried out on a RM800 million coastal highway from Tuaran linking Kota Belud to Kota Marudu and to Kudat – bypassing Ulu Kukut completely.

Has the Prime Minister also given up on completing the upgrading of the Ulu Kukut road, which is believed to be a RM70 million project, and is Ulu Kukut going to be a living testimony of the failure of Sabah BN state government in the 13GE?

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 13 November 2012, 4:49 pm and is filed under
DAP
,
Elections
,
Najib Razak
,
Pakatan Rakyat
,
Sabah
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.