Malaysia and the non-fulfilment of two agreements with Sabah and Sarawak

– Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah

The Malaysian Insider

September 26, 2013

It is my singular honour to have been invited to such an august gathering as this. I am privileged to have this opportunity to talk about the birth of Malaysia. Allow me, therefore, to record my gratitude and appreciation to our host, the Malaysian Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society, for the invitation in the first instance.

The timing is apt, coming as it does eight days after the 50th anniversary of her founding. It is also relevant given that Malaysia is facing unprecedented political and economic challenges. These challenges are formidable and, if left unsolved, could cause damage to the economy and political integrity of Malaysia.

The legitimacy of the formation of Malaysia is based on the fact that at the time of her formation, Malaya was the only country that was independent and had a democratic constitution, with institutions supporting such a constitution, within this region.

Her economic foundation justifiably gave Malayans, at that time, a vision that we would one day be the shining example in South East Asia. It was with this perspective that Malaya, under the leadership of Tunku Abdul Rahman, took the initiative in helping to maintain stability in the region. This was at a time when British colonialism was forced by international opinion and in particular by Asia, to retreat as the colonial power without leaving a vacuum.

Malaysia was born, therefore, out of a historical necessity at that time. It bears reminding that this country still remains a stable political force in the region. The success or failure of Malaysia will not only affect Malaysia, but the entire Asean region. Therefore, a historical understanding of the birth of Malaysia is very important. Just as important is the legitimacy of Malaysia to the citizens of the country as well as to Sabah and Sarawak as part of Malaysia which is a political necessity to maintain the stability of the region.

Much has been written about the formation of Malaysia and, by and large, the writings have been consistent. But it is sad to note that there is a general ignorance of her founding among the younger Malaysians. The importance of remembering our past should never be made light; for it is the past that puts us where we are today. It is a pity that this ignorance exists; but in itself, it is harmless. However, the danger lies in the possibility of it being exploited for particular ends.

It is fair to say that an average middle-aged Sabah or Sarawak Malaysian does not seem to know about her formation, as is the average middle-aged peninsular Malaysian. But one thing is clear. There is resentment at and dissatisfaction with Sabah and Sarawak being treated as and equated to just another state of Malaysia. To be sure, there are other issues; but the two being equated to any of the 11 peninsular states is perhaps the most contentious. It had been simmering since the 1980s but it never surfaced, not as a formal articulation anyway. It is, nevertheless, a political wart that has the potential to come to a boil.

The advent of social media such as the Blog and Facebook has altered the scene. With such media reaching every nook and corner of the country, everyone is now acutely conscious of the angst of Sabah and Sarawak Malaysians over the issue. The anguish is magnified whenever 16th September comes around. We are then flooded with grouses of unfulfilled promises to Sabah and Sarawak relating to the formation of Malaysia. These grievances come from almost all sectors of our society, either in writings or speeches or other suchlike mode. People of religion would present their thoughts with a bias towards religious issues, and people of trade, from an economic perspective. Other issues that are often aired include education, human rights and politics.

It bears noting that this discontentment and whatever dissatisfaction expressed do not go beyond the superficial. The sad part is that not many would care to sieve through the events and development leading to the birth of Malaysia. It is my intent, this evening, to attempt this. But before that it might serve us well to note a few of these grouses.

Let me paraphrase the feeling of a particular Sabah academic. He pointed out that Sabahans and Sarawakians agreed to be part of Malaysia on the understanding that the interests of the states were safeguarded. These interests were enshrined in the 20/18-point Agreements, the London Agreements and the Inter-Governmental Reports. He pointed out further that the safeguards were not honoured and taken away at the whim and fancy of the Federal Government, and added in no uncertain terms that Sabah and Sarawak are equal partners to the Federation of Malaya in Malaysia and not two of her 13 states. A group of east Malaysian politicians and social activists went so far as to describe the transgressions as a looting of their riches.

A complaint from Sarawak took on a more symbolic strain. The formation of Malaysia was compared to a marriage with a prenuptial agreement, that is, the 18-point Agreement. The complainant described how the wife, Sarawak, was hurt by the lack of attention from the husband, Kuala Lumpur, but continued to be the dutiful and responsible wife.

In the recent past, a Sabah politician bluntly remarked that Sabah belongs to Sabahans and not to Malaysia as the Malaysia Agreement has yet to be implemented. He agitated for the review of its implementation while at the same time addressing the unhappiness of Sabahans and Sarawakians. He argued that Sabah has lost most of the 20 points after decisions affecting the state were made by Kuala Lumpur. Worse, he accused that Sabah was treated like a colony instead of an equal partner in Malaysia. A Sabah Bishop, speaking on Malaysia Day 2012, questioned whether the agreement to uphold freedom and other native rights and customs is being kept. He tellingly pointed out that it was the understanding and the compromise displayed during the negotiation that convinced the then North Borneo and Sarawak to jointly form Malaysia with the Federation of Malaya and Singapore.

An activist with the moniker anak jati Sabah (a genuine Sabahan), in venting his frustration, plainly and boldly pointed out that peninsular Malaysians have been wrong in referring to Sabah as having joined Malaysia. He argued that Malaysia had not always been in existence; that Sabah, together with Sarawak, Singapore and the Federation of Malaya had formed Malaysia. He contended that the 20-point Agreement and the Batu Sumpah — a monument of honour, as it were, that was erected in Keningau as a reminder of Sabah’s support for Malaysia and the 20-point Agreement – were not honoured and had been discarded by Kuala Lumpur. His bitterness could be discerned from the following observation that has been attributed to him; that is, “the Batu Sumpah and the 20-point Agreement have been slowly and steadily violated and rubbished by Kuala Lumpur.”

An equally strong sentiment had been echoed by a Sarawak professional who, in reflecting about Malaysia, had made it known that it is justifiable for Sarawak to opt out of Malaysia because of the perceived poor treatment of her by Kuala Lumpur through what he felt was the violation of the 18-point Agreement. However, he conceded that there are advantages of being in Malaysia.

These, then, are a sampling of the issues underpinning the listless and uneasy relationship between Sabah and Sarawak, and Kuala Lumpur. If we were to use the earlier Sarawak wife and Malayan husband analogy, it is not unbecoming to describe it as a relationship between strange bedfellows. These issues are critical when they viewed against the backdrop of the territorial realpolitik that is particular to Malaysia. They need to be redressed and the onus is greatest on those with the most political influence. Only in this way could the legacy of a vibrant and economically progressive Malaysia taking her rightful and dignified place on the world stage be meaningful to our children and grandchildren.

Ladies and gentlemen, I would suggest that we begin the process of reparation by looking at the gestation leading to the formation of Malaysia. I would suggest further that we approach this with an open mind, without any preconception. Let us analyse these grouses impartially. Let us not jump to any conclusion by saying that a point is no longer relevant or appropriate or significant. Let us view the issues in perspective and address them accordingly. And let us begin at the beginning.

In a speech on September 16, 1961, Tunku Abdul Rahman, the founding father of Malaysia, spoke of the decision to form the confederation. He pointed out that the formation was made with “much care and thought.” There was “mutual consent” by “debate and discussion” and “inquiries and elections held over two and a half years”.  Tunku was proud that Malaysia was created “through friendly arguments and friendly compromise”. He believed that the cooperation and concord that prevailed were driven by the desire to share a common destiny. Tunku and the other leaders must be cherished for Malaysia’s successful formation. We also owe it to them to make good on the compromises as we realise the common destiny that the Tunku spoke of.

Earlier in May 1961, at the Delphi Hotel in Singapore, Tunku had mooted the idea of bringing together Malaya, Singapore, North Borneo, Sarawak and Brunei. His proposal was seen as a move to counter the communist influence in the region, to balance the racial composition and to expedite the economic development and independence of Singapore, North Borneo, Sarawak and Brunei. The suggestion was well received as it had struck a chord with the British decolonisation attitude of the day. There was, however, concern over the possibility of opposition by the local leaders of the three Borneo territories. This was confirmed when the Sarawak United People’s Party, Partai Rakyat Brunei and the United National Kadazan Organisation formed a United Front to denounce the proposal as “totally unacceptable”. Subsequently, the Sarawak National Party supported this position.

Opposition to the idea of a Malaysia was also strong from the people of the North Borneo interior.

To overcome this opposition, Tunku visited Sarawak and North Borneo in July and August 1961 to win over the sceptics. Fact finding visits by the Borneo leaders to Malaya eventually convinced them that Malaysia was a good idea. In addition, Sarawak leaders were sent to the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association Conference taking place in Singapore during the period. This afforded them the opportunity to discuss the concept further with their Malayan and Singapore counterparts.

A consensus was eventually established and this led to the formation of the Malaysia Solidarity Consultative Committee (MSCC). It explained the concept further to the people of Sarawak, North Borneo and Brunei and discussed issues relating to the formation of Malaysia. The MSCC prepared a memorandum that underscored the need to gauge and ascertain the opinion of the general population of North Borneo and Sarawak on the Malaysia concept. In early 1962, this was submitted to the Cobbold Commission that had been set up to determine whether the people of North Borneo supported the formation of Malaysia. Later that year, the Commission submitted its report to the Malayan and British governments. Among other things, the report recorded that 80% of the people of North Borneo and Sarawak supported the formation of Malaysia.

However, the Cobbold Commission reported that large sections of the population, especially in the interior, had no real appreciation of the Malaysia concept. But it recorded that about one third of the population favoured the idea strongly and wanted Malaysia to be formed as early as possible. This third was not too concerned about the terms and conditions. Another third asked for conditions and safeguards that varied in nature and extent, but was, in the main, favourable to the concept. The remaining third was divided into those who insisted upon independence before Malaysia and those who preferred to remain under the British.

