ASEAN mission on reports of massacre of thousands of monks and protestors by military junta last week

I have no objection to UMNO Youth deputy leader Khairy Jamaluddin
“hijacking”
 the NGO protests at the Myanmar Embassy  yesterday, particularly the Malaysian Youth Coalition for Peace and Freedom in Burma, provided this represents a genuine change of heart and radical  policy alteration on democracy and human rights in Burma by  UMNO Youth.

The question is whether what happened yesterday was a cynical hogging of the publicity limelight by Khairy with no meaningful commitment  by Umno Youth to the cause of democracy and human rights in Burma  or whether it signaled that UMNO Youth is now prepared to join forces with all pro-democracy and pro-human rights activists to mobilize greater Malaysian and ASEAN support to end the long night of savage and bloody dictatorship of the military junta in Burma.

What is most disturbing is the latest claim in the international media that thousands of protestors are dead and that bodies of hundreds of executed monks have been dumped in the jungle.

Hla Win, 42, a former chief of military intelligence in Rangoon’s northern region and who fled when ordered to help
massacre
 monks who had led last week’s mass protests, said the toll of deaths  in Burma was in the region of several thousand.

The international media also reported accounts from other exiles along the Thai-Burma border confirming that  hundreds of monks had simply “disappeared”.

Dissidents hiding along the Burma border said thousands of monks had been locked up and were being beaten inside blood-stained temples.

A Swedish diplomat told the Daily Mail of reports that monks had been tortured and killed in large numbers.

“We were informed from one of the largest embassies in Burma that 40 monks in the Insein prison were beaten to death today and subsequently burned,” the diplomat said.

UMNO Youth leader and Education Minister, Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Hussein should  play a leading role in the Cabinet meeting tomorrow in keeping with the new UMNO Youth policy stance yesterday to secure a  two-point Cabinet decision  on the latest Burmese crisis,viz: to

	Launch an ASEAN initiative to send a  high-level mission to Myanmar on the disturbing reports of massacre of thousands of monks and protestors  by the Mynmar military junta in Burma  last week; and

	Convene an emergency meeting of Malaysian Parliament to set an example for emergency meetings by all other ASEAN Parliaments to express “revulsion” at another 1988 massacre in Myanmar and to   call on China, Russia, India, the United States and the European Union  to support an United Nations Security initiative to restore democracy and  human rights and to effect national reconciliation  in Burma.

If Umno Youth  has truly adopted a new policy supporting democracy and human rights in  Burma, I welcome Umno Youth MPs to fully participate in the work of the Malaysian  Parliamentary  Myanmar Caucus and the Asean Inter-Parliamentary Myanmar Caucus  (AIPMC) to promote national reconciliation and democratization in Burma, the immediate release of Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Aung San Suu Kyi and all political prisoners and the ending of the reign of repression in Burma with the cessation of all human rights violations and  violent suppression of peaceful protests and the re-opening of Burma to communications with the outside world including the restoration of Internet and telephonic communications.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 2 October 2007, 4:24 pm and is filed under
Burma
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Lingam tape – substantive no confidence motion in Ahmad Fairuz as CJ

I will  move a substantive motion of no confidence in Tan Sri Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim as Chief Justice when Parliament  reconvenes on Oct. 22  if  the Prime Minister and  Cabinet evade their national duty tomorrow to restore national and international confidence in the independence and integrity of Malaysian judiciary and establish a Royal Commission of Inquiry.

The urgency of such a Royal Commission of Inquiry into the independence and integrity of the Malaysian judiciary has been highlighted by the current controversy and public furore over the Lingam Tape scandal re-opening one of the most disgraceful subjects in Malaysia — the 19-year crisis of confidence  in the Malaysian judiciary with the system of justice tottering from one scandal after another in the past two decades since 1988.

Public opinion have spoken out loud and clear that Malaysia must not miss the golden opportunity which has surfaced to rectify one of the greatest national shames and  injustices in five decades of Malaysian nationhood — the plunge in national and international confidence in the Malaysian judiciary in the past 19 years from the high world esteem and respect it had enjoyed during the first three decades of Malaysian history, especially under the first three Prime Ministership of Tunku Abdul Rahman, Tun Razak and Tun Hussein.

The Cabinet tomorrow must not abdicate from its national duty to do what is right for the country and future generations — to make Malaysians proud of the Malaysian judiciary and system of justice once again after 19 years by disbanding the three-man panel on the authenticity of Lingam Tape and its replacement by a Royal Commission of Inquiry with wide-ranging powers to inquire into the rot in the justice system to restore national and international confidence in the Malaysian judiciary.

On Sunday, three illustrious former members of the Bench had added their voices to the snowballing demand for a Royal Commission of Inquiry into the  system of justice as well as for  a Judicial Appointment Commission.

The three retired judges — rightly described by Sunday Star as “among the most highly-respected to have served on the Bench –  who have spoken up are retired Court of Appeal judges, Datuk Shaik Daud Ismail, Datuk K.C. Vohrah and Datuk V.C. George.

Shaik Daud made a most powerful argument for a Judicial Appointments Commission when he pointed out the blemishes of recent judicial appointments: “We have seen so many cases where seniors (judges) with merit are not promoted but juniors without merit are. The reason would appear to be that they are being rewarded.”

On the need for a Royal Commission of Inquiry instead of just a panel to look into the authenticity of Lingam Tape, George said: “The panel is only looking at one issue. I think the Bar is on the right track in calling for a royal commission to look into all aspects of the judiciary” while Vohrah said: “Yes. A royal commission could explore all aspects of the ills besetting the judiciary. The problems are far-reaching and something has to be done fairly quickly before the judiciary slides further down the track.”

On Nazri’s claim that everything was all right with the judiciary, Vohrah had this unflattering comment:

“I  think he’s probably not aware of what is happening on the ground.  In many commercial contracts, parties are including an arbitration clause to resolve disputes instead of the courts. That is a terrible blow to the judiciary because apart from a handful, the rest are good judges.  In some states, there may be three or four judges but you will find that only one or two are doing all the work and carrying the whole burden.”

If the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi and the Cabinet are not prepared to do their national duty to restore national and international confidence in the judiciary at the Cabinet meeting tomorrow by establishing a Royal Commission of Inquiry, then there is probably no other option than to explore the next logical move in Parliament — a substantive motion of no confidence in Ahmad Fairuz as Chief Justice.

This is because there are ample grounds to impeach Ahmad Fairuz  for judicial misconduct and failings as Chief Justice, including:

	Failure to honour  his public undertaking when he first became Chief Justice more than four years ago to recast the Judges’ Code of Ethics 1994  to restore public confidence in judicial independence, impartiality and integrity.

	Publicly tarnishing the image of the judiciary by failing to take action and substantiate grave charges which he made against  judges  for accepting bribes.

	Failure to take action against judges, including from the Federal Court, who had obstructed the course of justice in not writing up judgments — with one case of a Federal Court judge who had a backlog of some 35 outstanding judgments since his High Court appointment.

	His call for the abolition of the common law system and its replacement by Islamic law system.

	The seven-month constitutional deadlock over the appointment of a suitable Chief Judge of Malaya after the retirement of Tan Sri Siti Normah Yaakob on January 5, 2007.

	The Lingam Videotape scandal implicating him in an expose on the perversion of the course of justice involving the fixing of judicial appointments and the fixing of court decisions and judgments.

The Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz has said that the conduct of judges cannot be debated in Parliament.  He is wrong.  There is noting in the Parliamentary standing orders or the Constitution preventing judicial misconducts from coming under the scrutiny and debate in Parliament except that it must be by way of a substantive motion which has to comply with a special procedure.

If the Cabinet tomorrow fails to establish a Royal Commission of Inquiry into the rot in the system of justice in the past 19 years, I will set in motion the special procedure for the parliamentary scrutiny and debate of judicial misconduct in Parliament at the resumption of parliamentary meeting on Oct. 22.

I call on  MPs regardless of whether from the Barisan Nasional or Opposition, to support a special debate in Parliament to restore national and international confidence in the judiciary by supporting  the impeachment of Tan Sri Ahmad Fairuz as Chief Justice  on the floor of Parliament.

(Media Conference in Sandakan on 2.10.07)

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 2 October 2007, 8:27 am and is filed under
Judiciary
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Lingam Tape – Haidar Inquiry end up as biggest sham with no proof either way of being authentic or otherwise?

With the three-man special panel inquiry into the authenticity of the Lingam Tape holding its first meeting today,  two questions uppermost in the minds of Malaysians who want to be able to be proud again about the Malaysian judiciary and system of justice after 19 years of being the laughing stock of the world are:

	Will the Haidar inquiry drag its feet until after next month when the Chief Justice Tan Sri  Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim would have retired from the highest judicial office of the land, justifying the stance that the whole issue had become quite academic although Ahmad Fairuz was clearly the other party in the Lingam Tape despite the Chief Justice’s unorthodox “denial” through the Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz; and

	Will the Haidar Inquiry end up as the biggest sham of all inquiries in five decades of Malaysian nation-building, furnishing excuse for inaction by Cabinet because there is no concrete proof either way of its being  authentic or otherwise?

Nazri
 said on Monday that “the result of the Haidar investigation will determine the next course of action, which will be decided by the cabinet”.

This is a very curious statement as the establishment of the Haidar panel was not decided by the Cabinet in the first place.

This is the chronology of events:

	Sept. 19, 2007 — Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim made public eight minutes of  a purported 12-minute video recording of the Lingam Tape.

	Sept. 20 –  Parti Keadilan Rakyat vice president Sivarasa Rasiah lodged a report with the Anti-Corruption Agency (ACA) in Putrajaya on the Lingam Tape.