The Commission also expressed the following caution which is taken verbatim from its report: “It is a necessary condition that from the outset Malaysia should be regarded by all concerned as an association of partners, combining in the common interests to create a new nation but retaining their own individualities. If any idea were to take root that Malaysia would involve a ‘take-over’ of the Borneo territories by the Federation of Malaya and the submersion of the individualities of North Borneo and Sarawak, Malaysia would not be generally acceptable and successful.”

 The safeguard demanded as a precondition to the formation of Malaysia was looked into by an Inter-Governmental Committee (IGC) set up upon the recommendation of the Cobbold Commission. At its first meeting in Jesselton on 30th August 1962, the IGC considered a memorandum calling for, among other things, the two territories having control over education and health for 10 years before reverting to the federal government. The memorandum was, with some modification, included into the Malaysia Act, the Federal Constitution and the relevant state constitutions. These safeguards have now come to be known as the 20-point Agreement for Sabah and the 18-point Agreement for Sarawak.

For the sake of clarity, I should spell out, in passing, the 20-point safeguards for Sabah. They are points relating to:

Religion

 The national language and the use of English

 The constitution to be a completely new document

 Head of Federation

 Name of Federation

 Control over immigration by the state

 Right of secession

 Borneonisation

 Position of British officers

 Citizenship

 Tariffs and finance

 Special position of indigenous races

 State Government

 Transitional period

 Education

 Constitutional safeguards

 Representation in the Federal Parliament

 Name of Head of State

 Name of State and

 Land, forest and local government, etc.

The last two points regarding the name of the state and land, forest and local government, etc. are not in the safeguards for Sarawak.

These safeguards were to be reviewed 10 years after the coming into being of Malaysia, that is, after 16th September, 1973. Tun Razak, who was the then Prime Minister, set up a committee in that year under the chairmanship of his deputy, Tun Dr Ismail, to review the IGC agreements. However, the committee did not meet at all in that year because the Draft Bill of the Petroleum Development Act (PDA) was being drawn up at the time. The prevailing wisdom then was that priority be given to the acceptance of the PDA by Sabah and Sarawak. Upon the coming into force of the PDA, I was asked by Tun Razak to get the Chief Ministers and Menteris Besar of the relevant states to enter into agreements in accordance with the requirements of the PDA. As it turned out, Sabah and Sarawak put up formidable stands in making known their positions.

In any event, Tun Dr Ismail passed away in August 1973 and this was followed by the demise of Tun Razak in January 1976, giving the review a tragic twist with it being left on the backburner. I should like to emphasise here that the review not taking place despite Tun Razak’s intention reflects the good faith of the federal government in the relationship with Sabah and Sarawak. However, this was overtaken by the development of events during that period that I have just described. Perhaps the review could be considered afresh as Malaysia celebrates her golden anniversary.

The story of Malaysia will be incomplete if I do not touch on the significant reactions by Indonesia and the Philippines to the idea of a Malaysia. Indonesia withdrew its initial support for the concept. The Philippines similarly objected to Malaysia’s formation and announced its own claim on North Borneo. This led to another round of public opinion assessment, this time by the United Nations. Its report was made public on September 13, 1963. The UN confirmed that the people of North Borneo and Sarawak had freely expressed their wish for the formation of Malaysia. They were fully aware that this would bring about a change in their status. The report also noted that this was “expressed through informed democratic processes, impartially conducted and based on universal adult suffrage”. The Malaysia Agreement had been signed earlier on July 9, 1963 at the Marlborough House in London, with her birth marked for August 31, 1963. In the event, Malaysia was proclaimed on September 16, 1963 to accommodate the UN report which was completed two days earlier.

I have tried to paint a comprehensive picture of how Malaysia came into being. Sadly, it does not quite match what was agreed upon originally. One could come up with any number of explanations for this, but I would respectfully submit that we do not go down this route. Let us muster enough courage to recognise and admit that we have a problem. To do so is to begin the process of its resolution.

That there was poor availability of information surrounding the formation of Malaysia in the public domain is most unfortunate. This has, in part, led to the breeding of animosity between Malaysians on both sides of the South China Sea. To be sure, this unfriendliness was not by design. Neither was it borne out of malice or prejudice. Certainly there was no ill intent. The oft repeated error that Sabah and Sarawak are but two Malaysian states is a case in point. It is an error that has Sabahans and Sarawakians blowing hot and cold under their proverbial collar. We must now right this misconception. For a start, there is a dire need for factual accuracy in the information on how Malaysia came to be. And it would help greatly if we could ensure that this critical part of our history is clearly spelt out in our school curriculum.

It should be pointed out, for instance, that 31st August is of no particular significance to Sabah and Sarawak, its grand celebration notwithstanding. It is but the date of Malaya’s independence and it should be celebrated for just that. On the other hand, September 16 — the Malaysia Day — has a greater significance and is certainly a more important date in the annals of Malaysia. It must, therefore, be allowed to take its place as a major celebration in our national calendar of events.

I should also point out that the 20-point and 18-point Agreements have been incorporated into the Federal Constitution. Whether this is taken to mean that the two agreements no longer exist as once propounded by certain quarters is a conjecture that borders on the sensitive, given the emotive nature of the subject. In any case, the Batu Sumpah of Keningau will stand in perpetuity as a monument to the spirit of the 20-point Agreement.

This begs the question, what next? Where do we go from here? They are best answered by those in the political driving seat. It is, therefore, incumbent upon those in power to kick start the process. We have to, no, we must prove the cynics are off the mark when they say that the act of Sabah and Sarawak jointly forming Malaysia is but a transfer of political power from Britain to Malaya. We must prove the caution by the Cobbold Commission wrong. We must do this and reinforce and strengthen the building blocks of a united, prosperous and harmonious Malaysia.

A Malaysia such as this could provide the cornerstone for the growth and stability of our beloved land. By extension, such a growth and stability could offer a rippling effect to benefit this region which faces many uncertainties. A united, prosperous and harmonious Malaysia will, most certainly, garner international respect and admiration. Given the political uncertainty close to the Sabah shore, a calm and collected Malaysia, confident of her position in the international scheme of things, could well play a critical role in helping to resolve the complex and multifarious problems besieging the region. As an example, Malaysia could provide the calming voice in the effort to overcome the overlapping claims by various countries in the Spratlays as a result of the UN Law of the Sea Treaty recognising a 12-mile territorial sea limit and a 200-mile exclusive economic zone limit.

Ladies and gentlemen, it bears repeating the reminder that tensions and stress points among a people tend to increase in times of economic difficulty. Given that there are still large areas in Sabah and Sarawak, particularly in the interior, classified as poor with the standard of living nowhere near that of urban enclaves, it is not surprising if the animosity towards this side of Malaysia is felt strongly. It does not help that the greater Kelang Valley is seen as, rightly or wrongly, enjoying the level of wealth far ahead of the two eastern territories. Such situations as the recent increase of the pump price of petroleum worsen the situation as providers of goods and services pass such increases to the consumers. This would heighten further the financial difficulty suffered by the poor of Sabah and Sarawak. Therefore, the government should seriously think of ways to overcome such hardships as this. It is time that the government absorbed the continually increasing financial burden rather than allowing it to ultimately land on the shoulder of the people. If this is well handled, I am confident that we can begin to mitigate and work towards overcoming the negative perception towards Kuala Lumpur that seems to be playing in the collective mind of Sabahans and Sarawakians.

Ladies and gentlemen, thank you and good afternoon.

*Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah is the former finance minister of Malaysia. He delivered this speech at The Malaysian Branch of The Royal Asiatic Society Lecture in conjunction with the 50th anniversary of the formation of Malaysia on Wednesday, September 25, 2013, at the Royal Selangor Club Annexe in Bukit Kiara, Kuala Lumpur.

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 26 September 2013, 6:12 pm and is filed under
1Malaysia
,
nation building
,
Razaleigh Hamzah
,
Sabah
,
Sarawak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Bumi, not booming

The Economist

Sep 28th 2013 | KUALA LUMPUR

Politics in Malaysia – The ruling party returns to its old habits of race-based handouts

THE United Malays National Organisation (UMNO) is the dominant party in the coalition that has ruled Malaysia since independence in 1957. Only now, however, is it parading its democratic credentials, so far as its internal appointments go. Nominations have just closed for elections to a broad range of party posts, to be decided in the middle of October by 146,000-odd party delegates at local level. Previously, a mere 2,600 members, those who attended the party’s convention, had a say. UMNO’s boosters claim that these new elections will restore vim to an ageing organisation. They say it will make it the most genuinely democratic party in the country. Not bad for an outfit with a past reputation as a ruthless political machine.

Yet what might be therapeutic for UMNO could prove the reverse for Malaysia. For what has emerged during the electoral process is that the so-called “warlords” who run the party are determined to shift the country in a conservative, indeed reactionary, direction. They want to reassert the supremacy of ethnic Malays.
 UMNO was formed to represent these and other “indigenous” groups who make up a majority in this multiracial country. They were favoured over other ethnic groups, principally the Chinese, who account for about 25% of the population and run much of Malaysia’s business, and Indians, with 7% of the population and a disproportionate presence in the professions. A return to race-tinged policies represents a repudiation of much of what the head of UMNO and prime minister, Najib Razak, claimed to stand for during a general election in May.

How distant that poll now seems. Indeed, UMNO’s regression is a direct response to the election’s outcome. Though the UMNO-led ruling coalition, Barisan Nasional (BN), won the election, its performance was its worst ever. The BN’s share of the popular vote fell to just 47%. UMNO blamed what it saw as a near calamity on the defection of a large share of the Chinese vote to the opposition, led by Anwar Ibrahim, a political veteran—despite Mr Najib’s concerted efforts to woo Chinese and Indian voters. The lesson that UMNO has now drawn is that the more inclusive and liberal style of politics promoted by Mr Najib does not work. So the party has reverted to the bad old ways of race-based politics to shore up the Malay base, at the expense of those who were ungrateful enough to vote for the opposition.

The main casualty of this retreat is Mr Najib himself. Before the election he had come to be seen as a great reformer, winning the centre ground of politics. He repealed outdated security legislation and was slowly rolling back the system of ethnic preferences, begun in 1971, that give Malays a leg-up over Chinese and Indians considered to have benefited unfairly from the colonial economy of the British.

Yet to survive an onslaught from his conservative wing, Mr Najib has been forced to backtrack abruptly. On September 14th he announced a raft of initiatives privileging ethnic Malays. Known as the Bumiputera Economic Empowerment (BEE) programme, they are worth approaching $10 billion and will benefit only ethnic Malays and other indigenous peoples (bumiputera, meaning “sons of the soil”, make up 68% of the population). The BEE will dish out loans for entrepreneurs, for instance, and will require every government ministry to carve out contracts from big projects to award to bumiputera-owned businesses. In future state companies will have to establish targets for bumiputera participation.

Mr Najib couched his extraordinary about-turn in terms of fairness and “equity” for ethnic Malays. But it was also a blatant attempt to please party critics who feel that he abandoned Malays at the election. His government threw those critics more red meat when the attorney-general’s office said it was appealing against the acquittal earlier this year of Mr Anwar on charges of sodomy, a politically motivated case that had dragged on for years.

However cynical, these moves seem to have saved Mr Najib’s skin, at least for the moment. He will not face a leadership challenge in the UMNO elections. The prime minister has been helped by the fact that, in the end, UMNO hardliners could find no sufficiently weighty figure to take him on. Yet that hardly matters to them, since they have forced Mr Najib to shift direction. There is no denying the damage to Mr Najib’s credibility. To many Malaysians, even ethnic Malays, Mr Najib has sacrificed political principles to save his job. His campaigning slogan of “1Malaysia”, emphasising racial harmony, now rings hollow.

What is more, says Kadir Jasin, an UMNO critic of Mr Najib, it might prove only a temporary respite for the prime minister. The conservative wing is contesting many of the UMNO posts up for grabs, including the three influential positions of vice-president. One candidate, Mukhriz Mahathir, the governor of Kedah state, is a particular threat. He is the youngest son of Mahathir Mohamad, who dominated Malaysian politics as prime minister from 1981 to 2003. The champion of bumiputera policies remains a hero to many Malays, and his lustre rubs off on his son. Should Mr Mukhriz win, the anti-Najib forces could coalesce around him as a proxy for his father. A weakened prime minister could then be ousted in an internal putsch, a fate that befell Mr Najib’s predecessor, Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, who also failed to deliver at the polls.

Meanwhile a stuttering Malaysian economy will somehow have to raise the necessary billions for the new BEE programme. A brain drain abroad of talented Chinese- and Indian-Malaysians, disgusted by the overt racism of it all, will continue. And the country’s stated goal of becoming a prosperous economy by 2020 will recede further. So much for Mr Najib’s great reforms.

                This entry was posted on Friday, 27 September 2013, 11:24 pm and is filed under
Mahathir
,
Najib Razak
,
UMNO
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Kit Siang sues Utusan over claims of CEC manipulation

by Melissa Chi

The Malay Mail Online

September 27, 2013

KUALA LUMPUR, Sept 27 — DAP’s Lim Kit Siang filed a lawsuit today against Utusan Melayu over an article alleging he had manipulated the party’s central executive committee (CEC) election — the same day its newspaper Utusan Malaysia printed an apology to the party’s leaders over another article.

His lawyer, Gobind Singh Deo told reporters that the Umno mouthpiece was libelous in an article published on August 18 this year.

“The article in which Utusan used repeated information from the alleged book which quotes one Father Augustus Chen, which we say don’t exist.

“We challenge Utusan to come up with proof to show that Father Augustus Chen exist and to also prove that the allegations that he had made in respect to the 753 delegates did not get notice, proof that, and also the allegation in respect to the fact that there was 500 or more phantom voters from Penang,” he said after the High Court dismissed the bid for injunction against DAP polls.

The 16-page booklet surfaced in Penang sometime last month, claiming irregularities and vote manipulation allegedly to place cronies of both Kit Siang and his son, DAP secretary-general Lim Guan Eng, on the powerful CEC, among other allegations.

 Allegations of irregularities in the CEC results had cast a shadow over the party ever since the Registrar of Society began a probe into the issue following complaints by party members.

“We are giving Utusan a chance, come to court, you had gone on to make an article a very, very damning article about Mr Lim Kit Siang, we now give Utusan a chance,” Gobind said today.

 According to the writ of summons, Lim is asking for general damages including aggravated and, or exemplary damages for libel.

                This entry was posted on Friday, 27 September 2013, 4:42 pm and is filed under
DAP
,
Media
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Malaysia one of the most corrupt nations, survey shows

by Jennifer Gomez

The Malaysian Insider

September 27, 2013

Malaysia has been ranked as one of the most corrupt nations and listed as a country which is most likely to take shortcuts to meet targets when economic times are tough, according to a recent survey by Ernst & Young, signalling that the government’s Performance Management and Delivery Unit (Pemandu) has failed in its role to transform the economy.

Malaysia, along with China, has the highest levels of bribery and corruption anywhere in the world, according to the latest report, Asia-Pacific Fraud Survey Report Series 2013.

This year’s survey polled 681 executives in China, Singapore, Australia, New Zealand, Indonesia, Vietnam, Malaysia and South Korea.

About half of the 681 executives polled on their perception of fraud felt that China, Indonesia, Malaysia and Vietnam were the worst in bribery and corruption.

Those polled were employed at corporations with a turnover in excess of US$500m, ranging from the industrial sector to financial services, retail and natural resources.

“Fraudulent practices are on the rise, and there is a disconnect between the policies that are in place and how they are applied in practice,” said Chris Fordham, EY Fraud Investigation & Dispute Services Managing Partner of Asia-Pacific, in the report.

About 39% of respondents said that bribery or corrupt practices happened widely in Malaysia, a figure which is nearly double the Asia-Pacific average of 21%.

In addition, 29% of respondents said that bribery or corrupt practices here have increased due to tough economic times and increased competition, which is the third highest among the countries surveyed.

The report also revealed that respondents felt that while some countries in Asia had strong anti-bribery and corruption policies, they did not work in practice.

Around 40% of respondents said their companies have anti-bribery polices or codes of conduct in place and 35% confirmed that their senior management has communicated its commitment to these principles.

E&Y also found that the risk of fraud, bribery and corruption were greater in growth markets.

“This may be due to a weak control environment that results in policies and procedures being implemented differently from global compliance frameworks.

“Companies operating in local markets may also feel compelled to operate in line with local business culture, resulting in conflicts with global compliance regimes,” the report noted.

E&Y found 4% of the respondents “agreed” or “strongly agreed” that it was all right to offer cash payments to win business.

“It should be zero, because companies have a policy of zero tolerance towards bribery,” said Torsten Duwenhorst, an E&Y partner.

Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak has staked his premiership on six National Key Result Areas (NKRA), of which “Reducing Corruption” was one of the most important.

Najib and his team have taken great pains to point out to Malaysians and foreigners the “efforts” and “successes” in achieving the key performance indicators (KPIs) of the NKRA.

In 2011, Pemandu boasted that the initiatives taken have shown tremendous results in eradicating corruption.

The government also pointed out that “the effectiveness of the actions taken is being slowly felt and acknowledged by the general public”. – September 27, 2013.

                This entry was posted on Friday, 27 September 2013, 4:22 pm and is filed under
Corruption
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Alternative messages to the Malay heartland: Will they be heard?

Dr Lim Teck Ghee

CPI

27th September 2013

In the last few weeks, with the chorus of chest-beating messages on the need for greater entrenchment of Malay rights and privileges growing stronger ahead of the coming Umno general assembly, there have emerged two Malay leaders who are willing to go against the chauvinistic tide to provide a different analysis of what is wrong with Umno and its political ideology and how to correct the Malay dilemma of poverty or stagnation for its masses amidst unprecedented wealth, power and privilege for its elite.

Datuk Zaid Ibrahim and Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah are no ordinary dissidents. They also cannot in any way be seen as traitors or disloyal to the Malay cause. They have been long-time staunch members of Umno with proven track records of dedicated public service and reputations of higher standards in integrity and honesty than most of their colleagues among our elite.

Their messages to the Malay heartland are sombre and brutal. They will certainly be seen as unwelcome and cruel. But in seeking to drive home the many uncomfortable truths that the contestants jostling for high positions pretend to not see or know about, they are doing the party and its followers much greater service than may be apparent.

Their views and the alternatives offered are important not only for Umno members and other Malays to appraise and debate; they are also important for all Malaysians to reflect upon as we search for the right road to ensure a fair and just future for all.

Zaid points out that

“after many years of being ‘special’, the Malays who are successful are never accepted for their ability; they must have received ‘special treatment’ from Umno. This is particularly true if they do not support Umno’s policies. The dispensation of special treatment enables Umno to pick and choose the winners and after 40 years we can see clearly how some Malays are more equal than others. The greed emanating from this group of the ‘NEW RICH’ is shocking. The lower income groups remain untouched by new injection of financial and economic assistance; it is always the Malay Contractors; members of the Malay Chambers, and of course the elite who get the bulk of the special treatment. When will the Malays realized the special treatment formula is nothing special except for some?”

It is the same in education where the concept of a level playing field is an anathema to Umno’s elite, and discriminatory policies have led to woeful standards, the exclusion of non-Malays and a damaging culture of in-breeding and mediocrity.

Again from Zaid:

“The Chancellor of Universiti Teknologi MARA proudly announced that the university is no place for non-Malays. He assumes that non-Malays want to go there in the first place. He also ignores the possible benefits that can come from having a more diverse student body — he is probably oblivious to the fact that we can learn valuable traits, attitudes and values from those who are different from us. It sadly does not occur to him that the presence of non-Malays might actually be useful for the Malays, the people he wants to champion.”