	Sept. 23 — The Malaysian Bar in an emergency meeting decided on a “Walk for Justice” from the Palace of Justice in Putrajaya on  Cabinet Day on Wednesday 26th Sept to present a memorandum to the Prime Minister calling for a Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Lingam Tape and the allegations of judicial impropriety over the years.

	Sept. 25 — Deputy Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak announced the formation of the Haidar panel, a day before the Cabinet’s Wednesday meeting and the “March for Justice” by 2,000 lawyers.

Has Nazri inadvertently revealed the “gameplan” that  while the Cabinet was completely ignored and  the views of Ministers disregarded on the setting up of the Haidar Panel, the Cabinet would be dragged in and fully implicated for any decision concerning any “cover-up” of the allegations of the Lingam Tape at the conclusion of the Haidar inquiry?

The role of the ACA, which had been directed by the Attorney-General Tan Sri Gani Patail to assist the Haidar Panel, is most anomalous which  completely undermines its authority,  independence, credibility and legitimacy.

Parliament never intended the ACA to be subservient to any quarter in its statutory mission to eradicate corruption — not to the Haidar panel or even the Attorney-General.

The Attorney-General has the final discretionary powers to decide whether to initiate prosecution — which is a great weakness in the anti-corruption law — but the AG  has no powers to direct the ACA to suppress any form of anti-corruption investigation.  The ACA cannot have any credibility if it has to take orders from the ACA on its anti-corruption investigations.

Although the government has set up the Haidar panel to inquire into the authenticity of the Lingam Tape, this does not preclude the ACA from carrying out its own investigations especially as an official report had been lodged by Sivarasa with the ACA on the Lingam Tape.

The ACA can assist the Haidar Inquiry but it cannot be subservient to the Haidar Inquiry.

Neither the Attorney-General nor the Haidar Inquiry can usurp the powers and duties of the ACA  or the ACA be estopped from carrying  out its own investigations into the Lingam Tape with regard to judicial corruption.

The Haidar Inquiry, with its ridiculously narrow term of reference, restricted investigatory powers and the unsuitability of Tan Sri Haidar Mohd Noor as its chairman is a farce and should be disbanded without wasting any more time or public funds.  Instead a Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Lingam Tape and rot in the system of justice concerning the ravages and destruction of the independence, impartiality and integrity of the judiciary in the past 19 years must forthwith be established without any delay.

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 3 October 2007, 10:28 am and is filed under
Judiciary
,
Labour
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Ramadan Is More Than Just Fasting

by M. Bakri Musa

In the documentary film American Ramadan, a Christian minister related his experience in Malaysia.  It was during Ramadan, and he was at the airport at dusk to collect his luggage, but everyone at the counter was intently watching the clock, eagerly awaiting the breaking of fast.  He did not know then the significance of the month and thus could not comprehend the workers’ apparent obsession with time.  An older clerk however came over to help and spent over an hour with the visitor while the others were busy eating.

To me, that older clerk best demonstrates the true meaning and spirit of Ramadan.  It is more than just fasting during the day; it is about being generous.  He was generous with his time and himself to help a total stranger, albeit a customer.  The older clerk could just as easily join his co-workers in eating after a day of fasting, or simply have the counter “Closed for lunch!”

Ramadan As Allah’s Special Blessing

Tradition has it that during Ramadan the doors to Hell are closed while the gates to Heaven are wide open.  That reflects the generosity of Allah during this holy month.  As our Imam Ilyas Anwar said in the first Friday sermon of this Ramadan, we should use fully this opportunity afforded by Allah.  The best way for us to show our respect for Ramadan, and thus for Allah, is to reciprocate His generosity by being generous to our fellow humans and to His other creations.

We should not however, take that tradition literally and consider it a license to be reckless and get killed during Ramadan just to secure a slot in Heaven.  Nor does it mean that an evil person dying in Ramadan would be spared Hell.  Such decisions after all are the prerogative of Allah, and only of Him.

Ramadan is a season to be generous, to forgive generously and turn for us to be so forgiven.  It distresses me greatly that no Muslim nation, Malaysia included, have shown fit to grant their prisoners amnesty during Ramadan.  Imagine the positive image of Islam if Muslim leaders were to be generous to their citizens, especially those prisoners of conscience incarcerated without trial.

Just as the day’s fast heightens our sensitivity to the flavor of even the simplest food, likewise Allah heightens or enhances the spirituality and blessings of our regular ibadat (religious duties) when performed during Ramadan.

            Yes, we pray and give charity outside of Ramadan, nonetheless during the fasting month the blessings are amplified.  While tradition has it that the virtue of praying on the “Night of Power” equals that of “a thousand months,” or that certain ibadat are worth “44 times more” if done during Ramadan, we should not be obsessed with the magnitude of the enhancements.  Suffice for us to know that they are, and that should motivate us even more to perform those ibadats with greater fervor and frequency during Ramadan.

We should do more of what we normally do, like praying and giving zakat (tithe), and perform them with even greater intensity during Ramadan.  Thus, in addition to our regular prayers there are the nightly Taraweekh prayers, reciting the Quran, and fulfilling our tithe for the year as well as the obligatory zakat Fitr (head tax).

We should also be more charitable to and forgiving of others and ourselves.  Thus the prophet, s.a.w., encourages us to partake in community iftars (breaking of fast) not only for the communal bonding but also to share with those less fortunate.

Because of the enhanced blessings of Ramadan, the Prophet, s.a.w., used to prepare his people for its arrival by fasting on certain days during the two immediate preceding months.  We too should prepare spiritually as well as physically.

            Fasting takes a toll on our body, but Allah in His Generosity does not require us to fast if it would impose an undue burden as when we are sick, traveling, or pregnant.  Nonetheless those blessed with good health and where fasting would not pose an undue strain should still have to be prepared.  We must maintain our regular physical exercises and health routines, with particular emphasis on our oral hygiene.  Additionally, we should be clean, neatly attired, and keep ourselves well trimmed.  If we aspire to be spiritually clean, we must also be physically so.

Ramadan As “Time Out!”

With the acknowledged extra demands of Ramadan, it may appear perverse to non-Muslims that we Muslims eagerly await and indeed celebrate its arrival.  At its elemental level Ramadan forces us to change our daily routine.  For Muslims in the tropics where there are no distinct seasons to modulate their activities, this is useful.  In temperate zone, the long cold winter nights are for rest and the long days of summer for work.  Such natural rhythm is absent in the tropics.

Ramadan also serves as a convenient time frame to anchor memories.  Thus it was during the last Ramadan of the Japanese Occupation, or the first following the birth or death of a family member.

The altered routine forces one to pause and reflect, a ritualistic “time out,” to step back momentarily off the conveyor belt of life.  When I was a consultant to a lumber mill in Oregon, the manager took me on a tour of his facility so I could better appreciate the injuries of his workers.  I saw the huge logs being subjected to harsh debarking, repeatedly sawn through, and then bent and bounced about as they were mechanically sorted and graded.  You could hardly hear one another with the noise and vibrations.

Then I was taken to another huge warehouse where the atmosphere was completely the opposite.  It was eerily quiet, with stacks of the cut products neatly piled up and left undisturbed.  Even the workers whispered to each other, as if respecting the quiet time of the lumber.  This was the curing room, with its light, temperature and humidity controlled and kept constant.

The manager explained that after the logs had been through the stresses of the mill, the products needed time to recover before they would be subjected again to the stresses at the construction site or factory.  If they were not allowed to recover or be “cured,” they could break easily.  His brand name would then suffer.

If inanimate objects like lumber needs “rest time” to recover from the hectic experience of the mill, imagine the need for such times for humans.  Ramadan is that necessary “time out,” a season to pause and reflect.

Metabolic Consequences of Fasting

Obesity is the number one public health challenge in America today.  Studies in rats indicate that moderate caloric reduction significantly lengthens their lifespan.  With humans, obesity is a definite contributor to increased morbidity and shortened lifespan.  Imagine if fasting were to be a habit!  I routinely lose about five pounds during Ramadan, and feel great!

            If nothing else fasting is a respite for our digestive system that is incessantly stressed by our daily indulgences.

These benefits of Ramadan would be negated if we were to be a glutton in the evening.  With the increasingly common practice of indulging ourselves with elaborate iftars at fancy hotels, many actually gain weight!  Such extravagances are certainly not in the spirit of a season that calls for restraint and moderation.

At the House of Kedah restaurant in Vancouver, Canada, there is sign at its buffet table, “There will be $5.00 charge, donated to charity, for unfinished plate.”  What a wonderful idea!  It prevents waste and discourages gluttony.

The caloric deprivation and mild dehydration of fasting affect brain function by heightening the neural connections in the areas concerned with emotions; hence the enhanced spirituality experienced by many when meditating during Ramadan.  We are thus rewarding ourselves through fasting.

When we are generous with ourselves, we would also be more likely to be generous to others.  It is in this spirit that I wish my fellow Muslims, “Selamat Berpuasa!” (Best wishes with your fast!) and Ramadan Mubarak! (Joyous Ramadan!)

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 3 October 2007, 12:30 am and is filed under
Bakri Musa
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Lingam Tape – Haidar, Mahadev, Lam Thye should return inquiry panel appointment letters to Najib “for the sake of Malaysia”

The three-man Haidar Inquiry into the authenticity of the Lingam Tape yesterday asked the person who recorded it and others who have relevant information to come forward “
for the sake of Malaysia”
.

Panel member and former Court of Appeal judge said: “Somebody out there (has) the original video. Does he have the responsibility (to come forward)? There may have been others who were there (during the incident). Have they got the responsibility?

“If you don’t come, don’t complain, because at the end of the day, our report is based on the material made available to us.”

It is the three panel members Tan Sri Haidar Mohamad Noor, Datuk Mahadev Shanker and Tan Sri Lee Lam Thye who should set the example of acting “For the sake of Malaysia” by returning  their letters of appointment to the Deputy Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak to ask for the establishment of a Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Lingam Tape, the allegations of the perversion of the course of justice concerning the fixing of judicial appointments and the fixing of court judgments as well as into the 19-year rot in the judiciary.

With the declaration of
five  “No”s
— no power to administer oaths, no power to compel witnesses to come forward, no power to commit anybody for contempt, no immunity under the law and no power to protect witnesses, the Haidar panel is swiftly degenerating from a farce into a joke.

It is balderdash to plead “The truth is the best armour, justice is the best protection” or to trot out philosophical arguments about “the power of the powerless”  as counterpoint to the absence of protection for witnesses who appear before the panel.

If   all the judges at all levels of the judiciary  in the past 19 years had been guided by the noble objective  “For the sake of Malaysia” and the principle that “the truth is the best armour, justice is the best protection”, the system of justice and national and international credibility in the independence, integrity and meritocracy of the judiciary would not have plunged to such a sorry state with one  judicial crisis after another  in the past 19 years.

What happened to a courageous judge, Justice Syed Ahmad Idid Syed Abdullah who in 1996 tried the blow the whistle in his 33-page anonymous letter containing 112 allegations of corruption, abuses of power and misconduct against 12 judges?

Is the government seriously concerned in wanting to establish the authenticity of the Lingam Tape?  Is the government really committed to restoring national and international confidence in the independence, integrity and meritocracy of the judiciary in setting up the Haidar panel inquiry?

Why then is the government not prepared to establish the Haidar Inquiry under the Commission of Inquiry Act to give protection to witnesses or at least come out with a policy statement by the Attorney-General Tan Sri Gani Patail that in the national interest, no one will be prosecuted or suffer adverse consequences for any information or testimony presented to the inquiry panel?

Can Malaysians be blamed for being skeptical about the government’s bona fides, when the government cannot rebut two overpowering arguments:

	Cabinet Ministers are  only concerned about  the technical aspect about the authenticity of the Lingam Tape — i.e. whether the government can find the excuse not to do anything on the ground that there is doubt about its authenticity – while being completely oblivious to the grave and even more substantive issue about the perversion of the course of justice in the fixing of judicial appointment and fixing of judicial decisions; and

	Total denial complex about the 19-year plunge in national and international confidence in the independence, integrity and meritocracy of the Malaysian judiciary.

The supreme example of acting “For the sake of Malaysia” under the principle “The truth is the best armour, justice is the best protection” is for all the three panel members to end the charade of the panel inquiry into the authenticity of the Lingam Tape and to convey in the strongest possible terms to the Prime Minister that what is urgently needed for the country is a Royal Commission of Inquiry  both into the Lingam Tape scandal and  the 19-year rot in the system of justice in Malaysia which has gravely undermined Malaysia’s international competitiveness.

Mahadev had made a contentious statement when he said:
“Don’t throw stones at us until we have finished our inquiry.”

I presume I am one such “stone-thrower”  as I had questioned the suitability, credibility and legitimacy of Haidar’s appointment as Chairman and member of the inquiry panel in view of his far-from-honourable role in the 1988 “mother-of-all-judicial crisis” when he was Chief Registrar of Supreme Court leading to the sacking of Tun Salleh Abas as Lord President and Datuk George Seah and the late Tan Sri Wan Suleiman Pawanteh as Supreme Court judges.

Datuk Param Cumaraswamy
, former UN special rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers and immediate past president of the Bar Council during the 1988 judicial crisis, recently revealed a 19-year secret that he had approached the then Acting Lord President Tun Hamid Omar to withdraw from chairing a tribunal that led to the removal of his boss Tun Salleh Abas.

Param revealed in a recent forum:

“We went to see Hamid to advise him not to accept the position for the obvious reason that he was next in line. I advised Hamid ‘please don’t (accept), you will cause a very ugly embarrassment to the judiciary.

“His (Hamid’s) response was ‘Param, if I don’t accept, I will be sacked. If I am sacked, will you or your Bar Council compensate my losses of remuneration?'”

Is Haidar motivated by similar  considerations in refusing to decline his appointment on the panel inquiry?

Haidar has said that his “conscience is clear” on his role in the 1988 Judicial Crisis.  If so, why is Haidar fighting shy of fully accounting for his “honourable reasons” in the infamous judicial events in 1988?

Would Hamid admit to a “troubled conscience” for his role in the sacking of Salleh Abas as Lord President and Datuk George Seah and Tan Sri Wan Suleiman Pawanteh as Supreme Court judges and would it be in order for Hamid to chair an inquiry to restore national and international confidence in the independence, integrity and meritocracy of the Malaysian judiciary?

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 4 October 2007, 10:53 am and is filed under
Judiciary
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


The Medical CTOs

by ZK

Criminalization of doctors under Chua Soi Lek and Ismail Merican even after the PHFSA (Private Healthcare Facilities and Services Act) appears unabated.  The Malaysian Medical Council, without prior notice, recently instituted its own form of CTOS, the database company that displayed financial data publicly without updating them. The MMC is now making available to the public particulars of all doctors in Malaysia including complaints hurled at them – PROVEN OR NOT. Running down people and establishments is now a favorite Malaysian past-time but the MMC appear to have further refined this into a fine art form. This new CTOS (Complaints Tip Off Service) is yet another example of the convoluted thinking that exists in this Ministry.

The website itself appears rather slow and unstable but what is more alarming is it appears out of date. A recent prominent case is listed as still being processed and government doctors who have had complaints against them including the pediatrician responsible for the loss of the little baby’s arm at Klang are not listed. More disturbing is, complaints against MMC Council members given prominence in our local newspapers and complaints against MMC secretariat members are mysteriously excluded. If this sort of selective persecution and non–updating of this database is going to exist, why implement it in the first place? It will just create another CTOS furore. An ambition for first world infrastructure matched only by a third world mentality is always a recipe for disaster which has been proven time and again in Malaysia.

Now who could have been responsible for this and did the Minister know about this new implementation? The Malaysian Medical Council appears to be broadly divisioned into Council members and a general secretariat which instead of being neutral is mainly comprised of seconded MOH staff. The Council itself has only 9 members from the private sector out of 21, the rest being from the government sector.

Closer investigations reveal that the division “Amalan Perubatan” to which the secretariat is answerable to, appears to be under an officer called Noorimi Morad known for her disastrous handling of the problematic Sultanah Bahiyah Hospital in Alor Star and further responsible in terminating the services of over 200 expatriate doctors last year on the basis of they being “argumentative”. She is assisted by other doctors at the MMC secretariat who surprisingly comprise mainly graduates from Indonesia and Manipal who are based in the secretariat only because they “don’t like to do calls”.   Could this disturbing feature be the reason for the lopsided implementation and non-updating of this complaints database?

If Chua Soi Lek is a party to this, then as with the PHFSA, he must think that doctors are politically expedient as long as he achieves his political goal to remain popular or even become MCA President. It is inconceivable that the Minister or his DG do not know the implications of publicly highlighting complaints, real or imagined, against innocent doctors or anyone else for that matter.  Careers  that took years to build will irreparably be damaged. And in what forms are these complaints registered? This can be your usual frivolous letters unhappy with service, cooked-up complaints so that patients in cahoots with lawyers can extort money off doctors or the usual “surat layang” and oh… not forgetting if a nephrologists can treat dengue or not? How does one determine which is what? Only through a proper hearing or a court of law? Now why display a name as if convicted when the trial or investigation has not even begun or still in the process?

It is exactly decisions of this nature that has brought the medical fraternity to distrust this Minister and his Ministry. The MMC appear to have forgotten the case of Mohan Rajadurai vs Majlis Perubatan Malaysia heard at the High Court Malaya, Kuala Lumpur by the Right Honorable Judge Datuk Abdul Kadir Sulaiman on 28th October 1997. Dr. Rajadurai was wrongly found guilty by the MMC and suspended. The good doctor had his reputation tarnished and dignity destroyed. He lost his practice and livelihood. In concluding his judgment Datuk Abdul Kadir stated that the MMC in Dr Rajadurai’s case, had breached the fundamental rule of natural justice in arriving at their decision of suspending him. He further admonished the MMC for overlooking such a basic tenet in law.

Because of the MMC’s callous action this doctor’s future was destroyed. To add insult to injury the MMC initially refused to compensate him for losses and then subsequently settled for a paltry sum of RM10,000 ringgit. A body such as the MMC that does this to a doctor, who spent years trying to build a career, must be a tribunal far inferior to our already troubled courts and as such its decisions cannot be binding until there is a proper hearing in an open court.

If the Minister and the MMC think that their modus operandi in trying to act against  doctors is to look for scapegoats as sacrificial lambs to appease the general public then it is better for doctors and all concerned to go to court right from the start instead of the MMC. Changes to the system are far overdue and the system in place currently is a disgraceful charade. The number of council members must reflect the private sector to public sector ratio of 60:40 and it is high time that the MMC secretariat is composed of  staff entirely independent and unrelated to the Ministry of Health. To continue to do so would be to apply an arbitrary bias such as this database on doctors who may not even know what the complaint is all about. The MMC and especially its secretariat with biased and vested interests is now common knowledge. They should re-examine themselves and debunk the widespread notion among doctors that they first cannot be trusted before they pass false judgment on others.

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 4 October 2007, 7:21 am and is filed under
Health
,
Letters
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Lingam Tape – a grand conspiracy to “kill” it at the technical level on its authenticity?