The effect of the New Economic Policy (NEP) and its successor policies on the Malays has also been succinctly summarized.

 According to Zaid:

“It’s ironic that these leaders shouted Hidup Melayu to celebrate this pernicious policy, because it is actually a death knell for the Malays. The original policy of 40 years ago has become something else: it’s now a repository of all that is crude, unsophisticated and unthinking. What can be simpler than the idea of grabbing as much as you can whilst you have power? The deleterious and negative effects of this can be seen in the behaviour and values of these Umno Malays.”

Alternatives to the NEP

What then are the alternatives policies and strategies for Malay development and empowerment that can break away from the death trap of another 40 years of spoon-feeding, dependency and the malaise of blaming ‘the greedy Chinese’ that has become the dominant Malay/Umno mindset?

What are the policies and strategies that can go beyond just addressing the Malay dilemma and the needs of Malays but also the plight of the other citizens who do not belong to the thin crust of Umno cronies and non-Malay elite, and who struggle to make ends meet in the same way that the Malay masses do?

According to Tengku Razaleigh, the nation needs a new economic model in the form of a “stakeholder economy … in which education, health, employment and business opportunities are available to all. In such an economy, advancement is through merit in conjunction with a criterion of need for the upliftment of the poor and the marginalized groups affected by the forces of liberalization and globalization.”

To achieve this he argues that “we have to take it outside the NEP.  We need to address the social contract frontally, reaffirm the Federal Constitution, and set the NEP into remission. We need to turn the Malay Agenda argument on its head, and treat it as part of the National Agenda.

Razaleigh’s ‘Amanah Malaysia’ plan is still clouded in generalities but my understanding of its broad thrust is that after 40 years of the New Economic Policy and other similar Malay-oriented affirmative action programmes which have mainly benefited Umno and its cronies and sapped the country’s resources dry, it is time for the abandonment of a race-based strategy in addressing the racial and class inequalities found in the country.

Will Zaid’s and Tengku Razaleigh’s views get a hearing at the Umno meetings? Zaid is pessimistic and believes that the coming assembly will be the same as in the past with the limelight taken up by feedback to the latest Bumiputra empowerment policy and with much time devoted to Chinese-bashing and tongue-lashing against “ungrateful Malays”.

New wave of Malaysians

Even if their views are not heard, an increasing number of Malays have begun to speak up against Umno’s dead-end racial strategy. In a letter posted on the Astro Awani portal titled. ‘Let all races compete on an even playing field’, Zan Azlee rubbished Dr Alias Mohamed, the president of the National Association of Malay Journalists and Writers of Malaysia who wrote on an elaborate plan which only the simple minded or gullible can believe in that the Chinese have in trying to take over control and power of Malaysia.

In his response, Zan wrote:

“I, and many other Malaysians of the new wave, don’t believe in the segregation of race in the country anymore. We believe in one Malaysian race. Citizens of the country are citizens. It doesn’t matter how many generations were born here or even if they were granted citizenship after they were born.

Chinese, Malay, Indian, whatever. If we’re Malaysian, then we’re Malaysian. Band together to be stronger together. Not fight with each other. You know what they say. Bersatu kita teguh, bercerai kita roboh.”

Zaid, Tengku Razaleigh and Zan are minority voices and perspectives for now but for how long can the Umno spinmasters and hardliners fool the Malay masses?

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 28 September 2013, 9:13 am and is filed under
NEP
,
Razaleigh Hamzah
,
UMNO
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Malaysia’s future will  be fuller of promise if only Najib could practise in the country the principles and values of moderation that he preaches at international  forums

The Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak yesterday delivered another “fantastic” speech abroad, stating his belief that many of the world’s current problems can be solved if society subscribed to the whole concept of moderation.

He said if the society and governments used moderation in their actions and policies, then the country would have a much more just, fair and inclusive society.

He said moderation was based on certain principles and sound values, like justice, sense of fairness, and choosing dialogue over confrontation, and negotiation over conflict.

One can easily imagine a national sigh at such a report with the overwhelming reaction from Malaysians the quite unanimous one that the country’s future will be fuller of promise if only Najib could practise in the nation the principles and values of moderation that he preaches at international  forums.

If the Najib  administration  had stayed true to the principles and sound values  of moderation in governing the country like justice, sense of fairness, and choosing dialogue over confrontation, and negotiation over conflict, Malaysia will not today be at the critical crossroads some five months after the 13th general elections, struggling to achieve a Malaysian Dream with all  Malaysians regardless of race, religion or region  as equal national stakeholders at a time of unprecedented racial and religious politicking and polarisation, with the well of  public  discourse continuously poisoned by language of hatred,  intolerance and unethical resort to lies and falsehoods.

In the past five months, Najib had repeatedly backtracked from the message of moderation, but there could be no greater betrayal of the  mission of moderation than his distortion of the results of the 13th general elections, describing it as a “Chinese tsunami” and allowing irresponsible and dishonest UMNO political propagandists to launch a campaign  of Chinese-bashing.

The 13th general elections results were no  Chinese grab for Malay political power or rejection of Malay/Chinese/Indian/Kadazan/Iban political co-operation in Malaysia.

In fact, it was a resounding triumph for the cause of moderation in Malaysia, as it was a robust testimony that Malaysians, regardless of race, religion or region were prepared to come together in a new political compact based on the moderate principles and values of  unity, harmony, justice, freedom, accountability, transparency and integrity rejecting greed, corruption, cronyism and abuses of power but camouflaged  in  extremist and intolerant politics of race and  religion.

The 50th Malaysia Day this year should be the occasion for Najib to demonstrate his commitment to the message and mission of moderation in Malaysia, uniting Malaysians not only of diverse ethnicities and religions but of regions.

Instead, his announcement of the RM31 billion Bumiputera Economic Empowerment Plan two days before 50th Malaysia Day seriously dented his moderate credentials whether for his 1Malaysia policy  as well as his claim to be a Prime Minister for all Malaysians.

The BEE Plan was a double betrayal – of his 1Malaysia Policy to create a Malaysia where every Malaysian perceives himself or herself as a Malaysian first and by race, religion, geographic region or socio-economic background second as well as his  New Economic Model (NEM) which promised a  needs-and-merit based transformation of the affirmative programme to uplift the quality of life of the low-income 40% of the households – the overwhelming majority of whom would be the Malays and bumiputeras in  Sarawak and Sabah.

In his current overseas tour during a speech in San Francisco, Najib vowed to make corruption a part of Malaysia’s past and not its future.

But the recent survey by global management consultancy Ernest & Young in its latest report, Asia-Pacific Fraud Survey Report Series 2013, that Malaysia is perceived as the second most corrupt country in the region after Indonesia and that more than one in three company executives feel that corruption is not only rampant but on the rise as well in Malaysia is a powerful testimony that far realising Najib’s San Francisco wishes, corruption in Malaysia is becoming even more entrenched for the future instead of becoming a matter of the past!

The latest repudiation of Najib’s moderate credentials is the backtracking of his pledges made two years ago to abolish detention-without-trial laws with the new Prevention of Crime Act amendments, which are at the same time major assaults on the rule of law and the doctrine of separation of powers to provide judicial check on executive abuses and excesses of power.

What is the use of Najib continuing to make “fantastic” speeches about the principles and values of moderation in international forums when he is stripping himself one after another  of all his pledges and commitments of  a moderation programme in his own country?

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 28 September 2013, 2:06 pm and is filed under
1Malaysia
,
Human Rights
,
Najib Razak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


PCA has all the characteristics of ISA!

by P Ramakrishnan

28 September 2013

It is worrying and troubling that the BN government has chosen to return to the days of darkness and abuse.

This is what it means when the government tabled the Prevention of Crime Act 1959 (PCA) on Wednesday, 23 September 2013.

On the one hand, the BN government had repealed the Emergency Ordinance (EO) and Internal Security Act (ISA) with the Prime Minister guaranteeing over national television that there would be no more preventive detention.

On the other hand, this hypocritical government is now tabling laws that will bring back with a vengeance the same detention without trial along with the ouster of the court’s jurisdiction over this detention.

Instead of the Home Minister dishing out the detention order as was the practice in the past, now that infamous order will be imposed by a three-member Prevention of Crime Board for a period of two years. This can be renewed for further periods of two years in the interest of public order, public security or prevention of crime.

Whenever the government claims to act in the public interest, we have to take it with a pinch of salt. Inevitably, it has always meant to be in the interest of the ruling party to strengthen its grip on power and safeguard its position. It is the same ploy that they use to perpetuate their rule.

It doesn’t mean that, when this board is headed by a judge from the High Court, Court of Appeal or Federal Court, justice will be assured or dispensed honestly or with integrity. We have witnessed some startling judgments by some of these very judges that made no sense – even though judges are meant to be the guardians of justice.

We have been thoroughly disillusioned by the judgments of the courts concerning the political controversies involving the Barisan Nasional government. The recent election petitions and the judicial ruling in the Perak state’s shameful toppling of an elected government are cases that shattered our confidence in the judiciary.

Now, the question arises, who will be the other two members in the three-member board? Will they be some discredited politicians, who are usually rewarded with appointments to the Senate or as ambassadors – such appointments never fail to shock the nation into disbelief.

Youth and Sports Minister Khairy Jamaluddin and others of his ilk can blatantly claim that the PCA and the ISA are not the same but the characteristics of the PCA are based on denial and deception just like the ISA.

Like the ISA, the PCA provides for detention without trial. Like the ISA, this detention can be renewed after the expiry of the initial two-year term.

Like the ISA, a PCA detention cannot be challenged in a court of law. There is no judicial review even if the detention is wrong and is a product of bad faith. The Act specifically bars a judicial review of any of the board’s actions or any judicial decision based on the board’s discretionary powers.