With the
one-week  ultimatum
given by the Anti-Corruption Agency (ACA) to Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR) vice president Sivarasa Rasiah and party adviser Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim’s political co-ordinator Sim Tse Tzin to reveal the source of the eight-minute Lingam videoclip or face action under the Anti-Corruption Act 1997 entailing two years’ jail, RM10,000 fine or both, every concerned Malaysian is asking:

Is there a grand conspiracy to “kill” the Lingam Tape scandal at the technical level casting doubts on  its authenticity to avert any inquiry into the rot of the judiciary in the past 19 years and who are the people and parties privy to this grand conspiracy?

With the ACA ultimatum, the game-plan for the damage control of the explosive revelation of the Lingam Tape on the perversion of the course of justice with grave allegations of the fixing of judicial appointments and court decisions has become clearer — as the ACA is only interested in zeroing on the “whistleblowers” rather than the truth or otherwise of the serious allegations of the perversion of the course of justice highlighted by the Lingam Tape.

An administration fully committed to restore national and international confidence in the independence, integrity and meritocracy of the judiciary would leave no stone unturned to investigate into the allegations of fixing of judicial appointments and court decisions regardless of whether the identity of the “whistleblowers” could be identified.

But here, we have all the resources of the state being expended to try to cast doubts on the authenticity of Lingam Tape while ignoring the rot in  the judiciary in the past 19 years since the 1988 Judicial Crisis.

In the case in point, the first thing the three members of the  Haidar Inquiry panel should have asked the  Deputy Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak before accepting their appointments was the assurance that they would have powers to grant protection and immunity of prosecution to anyone who come forward to give information to the panel, particularly the person or persons who had taken the Lingam Tape.

Why didn’t the three-man Haidar panel ask for such powers so that it could be seen as an independent inquiry in search of truth and justice instead of being regarded as a creature of the government just  to serve the interests of the Executive?

In this connection, it is appropriate to ask the Haidar Inquiry Panel whether it is aware of any grand conspiracy to kill the Lingam Tape scandal at the technical level by casting doubts on its authenticity to avert any inquiry into the rot of the judiciary in the past 19 years.

This question is pertinent in view of the juxtaposition of two events:

	The first meeting of the Haidar inquiry panel on Wednesday, together with the Attorney-General Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail, Inspector-General of Police, Tan Sri Musa Hassan and Anti-Corruption Agency director-general I Datuk Abu Kassim Mohamed; and

	The issue the very next day of the one-week ultimatum to Sivarasa and Sim to reveal the source of the Lingam Tape or face prosecution.

Sivarasah and Sim had been questioned by the ACA separately before the Haidar inquiry meeting on Wednesday.  Was the game-plan to issue the one-week ultimatum to the two to reveal source or face prosecution discussed with the Haidar panel?

Is the Haidar panel prepared to take a public stand opposing the one-week ultimatum of ACA to Sivarasa and Sim to reveal source or face prosecution, by asking the Attorney-General to grant  immunity to  the whistleblowers by declaring that no prosecution or whatever action would be taken against them?

In the
transcript of the press conference
 given by the panel chairman,  Tan Sri Haidar Mohd Noor on Wednesday, there was the following Q & A after Haidar intimated that the panel had no intention to call Lingam:

Q:  Does that mean you recognize the person in the tape as Lingam?

Haidar: We don’t know, people say its’ VK Lingam-lah. (laughs).

This is the second time within a week that Haidar had given such an ambivalent answer, which points to the possibility of  the Haidar Inquiry coming out with the finding that it did not have sufficient ground to reach the conclusion that the Lingam Tape is authentic or otherwise;  whether the person in the tape was Lingam or just an impersonator; and   that the person at the other end of the phone conversation was the Chief Justice, Tan Sri Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim — giving the government the full justification not to proceed any  further with any inquiry.

                This entry was posted on Friday, 5 October 2007, 12:19 pm and is filed under
Judiciary
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Quo Vadis Malaysia?

by Dr. Chen Man Hin

At the last UMNO general assembly, it was put to the delegates to reject the objective of Bangsa Malaysia and opt for a Ketuanan Melayu Malaysia.  The proposal was accepted by deputy prime minister.

So it came to pass that former prime minister, Dr Mahathir’s dream of a VISION 2020 where the people are one – Bangsa Malaysia- and the status of a developed nation was swept aside.

Since then there has been various moves to promote the concept of a Ketuanan Melayu, and announcements by the prime minister that the NEP would be extended indefinitely.

We in the DAP  view with great concern  the rejection of Bangsa Malaysia, as the very idea has caused deep uneasiness among the people, and shaken the bond of national unity and testing their tolerance.

The implementation of NEP while it has eradicated the association of race with economic function, as there is a sizeable Malay middle class – successful businessmen and professionals – has slowed economic progress since the implementation of NEP in 1971.

The fact is that the NEP was redistributing wealth but it could not create wealth fast enough. It could not increase the size of the national cake!

There was only a slight difference in the per capita GDP between Malaysia and Singapore in 1965, but it was followed by a slow ascent for Malaysia to US$5042 in 2005 in contrast to the steep ascent for Singapore which recorded a per capita GDP of US$26,836 in 2005.

How is it that Singapore without natural resources could perform better, and let its citizens take home a higher income of US$26,836 per year, while Malaysia could only give US$5042 to its citizens.

Malaysia has vast resources of  petroleum, gas, palm oil, timber and rubber. The fault lies in not utilising its potential of human resources.  Brain drain, racial policies, quotas have driven off a vast reservoir of human resources to other countries. Singapore makes full use of its human resources but Malaysia don’t because it is still insisting on carrying the old baggage of quotas, NEP and corruption.

There may be multiple causes of corruption, lack of transparency, not globally competitive and lack of economic freedom.

The launching of the NEP in 1971 is the main reason for the poor economic progress. It is quite obvious that the economy was  being kept down from 1970 and onwards when the NEP was implemented, while Singapore was  leaping upwards.

However, if UMNO insists on a policy of racial preferences and the NEP, Vision 2020 of a developed nation would vanish.  That would be a sad day

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 6 October 2007, 10:47 pm and is filed under
Dr. Chen Man Hin
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


RCI on Lingam Tape – Tsu Koon should show more backbone to tell PM not “if need be” but “very necessary, now!”

On his tenth day as the fifth Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi made an electrifying call to Barisan Nasional leaders and members which came as a breath of fresh air, raising the hopes of  25 million Malaysians sky-high that the country was going to have a fully hands-on and people-oriented Prime Minister.

Speaking at the opening of the MIC branch chairmen convention on November 9, 2003, Abdullah told Barisan Nasional component party leaders and members to give him correct information to enable the government to respond appropriately to the people’s needs.

He said:

“Tell me the truth.

“Sometimes people do not provide truthful information for fear that I will cry, worry or lose sleep over it. But as a leader, I have to know the truth.

“If we (leaders) are not prepared to hear the truth, then we should not become leaders.”

Almost four years later yesterday, Abdullah made a
similar call
at the Gerakan National Delegates Conference, declaring:

“We do not want to pretend and say that everything is okay. We do not want to be in a state of denial. Tell the truth, even if it is painful.

“The prime minister must have the courage and readiness to listen even to the worst stories, whether it is related to the country or himself. Never allow yourself to sink in a hole of denial and feel that everything is alright.”

However, this time the Prime Minister’s call  to end the state of denial and face the truth is incapable of having any electrifying effect as it has all the stale air from the long catalogue of  failed promises of the least hands-on Prime Minister in the nation’s history in the past four years to “hear the truth” and “walk the talk”  to deliver political and government reforms.

Abdullah should himself end the very terminal  state of denial  of his four-year administration by setting up a Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Lingam Tape scandal and the rot of the judiciary in the past 19 years since 1988 to demonstrate that he has the political will and courage to address the long-standing crisis of public confidence in the judiciary which has taken central stage following the revelation of the Lingam Tape.

The Haidar panel inquiry into the authenticity of the Lingam Tape must be disbanded immediately as it lacks the important attributes of independence and public confidence in comprising   members who cannot act or be seen to be acting independently because of their past antecedents or present conflict-of-interest situations.

Last Wednesday, the Haider  Inquiry Panel relished in its “power of the powerless” quandary, admitting to “Five No’s” – no power to administer oaths, no power to compel witnesses to come forward, no power to commit anybody for contempt, no immunity under the law and no power to protect witnesses.

Yet it had the temerity to demand that those with information  should come forward as witnesses although the Panel could give them no protection whatsoever with one panel member, Datuk Mahadev Shanker, saying:

“Somebody out there (has) the original video. Does he have the responsibility (to come forward)? There may have been others who were there (during the incident). Have they got the responsibility?

“If you don’t come, don’t complain, because at the end of the day, our report is based on the material made available to us.”

Mahadev seemed to have overlooked the vital fact that the inquiry into the truth of the Lingam Tape is not for the sake of the makers of the videotape or the whistleblowers  but for the sake of the people and nation in having an impeccable system of justice with a judiciary whose independence, integrity and meritocracy cannot be doubted.

But has the three-man Inquiry Panel the powers even to receive witnesses?  This is because the Deputy Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak said on the same day that the Panel  could not call witnesses  and was to depend on reports prepared by various agencies such as the Anti-Corruption Agency and the police.

Najib’s statement was reported by various media, including New Straits Times, Utusan Malaysia and Bernama.
New Straits Times
quoted Najib as follows:

“I already told them (the panel) of their terms of reference. They know about it and they are supposed to work within it.  They are not supposed to call any witnesses.”

Gerakan Acting President Tan Sri Dr. Koh Tsu Koon deserves both praise and criticism for  his speech at the Gerakan national delegates conference that
“If need be, a royal commission should be seriously considered”
 into the Lingam Tape scandal and the rot in the judiciary.

Praise because he has gone further than any other Barisan Nasional leader in asking the government to keep open the option of a Royal Commission of Inquiry, but criticism because of his continued state of denial that drastic steps are urgently needed to restore national and international confidence in the independence, integrity and meritocracy of the judiciary since the 1988 judicial crisis — which was openly admitted by former Court of Appeal Judge
Datuk Shaik Daud Md. Ismail
 in an interview with Mingguan Malaysia today.

This is what Shaik Daud said:

“Tahun 1988 berlaku pencemaran yang besar dalam institusi kehakiman apabila Ketua Hakim Negara dipecat. Selepas itu, pemulihan berlaku sedikit demi sedikit. Semua orang berharap jabatan kehakiman boleh pulih semula. Tetapi timbul pula masalah ini. Dan kita kembali kepada asal. Usaha untuk mencuci, membersihkan imej ini sangat sukar.”

Tsu Koon should show more backbone and take up the invitation of Abdullah to Barisan Nasional leaders to “tell him the truth” that it is not “if need be” but “very necessary, NOW!” to have a Royal Commission of Inquiry and  to inform the Prime Minister the following:

	that the Haidar Inquiry Panel is totally unacceptable and should be replaced by a Royal Commission of Inqury into the Lingam Tape as well as the rot in the judiciary in the past 19 years since 1988;

	that the present focus to fish out the “whistleblowers” of the Lingam Tape instead of investigating the truth of the allegations of perversion of the course of justice concerning the fixing of judicial appointments and fixing of court decisions is deplorable and the threat by the ACA to prosecute Parti Keadilan Rakyat vice president and party adviser Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim’s political co-ordinator Sim Tse Tzin for failing to reveal the source of the Lingam Tape must be condemned and withdrawn forthwith; and

	the public concern that the government was only looking for an excuse, such as the technical reason on the  inability to prove the authenticity of the Lingam  Tape, to avert a full-scale inquiry into the rot of the judiciary in the past 19 years, making the Haidar Inquiry Panel  the biggest judicial whitewash scandal of the century.

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 7 October 2007, 12:29 pm and is filed under
Judiciary
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Lingam Tape – has Nazri let the cat out of the bag how to end all inquiry?

Has the Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz, let the cat out of the bag — that there would be no further inquiry into the Lingam Tape  if its  authenticity could not be  fully determined with the maker of the tape  showing and owning up?

New Straits Times front-page headline has  put it most bluntly: “NO SOURCE, NO CASE — SAYS NAZRI”

If the  whole idea is to stymie any full inquiry into the serious allegations of the Lingam Tape about the perversion of the course of justice concerning the fixing of judicial appointments and the fixing of court decisions, this is as  good a stratagem as any.

Of course, even if the makers of the Lingam Tape show up, there is no guarantee that it would be followed up with a Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Lingam Tape and the rot of the judiciary in the past 19 years since 1988.

I am completely baffled  by Nazri’s reference to the Witness Protection Act (
Star
,
Sun
) which he said assured protection to the person or persons who took the Lingam Tape.
New Straits Times
 reported him as referring to the Witness Protection Bill, “tabled recently in Parliament” — which is untrue, as no such bill had been tabled in Parliament.

I had been pressing for a Whistleblowers Protection Act to give meaning to a national campaign to expose corruption, misuse of funds, government scandals, criminal breach of trust and all forms of malpractices and abuses of power but the government had been dragging its feet and there are no signs that the government is ready to present a Witness Protection Bill to Parliament.

It is the height of irresponsibility for Nazri to give assurance of protection under a law which does not exist, but it is an even greater height of irresponsibility to  envision a scuttling of all investigations into the Lingam Tape, its allegations of perversion of the course of justice and the rot of the judiciary in the past 19 years under a “No Source, No Case” scenario.

If the Prime Minister and Cabinet are serious about restoring national and international confidence in the independence, integrity and meritocracy of the judiciary after the ravages of 19 years, an important element to enhance our international competitiveness,  the Lingam Tape should be sufficient ground for the establishment of a Royal Commission of Inquiry unless there is evidence that it is complete fake.

Let the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Abdullahh Ahmad Badawi confirm whether what Nazri disclosed represents his official position — that unless the maker or makers of Lingam Tape show up, further inquiries into the Lingam Tape will ground to a halt.  This will indeed be a national shame and tragedy.

                This entry was posted on Monday, 8 October 2007, 12:21 pm and is filed under
Judiciary
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Narcotizing the Masses Through Religion

by M. Bakri Musa

In the 19th Century, tiny Britain was able to humiliate the great Chinese Empire and subdue its masses by making opium readily available to them.  It was also highly lucrative for the British, with the poor Chinese bearing the heavy burden.  To be fair, Chinese leaders from the Emperor on down were fully aware of the dangers, but despite their valiant efforts they were unable to prevail against the British.

            Today Muslims, Malays in particular, are being similarly narcotized, not by opium but by an equally potent agent:  religion.  Unlike the Chinese of yore who were victims of a malevolent foreign power, with Malays it is our leaders who are doing it to us, and with good intentions too.  They want us all to end up in Heaven!  Touching!

            The Muslim masses today, like the Chinese of the 19th Century, were not unwilling victims.  They are not to be blamed, just like we cannot blame a patient who is in great pain wanting a powerful painkiller.  It may not cure the underlying disease but at least it relieves the suffering.  Likewise when your daily existence is terribly painful — the fate of the vast majority of Muslims — you too need immediate relief.  It would be cruel and inhumane to deny that.

            The familiar official indices readily reveal the targic reality of daily existence of the Muslim ummah:  high mortality and low literacy rates, pathetic per capita income, gross abuses of human rights, women deprived of their basic dignity, and oppressive governments.  It is obvious to all, except the leaders.  Visit the slums and squatters of Bangladesh, Indonesia and Pakistan, and the anguished reality of unbelievable depravation will hit you hard even if you try to avoid it.

            Muslim leaders should worry less about their followers ending up in Heaven and focus more on the monumental task at hand of lifting the masses out of their current living hell.  It may be argued that if religion brings relief to their daily struggle, so be it.  That is a delusion; the narcotizing effect of religion is even more destructive.

Hard Work of Leadership

Making sure that your citizens are fed, educated, and housed so they could have a reasonably decent life to pursue their dreams and realize their potential is no easy task.  While there are well-established and proven principles out there, there is no simple solution or ready path for a particular society.  Each has its own unique challenges; its leaders must carve their own distinctive path.  That would demand, aside from the mandatory diligence, intelligence, and integrity, an even greater sense of humility on the part of leaders.

            The problems and challenges are infinite in their manifestations, and great intelligence is required in recognizing and elucidating them.  The humility is for the inevitable pitfalls and failures that would humble you and sap your confidence.  Humility is also needed so you could learn from your failures and from others, including your adversaries.

            These necessary leadership qualities do not come naturally, nor are they easily acquired.  Consequently and far too often, the tendency is for incompetent leaders to resort to simplistic solutions or endlessly mouthing meaningless slogans:  “Bring back the Caliph!” “Implement the Sharia!” “Establish an Islamic state!”

The masses pick their cue from the leaders.  No surprise then that they are only too willing to senselessly “martyring” themselves.  Working hard to acquire the necessary skills to make themselves useful to society is much more mundane but necessary undertaking.  Nor does it grab the headlines.

            The American scholar Abdullahi Naim wisely observed that the experience of the vast majority of Muslims across the world today is about “struggles for constitutionalism and human rights, economic development, and social justice, not about the quest for Islamic states to enforce sharia.”  Naim’s words should be emblazoned all over our masjids, ministries, and country.

First Tie Your Camel

Allah will not change the fate of a people unless they first change themselves, goes the wisdom of the Quran.  That in turn takes leadership.  Islam recognizes the supreme importance of leaders.  At Friday and other congregational prayers, it is customary for the Imam to lead the dua (supplication) seeking Allah to provide wisdom and health to the Sultans and leaders so they could lead their people along the path of righteousness.

            Our culture too recognizes the importance of leadership, hence the observation:  Endah negri kerana penghulu (Great leaders, great society!).  It is not enough for us to pray that our leaders would lead us along the straight path.  We must also do our part and exercise due diligence in choosing our leaders and then attentively monitor their performances.

As per the wisdom of our Prophet Muhammad, s.a.w., first tie your camel securely, then pray to Allah that it does not escape.  To put that in current political perspective, we must first choose our leaders wisely, meaning, scrutinize them thoroughly before casting our votes, then pray to Allah that we get leaders with integrity and competence.  Praying alone will not secure your camel, or guarantee you honest leaders. Nor should we assume the one who could lead us in prayers is the one most competent to lead the nation.

Even a determined and wise Chinese Emperor could not withstand the narcotizing power of opium.  Religion is even more so.  Given a leadership woefully lacking in integrity and competence, religion can have a stranglehold more tenacious than the most potent opiate.

To Malays today, religion is less a salve for the soul and more a narcotic to make us escape the world and perversely, as God is everywhere in this wonderful universe, away from Him.

                This entry was posted on Monday, 8 October 2007, 9:29 am and is filed under
Bakri Musa
,
Religion
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Rukunegara-reciting/Constitution-waving – pathetic proof of impotence and irrelevance of Gerakan/MCA

The 50th Merdeka Anniversary has seen a most unusual political phenomena — the MCA and Gerakan waving the Malaysian Constitution and reciting Rukunegara at their respective meetings in response to the keris-waving by the Umno Youth leader, Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Hussein at the earlier Umno Youth general assemblies.

It is a pathetic proof of the  impotence and irrelevance of the  MCA and Gerakan in the Barisan Nasional, whether at the national, state or local government level, that they have been reduced to waving the Constitution and reciting Rukunegara at their respective meetings instead of ensuring that  the Cabinet and the government at all levels uphold  the core nation-building principles of the Merdeka “social contract” which have  found expression in the Malaysian Constitution and Rukunegara.