A registered person and witnesses appearing before the board for the inquiry are denied access to counsel and legal representation. It is crucial that they be represented by their lawyers so that their human rights are protected. This would imply that the authorities are hell-bent on putting away people who are seen as a challenge to their authority.

It is totally unacceptable that a registered persons is also denied legal representation when he is quizzed in detention by the inquiry officer. It is no secret that people who are questioned in detention are treated savagely and without any regard for their rights.

It is appalling that the Act provides for the board, inquiry officers or any public servant to withhold information in the public interest or for the safety of a witness, family or associates. In other words, any false information can be accepted without being refuted or challenged. This is most unfair and unjust and can easily lead to manipulation and abuse.

It is no comfort that the Act has a provision for the Home Minister to submit an annual report on all activities related to detention orders to Parliament. What fate will such a report face in spite of this assurance?

We recall there was a similar provision in the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia Act – but how many times were Suhakam reports formally tabled in Parliament and debated? What was the outcome of these reports? Based on how Suhakam’s reports were dealth with in Parliament, we have no faith that this similar provision in the PCA is meant to act as a check and balance against abuse.

There is little doubt that the PCA is politically motivated to curb the ascendancy of Pakatan Rakyat in Malaysian politics. It is the fear that it will be replaced in GE14 that is driving the BN to arm itself with this corrosive law to destroy the PR’s chances and hold on to power at all costs.

Malaysians can see through this evil plot – you bet!

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 29 September 2013, 8:11 am and is filed under
Human Rights
,
Pakatan Rakyat
,
Parliament
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


DAP elections: Status quo for top leaders, more votes for Zairil

By Syed Jaymal Zahiid

The Malay Mail Online

September 29, 2013

PETALING JAYA, Sept 29 — DAP delegates sent a clear message to the Registrar of Societies (RoS) by re-electing the same 20 people as the ones chosen in the ‘illegal’ party council polls held last year.

Compelled to re-hold elections by the regulatory body, the opposition party’s grassroots voted in the same central executive committee (CEC) lineup that made the cut in the party’s December polls, which the RoS later declared illegal.

Many more of the 2,000-plus delegates who qualified to vote also chose to cast their ballot for the sole Malay representative on the committee, Zairil Khir Johari, pushing his ranking from the bottom rung in December to 12th spot this time around.

The young politician garnered 1,132 votes or 329 more than the 803 votes in the December 15 party leadership election last year.

“I’d like to congratulate those elected and those who cast their votes because they endorsed the decision made by last year’s congress and they elected the same lineup,” party secretary-general Lim Guan Eng told a press conference after holding a brief meeting with the newly elected lineup here.

Many more of the 2,000-plus delegates who qualified to vote also chose to cast their ballot for Bukit Bendera MP Zairil Khir Johari, pushing his ranking from the bottom rung in December to 12th spot this time around.

The young politician was the sole Malay representative on the committee and garnered 1,132 votes or 329 more than the 803 votes he netted in the December 15 party leadership election last year.

Zairil’s position in the CEC would likely help the DAP dispel its Chinese chauvinist stigma although Lim admitted that more must be done to improve the party’s standing among the country’s Malay majority.

“We have always wanted to show that we are a party for Malaysians. Whether or not it dispel (the allegation), we still have to tackle the negative perception,” he told The Malay Mail Online.

But Lim again stressed that the most important outcome of the elections is the polls results reaffirms the decision made by the grassroots in the December congress and that the party must respect it.

“We are a democratic party and we must respect their choice but what is most important is it reaffirms the decision of the congress last year,” he said.

Apart from Zairil, academic Dr. Ariffin Omar was the other Malay who was appointed rather than elected into the council.

Ariffin was also made a vice chairmen, in an apparent move to strengthen the DAP’s multiracial credentials.

Meanwhile the party maintained all of the office bearers appointed in the December congress.

The polls result also produced a surprise when Kluang MP Liew Chin Tong obtained the highest votes at 1,438, topping party veteran Lim Kit Siang who garnered 1,436 votes.

Kit Siang was first in the last polls.

National chairman Karpal Singh, on the other hand bagged third position with 1,432 votes while his son Puchong MP Gobind Singh Deo, obtained the fourth highest votes with 1,409 votes, with Penang Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng following closely with 1,304 votes.

Others voted into the CEC are:

    Chong Chieng Jen (1,294 votes)

    Anthony Loke (1,263 votes)

    Chow Kon Yeow (1,203 votes)

    Fong Kui Lun (1,193)

    Teng Chang Kim (1,164)

    Tony Pua (1,158)

    Teresa Kok (1,127)

    Chong Eng (1,111)

    M. Kulasegaran (1,088)

    Tan Kok wai (1,088)

    Teo Nie Ching (1,081)

    Boo Cheng Hau (961)

    Nga Kor Ming  (956)

    Ngeh Koo Ham (809)

                This entry was posted on Monday, 30 September 2013, 12:44 am and is filed under
DAP
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


EC must call for GE13 re-election

 – Richard Loh

The Malaysian Insider

September 30, 2013

Which is more important and critical in a democratic nation, a general election or a political party election?

From what we observed in this nation, political party like Umno and its component Barisan Nasional parties have been postponing their party elections due to an impending general election hovering between last quarter of 2011 to 2013. This indicates that the general election is more important and critical that overrides any matters in a political party.

The overwhelming perception is that the laws of this nation can be manipulated, misrepresented and realigned to suit those in power. As they are only perceptions, we will not take them as face value and assume that no one is above the law and those in power are acting accordingly and abide by the law.

“RoS acted on the complaints of several disgruntled members who claimed the December election was not properly conducted after the party announced that a tabulation glitch had resulted in the wrong candidate being elected to the central executive committee.” reported by The Malaysian Insider

Accordingly, the Registrar of Societies (RoS) must have investigated the matter and came to the conclusion that DAP must hold a re-election. Their conclusion is not transparent without providing what exactly DAP has done wrong to insist that they hold a re-election but just base on complaints from a handful of members and an unverified anonymous handbook.

We take it that RoS is a government agency with integrity and are following procedures according to the law of this country whereby party elections are deemed void when a handful of members make complaints to them without any real proof of wrong doings. We conclude that this kind of action by RoS is acceptable by the government and applies to all other agencies that deal with elections.

From this RoS/DAP episode, we must insist the Election Commission calls for a re-election. The complaint of fraud, bribery, unfair playing field, bias mainstream media… etc from voters regarding the general election are thousands of times bigger than the handful of party members complaining against DAP election.

Coupled with that there are evidences provided, police reports being made and not to mention the just concluded People’s Tribunal providing details that the general election13 was not conducted in a clean and fair manner.

Since the general election is more important and critical than political party election the Election Commission should follow RoS integrity and honesty of running an agency which acts decisively and call for re-election now. – ousel.blogspot.com, September 30, 2013.

                This entry was posted on Monday, 30 September 2013, 9:42 am and is filed under
DAP
,
Election
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Making Corruption History – Cakap Kosong Je ‘Jib!

M. Bakri Musa

30th Sept 2013

In San Francisco recently, Prime Minister Najib confidently declared “to make corruption part of Malaysia’s past, not its future.” The man’s delusion never ceases to amaze me. The reality is of course far different; corruption defines the Najib Administration.

            Nonetheless if Najib is serious, then he should heed Tengku Razaleigh’s call for Najib to declare his assets. Otherwise it would be, to put it bluntly in the vernacular, “Cakap kosong je ‘Jib!” (Empty talk only!)

            Tengku Razaleigh’s suggestion, if implemented, would do far more good than all of Najib’s lofty declarations of “changing organizational as well as business cultures” or creating “a new governance and integrity minister” and “elevating the anti-corruption agency.” Malaysians have heard all those ad nauseum, not only from Najib but also his predecessors.

            If after doing what Tengku Razaleigh had suggested Najib still aspires higher, he could begin by getting rid of those tainted individuals in his administration. Then if he is really committed to clean and effective governance, he should select only those with unquestioned integrity and solid accomplishments to be his new ministers and advisors.

            As Najib is slow to grasp concepts, let me elaborate on those three simple suggestions.

            Consider asset declaration. Najib does not need yet another highly-paid consultant advising him how to do it. There are plenty of effective models out there, including one recommended by the OECD. The simplest is the one used by American public officials including the president, cabinet secretaries, and Supreme Court judges. It covers their spouses and all dependent children.

            Here is President Obama’s, available publicly at:
docstoc.com/docs/156786412/Obama-Financial-Disclosure
. The simple eight-page report lists his assets and income, transactions during the year, gifts received (he had none), liabilities (his home mortgage), and contracts he is a party to (his old faculty appointment).

            Simple yet effective! As the declaration is filed annually, citizens could tract any sudden ballooning of assets, income, or extra-generous gifts that could prompt further enquiry, as well as monitor contracts and activities that could pose as potential conflict of interest.

            Obama and his senior officials go further; they release their full income tax returns annually.

            If Najib were to do likewise, rumors of his wife buying million-ringgit rings and getting extravagant gifts would not have arisen, if indeed they were baseless.

            If Najib’s ministers were to similarly declare their assets, then we would not have the silly specter of a cabinet minister feigning ignorance of her husband’s quarter-billion ringgit government-funded business, as Shahrizat tried to do recently. The pathetic part was that she truly believed that the public would buy her swiftly-concocted story.

            Beyond publicly declaring his assets, if Najib still aspires for a clean administration, then he should remove those tainted individuals in his administration. Since Najib is blind to reality, I will help him identify such proven shady characters.

            The most glaring is Isa Samad, former Negri Sembilan Chief Minister. Dispensing with his lackluster tenure as the chief executive of that state, the man was found guilty of “money politics,” UMNO’s euphemism for plain ugly corruption. Meaning, he is corrupt even by UMNO’s lax standards, assuming the party has any!