Why wave the Malaysian Constitution and recite the Rukunegara principles when MCA and Gerakan Ministers and leaders are unable:

	firstly to ensure that Umno and other Barisan Nasional Ministers and  leaders fully understand, respect and uphold the fundamental nation-building principles spelt out in the Merdeka social contract, the Malaysian Constitution and the Rukunegara; and

	secondly,  to set the example of themselves standing firm, true and loyal to the Merdeka social contract, Malaysian Constitution and the Rukunegara by refusing to betray these fundamental nation-building principles even if they fail to convince  Umno and other Barisan Nasional Ministers and leaders to do the same.

What is the use of waving the Malaysian Constitution and reciting the Rukunegara principles at the MCA and Gerakan meetings when MCA and Gerakan Ministers and leaders dare not wave the Constitution or recite the Rukunegara principles in  Cabinet, Parliament, national, state and local governments to ensure that every  government policy, decision and action is informed by the core nation-building principles agreed by the forefathers of the major communities and spelt out in the Constitution and the Rukunegara?

Why are MCA and Gerakan Ministers and leaders staging the Constitution-waving and Rukunegara-recitation at their respective party meetings when inside government at various levels, they are prepared to be party to decisions which abandon these nation-building principles?

Malaysia would  not have been declared to be  an Islamic state after 44 years of undisputed and unchallenged status as a secular state, buttressed by public pronouncements by the first three Prime Ministers of Malaysia, Tunku Abdul Rahman, Tun Razak and Tun Hussein, if the Merdeka social contract, the Malaysian Constitution and the Rukunegara had continued to be recognized as  the core nation-building principles of the country.

The fourth Rukunegara principle is the “Rule of Law” — but for 19 years, it had suffered ravages with the protracted crisis over the independence, integrity and meritocracy of the judiciary since 1988.

What is the use of reciting the Rukunegara principles if there is no courage of conviction to end the state of denial of 19 years about the crisis of confidence in the judiciary and  to demand the immediate establishment of a Royal Commission of Inquiry both into the Lingam Tape and the rot in the judiciary in the past 19 years?

                This entry was posted on Monday, 8 October 2007, 11:19 am and is filed under
Constitution
,
Merdeka 50th anniversary
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


K-Economy is the way to achieve a united, progressive and prosperous Malaysia

by Dr. Chen Man Hin

The world has evolved and Malaysia is now gripped by globalisation together with other countries. This is the reality

We see that the countries which are successful are the developed countries who have adopted policies which promote progress and development.

There are certain markers which define a developed country.

,

Firstly all of them practise democracy, social justice, rule of law, no racial bias, and an education based on knowledge, science and high technology.

Their economy is a K-Economy, which is open with free trade and is highly competitive.

Singapore is an example of country which has adapted to the demands of a global world. It has high standards for all the markers of a globalised country

These are the statistics of global markers for Singapore and Malaysia:

Singapore scored high marks in all the markers of a K-Economy, which means that it has evolved and adapted to a globalised world.  It scored high in economic freedom and competitiveness, and its GDP/per capita of US$ 26,836 is in the same bracket as US, Japan and Switzerland.

Unfortunately, Malaysia has not done so well, and this is reflected by a lowly GDP/capita of US$5,042

The time has come for Malaysia’s leaders to think hard and analyse its dilemma,  and raise up its standards on corruption index, economic freedom and competitiveness.

The choice is between opting for a K economy and drop the NEP economy, which is now archaic and not accepted internationally.

Foreign direct investments have reduced tremendously because of the NEP factor. Lowly Vietnam has caught up and surpassed in fdi.  America is not keen to sign an FTA with Malaysia because of NEP.

A K-ECONOMY IS THE LOGICAL CHOICE IN ORDER TO ACHIEVE UNITY, PROGRESS AND PROSPERITY FOR MALAYSIA.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 9 October 2007, 12:11 am and is filed under
Dr. Chen Man Hin
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Lingam Tape – Nazri’s lame excuse and test for Cabinet tomorrow

Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz has admitted that he was wrong and that there is no Witness Protection Act.

He claimed that what he meant was that whistleblowers were already protected under various laws which offered some protection to witnesses, like the Anti-Corruption Act, Criminal Procedure Code,  Evidence of Child Witness Act and Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act.

It is clearly a very lame excuse.  But it has not released Nazri from the onus of justifying two outrageous statements  he made  on Sunday:

Firstly, his ‘No Source, No Case” assertion — that if the maker or makers of the Lingam Tape “don’t co-operate, then the authenticity of the Lingam Tape cannot be determined and this will prevent the (Haider) Panel from discharging its responsibility. As such, it is important for them to reveal the source, failing which, we can only conclude that they are lying.”

Secondly, “The witness will be accorded full protection by the government… a new identity, a new location, even a new face. So what is there to be afraid of?”

Firstly, what right has he to decide how the Haider Panel Inquiry is to operate?  Or has the Deputy Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak passed the buck of  the Haidar Panel Inquiry as too hot a potato to Nazri as the Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department?

An inquiry into the Lingam Tape with its serious allegations of the perversion of the course of justice concerning the fixing of judicial appointments and fixing of court decisions should not be placed under the responsibility of the Prime Minister’s Department, whether Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Minister or Minister, but completely independent answerable only to the Yang di Pertuan Agong or Parliament.

Secondly, Nazri’s clarification has not explained how the maker or makers of the Lingam Tape will be fully protected when there is no official declaration by the Attorney-General granting full immunity from any prosecution or adverse consequences for fully co-operating with the Haider Panel.

The maker or makers of the Lingam Tape do not need any new identity, new location or even new faces, for they have no  use of them as what they need is protection from victimization or persecution from quarters involving the official authorities.  This is why what they need is full immunity from any prosecution or any adverse consequences because of their full co-operation in disclosing their identities.

The ball is firmly in the court of the Cabinet tomorrow.

The Cabinet will only confirm its utter irrelevance if Ministers are not prepared to discuss and take  a decision on a Royal Commission of Inquiry into the  Lingam Tape and the  rot of the judiciary in the past 19 years as the first important step to restore national and international confidence in the independence, integrity and meritocracy of the judiciary.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 9 October 2007, 11:57 am and is filed under
Judiciary
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Violent repression of “saffron revolution” –  an ASEAN failure and responsibility for which ASEAN nations must make amends

Foreign Minister, Datuk Seri Syed Hamid Albar
yesterday called on  the military junta in Myanmar to begin immediate talks with pre-democracy supporters led by Aung San Suu Kyi to discuss the future of Myanmar before the international community “piles on the pressure”.

While Hamid’s call is welcome, the question must be asked as to what ASEAN is doing to pressure the Myanmar military junta to conduct itself not only as a responsible member of the international community but also of  ASEAN in terms of the most minimal respect for human rights and democratic freedoms for its people.

After admitting  Myanmar as a member for a decade, ASEAN cannot just wash its hands of any responsibility for  what had happened in Burma  and just “pass the buck” to the international community to “pile up the pressure”.

Since the brutal and violent  repression of the “saffron revolution” two weeks ago, ASEAN government leaders have been using stronger language than before against the Myanmar military junta, starting with the expression of “revulsion” by the ASEAN foreign ministers at the United Nations over the killings and suppression of the monks-led peaceful protests.

Just stronger language however is grossly inadequate to the brutal and bloody crackdown of the monks-led peaceful protests in Burma if it is not matched with action.

The Myanmar military junta was admitted into ASEAN ten years ago in the teeth of regional and international opposition on the ground that the ASEAN constructive engagement policy with the Myanmar military junta would  pave the way for national reconciliation and democratization in Burma.

In the past ten years, the ASEAN constructive engagement policy has  turned out to be a one-way  unconditional engagement with the Myanmar military junta, yielding no results whatsosever. It has now been  totally discredited by the violent repression of the “saffron revolution”, with troops quashing the peaceful protests with gunfire.

The military junta said 10 people were killed, but dissident groups put the death toll at up to 200, with some accounts in four-figure numbers, and with as many as 6,000 people detained.  There is now a reign of terror in Burma.

ASEAN must not shirk from  its  responsibility for the violent repression of peaceful protests in Burma, for by admitting the Myanmar military junta as a member ten years ago, ASEAN had given legitimacy and helped  the military junta to consolidate its rule resulting in the bloody repression of  the “saffron revolution” — 19 years after the 1988 carnage.

ASEAN is celebrating its 40th anniversary this year and the 13th ASEAN Summit will be held in Singapore next month.  A top priority of the Singapore  ASEAN Summit should be a  post-mortem on the failure of the ASEAN constructive engagement policy with the Myanmar military junta to pave the way for national reconciliation and democratization in Burma and how ASEAN can make amends for such a failure which as resulted in greater sufferings for the people of Burma.

Steps to make amends for such a failure should include the options of expulsion or suspension of Myanmar from ASEAN.

There are horror stories from Burma about military atrocities, of one hundred shot dead outside a Burmese school and activists burned alive at government crematoriums. These horror stories are filling Burmese blogs and dissident sites but the tight security of the repressive regime has made it impossible to verify how many people are dead, detained or missing.

ASEAN should send high-level fact-finding mission to Myanmar to ascertain the latest situation as it concerns  not only Myanmar but also affects the credibility and legitimacy of ASEAN as a whole.

If the Myanmar military junta is not prepared to allow such an ASEAN fact-finding mission, then what is the justification for its continuing membership in ASEAN?

Another measure for  Malaysia and the other ASEAN countries as part of making amends for the ten-year failure of the constructive engagement policy resulting in greater hardships and sufferings to the people of Burma is to accord special refugee status to all Burmese of all ethnicities in their respective countries and to stop persecuting them as illegal immigrants.