            In any system with even a semblance of integrity, slimy characters like Isa Samad would have been jailed. In China, they would be executed. Yet Najib appointed Isa to helm the billion- ringgit Felda Global Holdings, a GLC. One wonders why Najib is so enamored with this character. The more intriguing question is why the powerful hold Isa has on Najib?

            Then there is Ali Rustam, also a former Chief Minister (Malacca). Like Isa, Ali too was found guilty of money politics. At least voters in his state were wise enough to boot him out. Now Ali is eyeing for the UMNO Vice-Presidency, as is Isa. Watch it, Najib will also do an Isa on Ali, that is, appoint him to a senior lucrative position, making a mockery of Najib’s aim of making corruption history.

            Then if after getting rid of the Isa Samads and Ali Rustams Najib still harbors even higher aspirations, like wanting a crisp and efficient administration, then he could entice capable Malaysians to join his team.

            I suggest co-opting Keadilan’s Rafizi Ramli. This bright young man has done more than anyone else to heighten public consciousness of corruption at high places. Rafizi shamed the anti-corruption agency. Appointing Rafizi would also go a long way towards a “unity” government. Only the likes of Shahrizat would not welcome his appointment.

            At the very least Rafizi’s appointment would significantly lower the average age of Najib’s cabinet as well as drastically elevate its collective IQ!

            At the other end of the experience spectrum is Tengku Razaleigh. He is from Najib’s own party too. If Najib is deeply serious about and truly committed to memperkasakan ekonomi Melayu (enhancing Malay economy) as he asserted recently, well, the Tengku has been there and done that, and remarkably well too! Look at Petronas and Pernas. Malaysia’s finances too were robust when he was Finance Minister.

            Yes, at one time he helmed the once powerful Bank Bumiputra, now long gone. If Tengku’s detractors want to taint him with that scandal, remember this. Tengku Razaleigh is one of the few if not only public figures to have successfully sued for libel the venerable Financial Times when it tried to implicate him.

            Co-opting Tengku Razaleigh would give the Najib Administration some adult supervision. Better yet, Najib should seize the opportunity and take a sabbatical, just like what Lee Kuan Yew once did. Take a temporary leave from UMNO and Malaysia; learn about the real world beyond government. Najib would learn that there is a vast other universe out there not dependent on public paychecks or political patronages.

            At another speech during his recent San Francisco trip, Najib chided his critics especially those residing abroad who “criticize the country but they do not have any idea on how to contribute to the country.”

            Najib is not only slow in grasping concepts but he is also not a careful reader. We do not criticize Malaysia, only his inept leadership. Nonetheless since Najib has asked for specific ideas, here is one.

            Take an extended sabbatical. Let someone like Tengku Razaleigh take over. Three or four years hence, in time for the next election, resume your prime ministership. Meanwhile learn as much as possible about the much bigger and considerably more wonderful world beyond UMNO. You will be a more effective leader for that, and Malaysia would be a much better country, both while you were gone and after you return.

                This entry was posted on Monday, 30 September 2013, 12:08 pm and is filed under
Bakri Musa
,
Corruption
,
Najib Razak
,
Razaleigh Hamzah
,
UMNO
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Post-polls, an air of vindication in DAP

by Nigel Aw and Koh Jun Lin

Malaysiakini

Sep 29, 2013

As DAP retained the exact 20-member central executive committee (CEC) line-up from the last election, it was apparent that delegates were determined to send a signal to the Registrar of Societies (ROS) that had created a host of problems for the party.

There was a sense of vindication among DAP delegates after the election results were announced this evening – that there was absolutely no manipulation of its CEC election held last December.

“Basically, it is a slap in the face of the ROS,” a delegate from Selangor told Malaysiakini.

The drama over the CEC election began in January after DAP admitted that there was a tabulation error resulting in Zairil Khir Johari being wrongfully excluded from the CEC.

After the results were rectified, there were claims that the results were intentionally manipulated in order to include a token Malay into the Chinese-dominated CEC.

The fallout from the botch up resulted in ROS initiating an investigation against the party that dragged on until the general election, raising fears that DAP may be de-registered on the eve of the national polls.

The poor timing also saw slighted DAP members who were dropped as general election candidates – most notably, former Teratai state assemblyperson Jenice Lee – challenging the authority of the party leadership due to the disputed CEC election results.

But now that the CEC election result has affirmed the rectified results of last year’s party polls, there are DAP members who feel that ROS had purposely put the party in a bind for political reasons.

“What are they going to do now? Are they going to say that both elections were null and void?” asked a delegate from Johor.

‘Rewards’ for some

Although the line-up still remains essentially the same, delegates appear to have “rewarded” some leaders for their recent achievements, most notably being Liew Chin Tong and Zairil.

Zairil climbed eight spots from the last party polls to place 12th after winning the Bukit Bendera parliamentary constituency with a convincing majority.

“ROS helped make Zairil more famous among the delegates,” summed up one delegate from Johor.

While Zairil’s convincing win is an endorsement of his role in the party, it also appeared to be an attempt to ensure that the party’s most prominent Malay face would safely make into the CEC this time.

But if there was one shocker during this election was Liew’s meteoric rise in popularity among the delegates.

Liew climbed 13 spots since the last polls with his votes topping that of DAP veterans Karpal Singh, Lim Kit Siang and Lim Guan Eng who usually leads the pack.

Among party delegates, there has been talk about Liew being an efficient strategist and a “giant killer” for unseating MCA strongman Hou Kok Chung, a deputy minister in the previous federal government, in Kluang.

Although not as famous as Karpal, Kit Siang and Guan Eng outside the party, Liew’s popularity within bodes well for the party which has long been criticised for allowing “dinosaurs” to rule the party for too long.

Liew in only 36 years old, making him among the youngest CEC member.

Cracks the whip, and votes dip

However, it was not all joy for everyone as DAP disciplinary board chairperson Tan Kok Wai who surprisingly fell 10 spots, placing 15th.

Tan’s decline was likely due to his handling of disciplinary issues involving disgruntled DAP members which have not been smooth sailing as they relentlessly attacked the party.

When met, Tan conceded that this could have been a factor, but added another.

“By chance, I was also a member of the committee that selected candidates for the 13th general election. Some twenty incumbents were dropped,” he said.

The fact that at least two such disgruntled members, namely Jenice Lee and David Dass who turned up at the re-election and created a scene, did not help the party stalwart.

In his post-election press conference, newly re-appointed DAP secretary-general Guan Eng brushed off his slight drop in votes and instead urged the ROS to stop hounding the party.

“I hope they will stop oppressing us,” he said.

                This entry was posted on Monday, 30 September 2013, 12:30 am and is filed under
DAP
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Why Najib hightails it to New York and such…

The Malaysian Insider

September 29, 2013

Najib addresses the 68th United Nations General Assembly in New York yesterday. – Reuters pic, September 29, 2013.Najib addresses the 68th United Nations General Assembly in New York yesterday. – Reuters pic, September 29, 2013.Here is one reason why Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak enjoys being outside the country so much: it is only in the rarefied air of the United Nations assembly or in meeting rooms at the swanky Waldorf Astoria in New York that an audience still buys his talk about Malaysia being a model of moderate Islam.

Back home, here in Malaysia, with the right wing very much in ascendancy in Umno and with religious and racial intolerance at red flag levels, any mention of the word “moderation” is met with cynicism. Or worse yet, disdain.

It was revealed in Parliament that the Prime Minister spent a staggering RM44 million on travel abroad between March 2008 and May 2013.

It is a fact that has raised eyebrows even among Umno politicians. Some of them wonder why attending the UN assembly or opening the Khazanah Nasional office in San Francisco is so important, or why it was necessary to go to Thailand for his second break after the May 5 general election.

Actually, there is a simple explanation why he enjoys being outside the country so much. He needs a diversion from the daily mess that is Malaysia, a mess compounded by his willingness to allow shrill, fringe voices to dictate the tone of this country. And his inability to tackle the laundry list of issues from endemic corruption to the breakdown in law and order.

A laundry list that also includes: an increasingly right-wing Umno; an inept Cabinet; a combative opposition; fractured and irrelevant BN component parties; a widening budget deficit and the insatiable appetite of businessmen and cronies; and, not least, the hulking presence of Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad.

Against this backdrop, putting some space between Malaysia and himself is Najib’s preferred option.

Think about it. What happens to children in a house where peace and quiet is a rare commodity and where the air is pregnant with tension and where every day seems like a battle? Usually the children find excuses to hang out in a friend’s house, stay over with a cousin, where they may receive praise and affirmation.

What happens to a student who feels overmatched in school, overwhelmed by the demands of parents and teachers and under pressure from bullies? Chances are that the student will play truant, or do his best to limit his appearances in the classroom.

So it is with the Malaysian PM. Those who have been part of his entourage say that he is relaxed when away from home and loves pressing the flesh with foreign leaders and businessmen, talking about the Global Movement of Moderates and impressing them with his smooth delivery, sharp dressing and his ability to speak the language that Westerners like to hear.

In New York before an appreciative audience at the Council of Foreign Relations, he was applauded for arguing for “dialogue over confrontation, negotiation over conflict”.

The irony is that in Malaysia, the country he leads, there is more confrontation than dialogue on race and religion.

The party he leads is not interested in compromise or the middle path, choosing instead to trample on the rights of those who did not vote for Umno/Barisan Nasional in GE13. And Najib has in recent weeks dropped all pretence, becoming instead an active supporter of the right-wing agenda.

Even The Economist, a publication which has been generous in its praise of Najib as a reformer in the past, noted in its current edition the unsavoury changes taking place here.

It noted that following BN’s poor performance in 2013, “the party has reverted to the bad old ways of race-based politics to shore up the Malay base, at the expense of those who were ungrateful enough to vote for the Opposition”.