[Speech at the public forum “Burma — Road to Democracy” jointly organized by Amnesty International Malaysia, Youth for Change (Y4C), SUARAM and Civil Rights Committee (CRC) of KL/Selangor Chinese Assembly Hall in Kuala Lumpur on Monday, 8th October 2007]

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 9 October 2007, 11:02 am and is filed under
Burma
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Lingam Tape – Nazri’s histrionics powerful reason why RCI needed

Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz, is up to his histrionics again — yesterday claiming that he will ask the Cabinet today to
provide protection
 for the people behind the recording of the Lingam Tape.

This was  48 hours after Nazri had declared  “No Source, No Case”, castigated the people behind the Lingam Tape as liars if they dared not  come forward to co-operate with the Haidar Inquiry Panel to determine the authenticity of the Lingam Tape on the ground that witnesses and whistleblowers are already fully protected under the various laws of the land, although he subsequently admitted that he had made a mistake when referring to the non-existent Witness Protection Act or Witness Protection Bill.

However, if various laws already provide protection to the maker or makers of the Lingam Tape, why is it necessary for Nazri to ask the Cabinet to provide protection for the people behind the Lingam Tape recording?

Furthermore, why ask the Lingam Tape makers to come forward to co-operate with the Haidar Panel when Deputy Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak had said that the Panel is not supposed to call witnesses and must rely on the Anti-Corruption Agency and the Police in their deliberations?

At least Nazri has one quality which has so far been absent from other Ministers, the humility – some will say the “temerity” –  to admit that he was wrong, although it is not clear what is the wrong of wrongs  which Nazri is admitting to, whether in mistakenly claiming that there is a Witness Protection Act or Bill which are non-existing, or mistakenly claiming that the various laws already provide adequate protection for  the maker or makers of the Lingam Tape to enable them to surface publicly to give information to establish its  authenticity.

However, if Nazri could be so wrong in many aspects about his claim that the law already provides full protection for witnesses or whistleblowers, how are Malaysians to be assured that Nazri could not be  equally wrong with regard to his  earlier claim that the
Chief Justice, Tun Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim
had allegedly denied that he was the person that senior lawyer V.K. Lingam was talking to in the now infamous 8-minute Lingam Tape on the perversion of the course of justice concerning the fixing of judicial appointments, court judgments and getting a Tan Sri award?

In fact, the long thunderous silence of Ahmad Fairuz in not personally making such a denial  in the most public and unmistakable a manner for  the past three weeks since the revelation of the Lingam Tape by Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim has reinforced public  doubts about  the authenticity of Nazri’s claim, now that Nazri has proven to be so mistake-prone in his various public statements and assertions.

What will Nazri have to say if Ahmad Fairuz should deny that he had ever made such a denial as claimed by the Minister or if the Chief Justice proved to be the person at the other end of the Lingam Tape conversation?

What is incontrovertible about  Nazri’s histronics is that his asking the  Cabinet to provide protection for Lingam Tape makers after claiming that they are fully protected is that he has furnished a powerful argument  why  a Royal Commission of Inquiry is urgently needed as the Abdullah government  is not serious or sincere in wanting to restore national and international  confidence in the independence, integrity and meritocracy of the  judiciary after an uninterrupted series of ravages in the past 19 years.

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 10 October 2007, 1:00 pm and is filed under
Judiciary
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Petition – Petronas’ corporate responsibility for the violent repression of saffron revolution

Letter

by Daniel Chong

PETITION FOR PETRONAS TO ASSUME CORPORATE RESPONSIBILITY IN THE CURRENT CRISIS IN MYANMAR

As you have highlighted in your blog, things are not well in Burma and for me it is not good that the corporations are able to keep silent while the people, NGOs and governments are making all the headlines in the press.

I think Burma is our little version of Afghanistan (important pipelines, warlords, refugees, drugs…) Its unsettling that we the neighbours have adopted a “close one eye” mentality.

Please have a look at this petition I wrote. If you support it, I hope you can make a mention of it in your blog. If not could you forward it to someone who might?

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/20/petition-for-petronas-to-assume-corporate-responsibility-in-its-business-dealing-in-myanmar

Tan Sri Dato Sri Mohd Hassan Marican

President and CEO of PETRONAS

Tower 1, PETRONAS Twin Towers

Kuala Lumpur City Centre

50088 Kuala Lumpur

Malaysia

Dear Sir,

We the undersigned are writing to raise serious concerns about Petronas’s involvement in the Yetagun Gas Project in Myanmar(1).

Given how incredibly cruel the ruling military government is treating its citizens over the last weeks and decades, and the fact that the protest was sparked by cut in fuel subsidies(2), we feel it is necessary that Petronas release a statement to explain in as much detail as possible, how and why Petronas can do business with such a disreputable government through the state-controlled ONGC Videsh Ltd.

How does Petronas answer the many activist accusations that such business activities funds the oppresive regime (3)? What is Petronas’s stance on the current worrying political situation in Myanmar? Is it business as usual (4)? Is Petronas only concerned at being a responsible corporate citizen only within the shores of our country (5)?

Should Petronas say that these business deal brings about positive developments for Myanmar, can Petronas give a clear report on such changes? So many years has Myanmar opened itself to foreign trade yet the people have benefited so little and so slowly from such deals. If such trade is so beneficial to the people of Myanmar, would they be out in the streets protesting today?

So far, one may read from a Bernama release that “Malaysia has provided aid in human capital development through the provision of 137 university scholarships of which 70 were provided by Petronas (Sept 26)”(4). From your website, it is stated that on 1 April 2005 “PETRONAS launched its Volunteer Oppurtunity Programme to give its staff the oppurtunity to contribute their services through community relations projects. Working in collaboration with MERCY Malaysia, PETRONAS volunteers have been sent to Banda Aceh, Indonesia, Pakistan and Myanmar.” (6)

We are sure that Petronas can do more to help the people of Myanmar.

While it is understandable that that acquiring, trading and distributing oil and gas fairly and ethically is a supremely challenging affair, we hope Petronas will put further thought into the short and long term social and environmental cost of your activities and conduct. We would also like to add that since Petronas is a wholly owned government corporation, the reputation of this company stands alongside its people. While some countries’ citizens can pump fuel in their cars in total disregard of the blood drawn by the faceless private multinational petroleum corporation that did it, we for one, as proud Malaysians we tak boleh lah!

Finally, as someone who has met with the Deputy Prime Minister of the Union of Myanmar Vice-Admiral Maung Maung Khin in Yangon on 24 August 2001 (7), I hope you will put to good use your contact with the ruling party.

Thank you for reading this petition. We hope to receive a response soon.

Regards,

Fellow Petitioners

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 10 October 2007, 9:58 am and is filed under
Burma
,
Letters
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Transplantation in Malaysia – are we on the right track?

Letters

by FK-506

As motorists on the NKVE scrambled to let pass the police outriders followed by a Perdana with an IJN logo with a host of other ambulances heading towards Subang Airport on Wednesday afternoon, many suspected the heart that 14 year old Tee Hui Yi so badly required after being placed on an ventricular assist device (VAD) for almost 12 months may have finally arrived. And indeed it had as she had her transplant done almost the same night courtesy of an unfortunate 15 year old accident victim who was declared brain dead at Ipoh General Hospital.

The miracle was all the more phenomenal as Tee Hui Yi’s predicament was highlighted only the day before on the front pages of the New Straits Times. Sadly she is said to have suffered a “hyperacute rejection” of her transplanted heart and had a second one put in which IJN happened to get from a patient from JB. Two hearts all in a day for one patient when none was available for almost a year. Miracles and coincidences do happen just like the statue of Virgin Mary crying blood sporadically in various churches around the world on Christmas. Hopefully Tee Hui Yi’s saga will finally end with her recovering fully.

Tee Hui Yi apparently developed viral myocarditis at the age of two and progressed to end stage heart failure. The indication for the expensive bridge to a natural heart in the form of the artificial ventricular assist device was presumably the failure of medical therapy in not being able to maintain her circulation optimally anymore on conservative therapy. In simple terms, for a future, she would need a heart. The VAD was just a stop gap. But in Malaysia this bridge to a heart or for that matter any other organ can be exceptionally long, arduous and occasionally a bridge just too far, leaving in its trail thousands dead on waiting lists.

Tee Hui Yi herself moaned her predicament repeatedly as highlighted almost routinely by the media and it was a sorry sight seeing this teenager lugging her VAD everywhere not to mention all the anticoagulants and other medication she probably had to take to ward off infection. Towards the end, obvious wasting was noticeable necessitating additional nutrition through a nasogastric tube.  Almost two years ago, 16 year old Mohamed Fikri Nor Azmi underwent a similar waiting game when he became the first recipient of the VAD after also being diagnosed as having end stage heart failure as a result of “valvular cardiomyopathy”. The indication for placing this teenager on the expensive VAD and on a waiting bridge to a natural heart was not only less clear but controversial as the country, then and now, still did not have an established organ procurement program. You just cannot set out to sea without first knowing if you can reach port unless you have already decided that you don’t mind drowning. But Fikri was more fortunate and received his heart far earlier.

Whatever the indications maybe and assuming all established criteria to place a VAD had been strictly adhered to,  it isn’t quite right to place patients on VADs which have a limited life of their own into patients, not knowing if they are ever going to get a heart. This cannot be ethically correct. Not too long ago, Ismail Merican, the current DG admonished his colleague and this country’s only liver transplant surgeon at that time, K.C. Tan for carrying out living related donor liver transplants at the Subang Jaya Medical Center. Merican howled that what SJMC and Tan did were improper as ignorant patients may “not have been briefed about complications”. Tan, who pioneered liver transplant techniques at  King’s College, London, of course left, preferring to base himself in “less ethical” Singapore, leaving Merican to focus on traditional medicine back here in Malaysia.