“The main casualty of this retreat is Mr Najib himself. Before the election he had come to be seen as a great reformer… he repealed outdated security legislation and was slowly rolling back the system of ethnic preferences. Yet to survive an onslaught from his conservative wing, Mr Najib has been forced to backtrack abruptly,” said The Economist.

It then went on to conclude that the stuttering Malaysian economy will have to raise billions for the new affirmative action programmes and noted that the brain drain of talented non-Malays will continue, disgusted by the overt racism here.

“So much for Mr Najib’s great reforms,” concluded the newsweekly.

When he returns to Malaysia next week, the PM will have to once again face the litany of problems in the country. But this week away from home, he can live in his bubble – where he is feted as a leader of moderates. – September 29, 2013.

                This entry was posted on Monday, 30 September 2013, 2:35 pm and is filed under
Mahathir
,
Najib Razak
,
UMNO
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Backstabber’s guide to Umno polls

Mariam Mokhtar

Malaysiakini

Sep 30, 2013

Mention the word Umno Baru and people will think of the 3Cs – corruption, cheating and cronyism.

Thousands of miles away, Najib Abdul Razak told the UN General Assembly that “the greatest threat to Muslims today, is not from the outside world, but from within”. His words are poignant and have some gravitas, for they reflect the conditions at home.

Thanks to former prime minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad, the public has become extremely mistrustful of politicians. Thanks also to Mahathir, the biggest challenge which Najib will face at the next Umno-Baru elections, is ironically, within his party.

Many factors will affect the battles during the upcoming Umno-Baru election, including wit and financial considerations. The two men, president Najib, and deputy president Muhyiddin Yassin, ‘won’ their seats unopposed.

The three hotly contested vice-presidential positions are being challenged by six men – Ahmad Zahid Hamidi, Hishammuddin Hussein, Mohd Shafie Apdal, Isa Abdul Samad, Mukhriz Mahathir and Ali Rustam.

The following is a backstabber’s guide to the race.

Najib
, the Jekyll and Hyde character: Abroad, he preaches moderation and is praised for his over-reaching and inclusive views.

At home, he is timid and panders to the extremists and ultra-nationalist factions. He appears to undergo a personality change as soon as he steps onto Malaysian soil.

If the characterisation of Najib as Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde is too harsh, perhaps, Humpty Dumpty is more apt. Having reached the pinnacle of his position (the top of the wall), Najib’s fall from grace could not be reversed by all the king’s men or all the king’s horses.

Muhyiddin Yesman
: This veteran politician is allegedly taking instructions from Mahathir, to pave the way for his son Mukhriz to be a future PM.

Most will remember Muhyiddin for his “Malay first, Malaysian second” remark.

In his version of unity and reconciliation, Muhyiddin once said that anyone had a right to form their own Chinese or Indian version of the Malay extremist group, Perkasa, provided the association was formed with good intentions. What are Perkasa’s good intentions, critics wondered?

Anyway, full marks to Muhyiddin, for wanting a harmonious and multiracial society, based on intolerance and bigotry.

Ahmad Zahid Hamidi
: In the game of ‘cabinet musical chairs’, Zahid swopped roles with Hishammuddin Hussein as home minister.

An abrasive character, who lacks tact and diplomacy, Zahid is inclined to tell anyone who disagrees with him, who is displeased about the cheating in GE13 or who is worried about the political system, to leave the country.

When a Singaporean Muslim opened his heart and his premises to a Buddhist group, Zahid stripped him of his permanent residence permit and charged him with insulting Islam.

Zahid has amazing ‘new broom sweeps clean’ powers. Within days of assuming his cabinet post, he found 250,000 Shiite Muslims hiding in the country and 260,000 hardcore criminals terrorising the streets. He is prone to incoherent rages.

Hishammuddin Hussein
: Critics wonder if this self-deluded macho man, who allegedly fashions himself after the children’s action figure, Action Man, was given the post of defence minister because he allegedly likes to be seen in leather jackets and dark sunglasses, staring through powerful binoculars looking at boys (with their toys).

His fondness for using binoculars meant that he missed the 510,000 hardcore criminals and Shiite Muslims that Zahid found with ease.

Mohd Shafie Apdal
: The only defining feature of this Sabahan is the infamy he gained as a result of the allegation that he gave out RM1.5 million to his mistress, at a time when the BR1M payments of RM500, was deemed sufficient to keep the rakyat sweet and willing (to be shafted repeatedly by Umno Baru).

The alleged affair had been an open secret and was exposed when the actress’ driver, lodged a police report after he had been accused of absconding with some of the loot.

Isa Abdul Samad
: If only the government of Umno Baru could recycle rubbish as well as it recycles its veteran politicians.

This recycled politician was once the target of Mahathir’s ire, when the former PM moaned that Umno Baru should not condone corrupt politicians. Isa was stripped of his Umno Baru vice-presidency and suspended for six years, later reduced to three, on appeal.

Isa was rewarded for his years in the wilderness by Najib, who made him the chairperson of Felda, a gold mine for those who know where to look for the treasure.

Mohd Ali Rustam
: Another recycled politician who was disqualified in the 2009 Umno Baru elections, after being found guilty of money politics.

As the former chief minister of Malacca, he used the trappings of power to fund his son’s wedding, claiming that he wanted his adoring rakyat, around 130,000 of them, to share and partake in his personal happiness.

Following allegations of corruption, the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission launched an investigation and said: “We are going item by item, to see how much money was spent and who paid for it.”

Presumably, they are still going through the list, because we have heard nothing.

Anyone who has ever wanted an adventurous ride in a cherry-picker (the machine which Tenaga wiremen use, to lift them to the tops of overhead poles), can have one at the end of the ride in Ali’s RM16 million monorail, which travels two feet before stopping dead in its tracks. The stranded passenger will be plucked from the monorail and deposited on land by a cherry-picker – Malacca’s own version of a thrilling theme park ride.

Mukhriz Mahathir
: We will have to wait for his father Mahathir’s next press release to learn about Mukhriz’s good works and future aspirations. Whenever Mukhriz starts talking, people glance at their watches and say they have to rush for an appointment.

Mukhriz may have been born with a silver spoon in his mouth, but he is tainted with the Mahathir brush.

His dad is a bore with a capital B, when he reminds us that Umno-Baru must inject young blood and elect smart people into the party. It is possible that Mahathir was referring to Khairy Jamaluddin.

Najib’s predictions about the internal threat are coming true. His party has decided to deploy the police, to protect the ballot papers to be used in the party election.

This speaks volumes about the state of affairs within Umno Baru. The cheating in the Umno-Baru elections will make GE13 look like a model of a fair election!

MARIAM MOKHTAR is a defender of the truth, the admiral-general of the Green Bean Army and president of the Perak Liberation Organisation (PLO).

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 1 October 2013, 10:54 pm and is filed under
Mahathir
,
Mariam Mokhtar
,
Muhyiddin Yassin
,
Najib Razak
,
UMNO
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Clocks, scanners and “miscellaneous items” cost RTM RM9 million, up to 7,200 times over budget

Auditor-General’s 2012 Report (4)

by Eileen Ng

The Malaysian Insider

October 01, 2013

The Broadcasting Department blew its budget spending RM120,210 on clocks and scanners alone, thus overpaying for these items by thousands of times beyond its actual cost.

Despite budgeting RM100 per unit for a clock and RM200 per unit for an A4-sized document scanner, the Auditor-General found that the Broadcasting Department spent RM3,810 per unit for “branded” wall clocks and RM14,670 per unit for the scanners.

In the 2012 AG Report, it found the department bought 20 branded wall clocks and three scanners for national broadcaster RTM’s offices in three states.

The department paid RM76,200 for the clocks, which was 3,810% above its estimated budget, and RM44,010 for the scanners, which was 7,235 times more than its initial budget.

The department also bought five scanners for A3 sized documents at an inflated price of RM20,630 each – its estimated budget was RM1,000 each.

The items were part of eight “miscellaneous items” bought in 2009 for studio equipment at its offices in Kota Baru in Kelantan, Bintulu (Sarawak) and Keningau (Sabah), and which were awarded to a single company through open tender.

While the report did note that the total bill charged by the contractor at RM9.29 million was lower than the department’s estimate of RM9.46 million, the AG expressed concern that costs for certain items were pricey, which is between 15.7% and 7,235% higher than the department’s estimated cost for each unit.

“The procurement of such items were done via open tender but there are certain items in the contract which have unreasonably high costs,” the report said.

In reply, the Information, Communications and Culture Ministry said the estimates were based on comparisons with its previous contracts and was updated in accordance to current market prices.

It also took into account prices of goods, spare parts, training, installation and maintenance services provided by the vendors that had submitted their bids.

“The ministry’s procurement board awarded the contract based on best technical evaluation scores and the best value for money,” it said.

It added the board also took the initiative to compare prices of items offered by companies online before making its decision.

The 20 wall clocks were initially purchased for its role as “slave clocks”, a component which formed part of a proposed master clock system aimed at providing accurate time based on satellite movements to coordinate broadcasting work.

However, the plan to implement the master clock system was cancelled and as such, 14 of the 20 clocks were then used as ordinary clocks, while the remaining six in Keningau were not used at all.

In response, the ministry said a meeting on March 2009 decided that there is no need for “slave clocks” but the item was still listed in its tendering contract in November of the same year.

“However, the contractor offered and supplied branded wall clocks with ‘slave clock’ features worth RM3,810 each. RTM indirectly managed to get high quality wall clocks which exceeded its value for money,” the ministry said. – October 1, 2013.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 1 October 2013, 11:49 pm and is filed under
General
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Govt overpaid TM by RM11.6m for 999 emergency line, says A-G

Auditor-General’s 2012 Report (3)

by Joseph Sipalan

October 1, 2013

KUALA LUMPUR, Oct 1 —The government has been told to take back at least RM11.6 million from Telekom Malaysia Berhad (TM), after the Auditor-General (A-G) detailed a laundry list of “improper payments” and “unreasonable expenses” incurred in the development of the Malaysian Emergency Response System (MERS) 999.

The figure does not include an RM25.88 million lump sum payment made out to the national telecommunications company by the Information, Communication and Culture Ministry, which the auditor in his 2012 report said could not be verified but was given ministry approval.

In his 2012 annual report released today, the A-G identified numerous issues surrounding the RM801.55 million project, where funds were carved out from various parts of the project over the course of its six-year development by TM from 2007 to 2012.

This included some RM5.07 million spent by the ministry to cover the cost of organising training workshops and seminars and related expenses for TM staff, which the A-G described as unreasonable.

He said it must be recouped from the project contractor.

The report also determined that the ministry should recover RM253,813 spent on an overseas study tour, as it was not part of the terms of the contract with TM, which secured the project via direct negotiation.

TM had also overcharged the ministry by RM1.57 million for operational management and maintenance of the MERS 999, another area where the A-G said the government should reclaim the funds.

The project contractor had at the same time failed to supply equipment worth RM1.03 million – for which the ministry had already paid. On this issue, the A-G stressed that ministry officials and parties proven to be involved must face disciplinary action, while officers who facilitated the payment must face a surcharge as stipulated under the government’s financial regulations.

Yet another area where the A-G recommended disciplinary action and surcharges to be imposed is in the promotion and publicity of the MERS 999, due to excess payment of RM3.19 million by the ministry to TM for nothing since the ministry terminated the promotional programme in 2008.

There is another RM295,036 that the ministry overpaid to TM under phase two of the project development, but the contractor has since agreed to return the money, according to the A-G’s report.

And despite all the extra money paid to TM, the report found that the MERS 999 had performed poorly as a total of 7.65 million calls, or 32.4 per cent of the total calls made to the emergency number were left unanswered.

The A-G, however, lay the brunt of the blame for the project’s many faults on the ministry and the four committees set up to monitor the project’s progress from various angles, and proposed that action be taken under Treasury Order 167 on all committee members who failed in their duties.

Order 167 dictates that controlling officers or public officers are liable to pay for any losses incurred by any projects under their supervision.

”In the opinion of the audit, the monitoring mechanism through the formation of four committees at various levels to oversee the MERS 999 project were not effective in executing their responsibilities and careless in protecting the interests of the government.

”The ministry as the implementing agency, did not pay serious attention on the management and administration of the MERS 999 contract,” the report read.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 1 October 2013, 11:40 pm and is filed under
Auditor-General Report
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Mind Your ‘Transformation’, Please!

By Kee Thuan Chye

 Yahoo! News

30th Sept. 2013

“Transformational” is getting to be a hollow word. And the Cabinet ministers who brandish it at will don’t seem to understand its meaning. Home Minister Ahmad Zahid Hamidi just showed he doesn’t when he said the bringing back of detention without trial in the newly proposed Prevention of Crime (Amendment and Extension) Bill was “transformational”. Was he using it simply to be in fashionable sync with the Government Transformation Programme?

Is something retrogressive transformational? Is a return to the provisions of the repealed draconian Emergency Ordinance (EO) and Internal Security Act (ISA) transformational? If it is so, then Malaysians are in for a big surprise. And a nasty one too.

Both acts were considered reprehensible to the public, and therefore the Government was forced to remove them. But that was before the 13th general election was called. Now that it’s over, the Government apparently sees no more need in appeasing the public. Pre-election pledges have gone out the window.

A government that is transformational would not hark back to the dark days of Mahathir Mohamad’s reign, when fear was the instrument used to keep people in line. It should instead be demolishing Mahathirism and restoring the damage done to our institutions. No wonder Mahathir is applauding the Bill and blaming the public for “not (being) that developed or educated to appreciate that the law is for their own good”. But then, that’s Mahathir. Always blaming other people. And always asserting that might is right.

The new Bill proposes detaining a suspect for an initial two years, after which period if a review finds that the suspect should be detained further, he will be held for a further two years. This could go on indefinitely in a series of two-year periods. In this sense, it is no different from the EO and the ISA.

The difference is that the detention order will now be decided by a three-member Crime Prevention Board headed by a judge. It will no longer be the decision of the home minister. The board’s members will be appointed by the King – of course, at the recommendation of the prime minister.

The unjust part about it is that the suspect will not be allowed legal representation during the inquiry to decide whether he should be detained. And if the board decides to detain the suspect, he will not be provided the grounds for the detention.

Worse, the newly proposed Section 7C(a)(i) provides that one of the things the board shall consider when deciding on detention is that the suspect has previously committed two or more serious offences. It, however, would not matter if the suspect had been convicted of those offences or not. This gives immense power to the officers handling the inquiry, and subjects the suspect to their mercy.

If you consider that even criminals are human beings and should have rights, you would think twice about condemning them to such a bleak situation, especially when they are not even allowed to have a lawyer to represent them.

But Zahid assures us that despite all this, the Bill provides for a judicial review, i.e. if the suspect feels he has been wrongly detained, his lawyers “are given a chance to bring their case to court for a review”.

This sounds good on paper, but in real-case situations, it would still disadvantage the suspect. First, the act of detention without trial takes away his right to being considered innocent till proven guilty. Second, if he were truly innocent and got hauled in by mistake, he would still have to spend time in detention while his case was being brought to the High Court. Nobody relishes such an ordeal.

Third, and perhaps most important, if the suspect is not provided the grounds for his detention, and the board is granted the option to decline providing any information to the court because it would be against the public interest to do so, how will the review be made?

As it is, lawyers looking at the Bill have expressed differences of opinion on what the proposed judicial review will actually be allowed to address.

Apparently, the newly proposed Section 15A(1) says that a judicial review would address only whether the Crime Prevention Board complied with procedural requirements when deciding on the detention; it would, however, not be allowed to address the board’s decision.

But Section 19A(2) apparently says that the board’s detention order can be reviewed by a High Court. Which is which? Does the Bill require rewriting to make this clear before it is debated in Parliament?

In any case, the court challenge Zahid talks about would not amount to a trial. As spelt out in the amendments, it would only be a judicial review, which is different from a trial. As such, if the detention were to be upheld by the judicial review, it would technically still amount to detention without trial.

It’s obvious that in defending the Bill, Zahid is thinking only of those who are guilty and therefore deserving, in his reckoning, of being subjected to the suffering that is detention without trial. He is not thinking of those who might be innocent and wrongly detained. The law, however, should place more emphasis on the latter to avoid traumatising them.

The law should also not be a potential instrument for abuse by the Government. Zahid says, “I give my guarantee that the amendments are 100 per cent targeted at criminals, and they should not be seen as a way to imprison parties with views against the Government.” But what good is such a guarantee?

Home ministers come and go. When he’s gone, will succeeding home ministers honour that guarantee? Who’s to ensure that future governments will not abuse the amended Prevention of Crime Act 1959 (PCA) to detain without trial critics of the Government and political opponents?

Looking at the definitions of persons who can be held liable under the PCA, you can see that almost anybody could qualify. As such, an amended PCA allowing for detention without trial can certainly be abused. In the wrong hands, it could take into detention more than just criminals.

It’s surprising that the Attorney-General, Abdul Gani Patail, endorses it. On July 16, he openly said, “I will never agree to preventive detention.” He stood by the belief that it is better to let more guilty people go free than to send an innocent person to jail.

He also said these existing laws were sufficient for dealing with criminals – the PCA, the Security Offences (Special Measures) Act, the Penal Code, the Criminal Procedure Code and Evidence Act.

Why has he gone against what he said?

On August 19, 2013, Prime Minister Najib Razak promised he would not reinstate laws that allowed for preventive detention. “How do you arrest somebody if that person has not committed a crime? If it’s on a mere suspicion, it’s insufficient ground to arrest somebody on the basis of preventive laws,” he said.

“We are doing our best to find a good balance to ensure that human rights are not affected but to defend public interest as well,” he added. “This is what is needed for a more mature society.”

Tell us about it, Najib. The Malays have an idiom to describe you and Ghani Patail, “Cakap tak serupa bikin.” (Not walking the talk) But more than that, it’s as clear as the hair that’s getting greyer on your head that you and your government are not doing your “best”. So you’d better buck up and do a better job. You can start by talking less. Especially about “transformation”.

* Kee Thuan Chye is the author of the new book The Elections Bullshit, now available in bookstores.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 1 October 2013, 8:19 am and is filed under
Human Rights
,
Kee Thuan Chye
,
Mahathir
,
Najib Razak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


RM38,000 wasted in Health Ministry’s ‘stupid’ campaign

Auditor-General’s 2012 Report (2)

Malaysiakini

Oct 1, 2013

The Health Ministry’s decision to brand smokers as ‘stupid’ in promotional literature cost it RM38,750 after the material was deemed unsuitable for distribution.

The Auditor-General’s Report 2012 states that the ministry had ordered 300 backpacks costing RM19,500 and 3,500 notepads at RM19,250 with the slogan ‘Smoking, a stupid habit for stupid people’.

But the items never made it into the hands of the citizens as the language was later deemed inappropriate.

But the lingual faux pas was not the ministry’s only mistake.

The report also notes that 63,000 of the ministry’s campaign posters worth more than RM31,200 had spelling mistakes.

The auditor-general advised the ministry to use simpler language in its materials, noting that one of its AIDS campaign billboards had translated a phrase in English in verbatim and was difficult to understand in Malay.

This reads ‘Ke arah eliminasi transmisi vertikal’ (Towards the elimination of vertical transmission).

The complicated language, states the report, has affected the effectiveness of conveying the message of the health campaign.

‘Vertical transmitted infection’ refers to infection that is passed from mother to child.

The ministry, in its reply, said it has since appointed an editorial team to check all its campaign materials and that it would also refer to Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka for advice.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 1 October 2013, 11:29 pm and is filed under
Auditor-General Report
,
Health
,
Media
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.