Why is there such a dearth of donors in Malaysia? Families have been known to backtrack on pledges when tragedy actually strikes and when the question of removing organs is brought up. Despite assurances by religious authorities that organ donation is honorable; people are just not buying it. And unfortunately the hard sell attitude of transplant coordinators aided by the high-spirited overdrive of the mass media in Malaysia is not helping either. Many fail to realize that the most painful thing about losing a family member to a traffic accident is the suddenness. And If you define human death as brain death and give doctors the power to demand or request organs a family member might have his heart or lung ripped out even before they have a chance to mourn.

The situation now in Malaysia is even more tenuous with the public lacking confidence in our medical graduates compounded further by an ineffective health care system that is now renowned for its many medical blunders. Add this to the current perception of widespread political corruption with a judiciary hopelessly entangled in a quagmire from which no one knows if they are ever going to extricate themselves, you will end up with a family or relative not wanting to believe anything the authorities tell you including the fact that their beloved is brain dead.

And is brain death criteria in Malaysia strictly adhered to? Are our anesthetists, neurologists, neurosurgeons or critical care physicians well trained in ascertaining brain death? Will the average Malaysian in the current environment trust the word of the doctor? Will our brain death certifiers be singularly medically unbiased or will they lean towards to a lower criteria as the demand for the organ rises just as in Argentina, Brazil, Chile, China and India or if the VAD’s 3000 hours ticks closer.  Abuse of brain death criteria around the world is widespread and quite possibly in Malaysia if some cases highlighted in the media are anything to go by.

In Japan, the name Juro Wada is almost synonymous with how society can turn distrustful of organ donation. In a nation of Shinto Buddhists where the human body is held sacred, Wada wanted to become the first surgeon to do a heart transplant in Japan. And he achieved this in 1968 when he successfully transplanted a heart and the operation was heralded as a victory for Japanese medicine. Controversy began when it was discovered that Wada had been in charge of ascertaining the suitability of the donor, as well as the recipient’s need for a heart.

Soon, doubts emerged about whether the donor had been brain-dead after all. Two and a half months after the operation the recipient died. Records indicated that the recipient might not have needed a new heart in the first place; later testimony suggested that someone had tampered with the patient’s old heart to make it appear closer to failure. Government prosecutors wanted to charge Wada with murder, and the case might well have led to an indictment but for the untimely death of a key witness. This is the type of fraudulence that the medical fraternity here can do without if transplant programs are to progress in this country.

As surgeons the world over scrambled for their piece of glory during Wada’s genre, it was evidently clear that it was always at the expense of the patient. The surgical technique itself developed by Shumway, Lower and Barnard was straightforward but what many failed to realize was that the extensive preoperative preparation, work-up and the post-operative pitfalls in immunological surveillance usually detected by serial biopsies are the ones that will determine if patients are going to achieve long term survival.  Journalists with rudimentary medical knowledge did not have the critical thinking to assess endpoints of success or gauge why most patients actually die in the pre and post-operative periods choosing rather to focus on the glamour of the actual surgery.

A successful heart and lung transplant program should yield a survival rate of at least 10 years by today’s standards. This country has done less then 20 in 10 years and there have been reports of unusually early complications. Even if allowances were given for a learning curve, patients reportedly dying of dengue, hyperacute rejection, infection and accelerated atherosclerosis in less then two years, if media reports are to be believed, means our programs are short of the basic sciences technological base very much required to keep such programs afloat and credible. Even within the medical fraternity no one knows the short, medium and long term results of mortality and morbidity rates of all organs transplanted in Malaysia. Many in fact depend on reports from the “New Straits Times Journal of Medicine” to announce such results. Hitching a ride on a space rocket is easy but to keep the rocket consistently flying between earth and space requires meticulous planning and focus.

Our transplant coordinators should re-strategize and focus instead on organs that are not culturally taboo, does not involve brain death and are well within our resources. Specifically they should pay greater attention to corneas, bones, much needed kidneys as well as living related liver transplants. These transplants may be less glamorous but a long and gratifying track record in these areas may warm Malaysians eventually to actually accepting brain death.

They may then one day think nothing of seeing their loved one having his/her heart/lungs/liver removed and declared dead instantly. That day may come or it may not. But neither the medical community nor the media should pile the pressure on the public to hasten this process. To do so will only arouse suspicion or turn prospective donors off completely. Hopefully someday we will have a primary health care system that will prevent the emergence of most diseases but until then we should avoid descending into the questionable achievement of killing people to save the dying.

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 10 October 2007, 9:37 am and is filed under
Health
,
Letters
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Burma’s Monks: Ethics is not confined to Books and Temples

By Farish A Noor

The Other Malaysia

By now the international community is fully aware of the recent developments in Burma, a country that has been under military rule and isolated from the rest of the globe since 1963. The images of Burmese Buddhist monks taking to the streets and defying the armed might of the Burmese junta and its security apparatus reminds us of familiar scenes dating back to the 1980s, and echo the democratic revolutions we have seen elsewhere in Asia, including China, since then.

While the fate of Burma and her people hang in the balance, the protest of the monks — many of whom happen to come from ordinary Burmese families with scant political protection themselves — teaches us a vital lesson and is a model for many progressive theologians and religious activists to follow. It is sometimes said that in the post-Enlightenment age we live in there is little concern for religion and that religion has no place in society. Worst still, the political instrumentalisation of religion for clearly divisive and sectarian ends has further added scepticism for many who believe that religion is best kept out of politics and the public domain, where it has often been abused. (A view that many would concur with). Unfortunately today any talk of religious ethics is often met with images of Bible-thumping evangelists talking of holy wars and moral crusades, angry bearded fanatics burning books and nosey neighbours spying on what the people next door are doing. Are religion and ethics destined to remain forever trapped in the nonsensical and pointless debate over who is holier and who wears his or her religion on the sleeves? Has religion nothing to say on pressing issues of the day such as fundamental political rights and liberties, democracy and rule of law?

The problem faced by many progressive theologians today is having to translate ethics and morality into modern public life without falling into the numerous pitfalls that lie before it: More often than not when morality makes an appearance in the public political domain it is at the behest of right-wing conservatives who merely wish to use ethics and morality as yet another means of domesticating society and controlling the masses. Then

there are the political elites who have turned religious ethics into a mere ideology, fit only for vote-winning and the demonisation of other communities deemed ‘deviant’, ‘infidels’ and ‘Others’. What is needed now is a new vocabulary of religious ethics that takes ethics into the public domain of the present, addressing issues of today and speaking the language of ordinary people living in the 21st century.

Religion, if it is to be real and relevant, cannot be trapped in the myth of some pristine golden age of the past. The morality of religion is not to be found in temples, mosques or churches; or in books and tomes that have been left to rot in libraries of monasteries. One does not find God’s ethics in outdated rituals and empty religious praxis, any more than in the length of

beards, the size of turbans and the cut of one’s holy robes…

As the South African theologian Prof. Farid Esack once wrote, the real mission of religion and faith today is to be a living, dynamic force of social change and transformation, with the capacity of making the world a better, safer and more equal place for all. This is what he refers to as the ‘Prophetic mission’ of all divine ideas, and it has to be remembered that Prophets were seldom Kings or Presidents, but themselves marginal figures who stood on the margins to represent the downtrodden, disempowered and voiceless. Religious ethics, Prof Esack argues, does not and should not be an appendage to power, but must rather speak up to power and its abuses. By speaking up for the people of Burma who have suffered so much under military rule for so long, the monks of Burma are doing precisely that: living up to the Prophetic mission of Buddhism and showing that ethics and morals are out there in the streets and in demonstrations.

For all who profess to be progressive theologians, the events in Burma are of common concern and importance. What is happening in Burma right now is not just important for the country, but it is also important for Buddhism, and all other religions by extension. It proves that religion can have a meaningful impact when its ethics are translated into a real-life context and ethics is something acted out in the public domain, rather than discussed in an abstract manner. One is not good simply because one thinks so, but to be good, to be moral and ethical, requires moral and ethical action as well. The  monks of Burma are not prepared to kill for anything or anyone, but they seem willing to die at least for a cause that resonates with the people of the country as a whole. The simple gesture of taking to the streets and standing their ground before the bayonets and tanks of the military junta sends out a clear message to the regime installed in Burma today: Namely that while the army has the guns and tanks it is the people who now command the moral high ground.

With little save the threat of violence to stand on, the army in Burma must realise that it has lost all credibility not only in the eyes of the world but more crucially for their own people as well. And by taking the stand that they have and keeping to it, the monks of Burma have shown us that religion can also be a living dynamic force that has relevance in the here-and-now, and that ethics is not something to be confined to books and locked in the sacred precinct of temples.

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 11 October 2007, 7:37 am and is filed under
Burma
,
Farish Noor
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Congrats to Sheikh Muszaphar as Malaysia’s first angkasawan

Congratulations to Dr.  Sheikh Muszaphar Shukor as
Malaysia’s first angkasawan
, orbiting in space to the International Space station — 360 km above the earth.

It is a feat Malaysians can feel proud.

We must however ensure that Malaysia can follow up and  take a quantum leap in advances in science and technology and not be like Saudi Arabia, which sent the first Muslim into space more than two decades ago in 1985 in the United States space shuttle Discovery but the desert state has little to show in terms of building a science and technology  research and development sector beyond oil and petrochemicals.

The government must also learn from the mistakes of the programme to send the first Malaysian to space, as it had been mired in controversy at almost every stage, from its genesis, conception and selection as well as its transparency  and accountability.

The lift-off programme last night  would have been more fitting the nation’s  50th Merdeka anniversary if an inter-faith prayer session  had been held to give blessings for a successful launch as Malaysia is sending  a Malaysian who is a Muslim into space and not a Muslim who happen to be a Malaysian.

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 11 October 2007, 10:16 am and is filed under
science/technology
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.