It is the armed forces and the Najib government which had been dishonoured by Major Zaidi’s conviction and the travesty of justice in sacking him for standing up  for the truth

Major Zaidi Ahmad “dishonourably discharged” from the armed forces by a  court martial for blowing the whistle about the washable “indelible ink” in the 13th General Elections?

How can a person be “dishonourably discharged” for doing an honourable thing, as speaking and standing up for the truth in a nation that cherishes truth and moral values?

It has been said that justice is truth in action. In Major Zaidi’s case, we see truth in action being penalized, making the court martial proceeding a travesty of justice and blot on the moral conscience of the country.

It is the armed forces and the Najib government which had been dishonoured by Major Zaidi’s conviction and the travesty of justice in sacking him for standing up for the truth.

Major Zaidi did not tell any lie or falsehood when he revealed that the indelible ink used in the 13th General Election could be washed off.

Bersih has rightly pointed out that “”Nothing has ever come from the hundreds of police report lodged against the Election Commission over this except for this particular one, which resulted in punishment for the whistleblower instead of the wrongdoer”.

The Election Commission owes in particular Major Zaidi Ahmad a duty of full recompense, as Major Zaidi Ahmad had neither told a lie nor a falsehood.

The fault is not Major Zaidi Ahmad but must be fully and absolutely borne by the Election Commission.

The Election Commission should fully compensate Major Zaidi Ahmad for all the monetary losses in remuneration and pension entitlements  as a result of the unjust decision by the court martial today.

At this moment of national moral crisis in the country, when lies, falsehoods, chicanery and dishonesty seem to rule the roost in public life instead of honesty, probity and industry, Malaysia needs more Major Zaidis at all levels of government instead of drumming them out of public service.

If there is any case where the Defence Minister or even the Prime Minister should intervene to ensure that Major Zaidi can continue his sterling service in the military, this is the one.

Is Hishammuddin or Najib capable of such greatness?

                This entry was posted on Monday, 12 January 2015, 7:00 pm and is filed under
Elections
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Malaysians taking loans to join Isis, reports paper

The Malaysian Insider

11 January 2015

Some Malaysians have gone to the extent of taking personal loans from banks and moneylenders in order to join the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (Isis) in the Middle East.

The South China Morning Post quoted Malaysian counter-terrorism officials as saying the loans were taken to fund passage and living expenses in Syria and Iraq.

“At least two women have taken personal loans to pay for their passage to Syria to join Isis and also to fund their living expenses there,” the official told SCMP.

“One woman took a RM20,000 personal loan from RHB Bank while the other borrowed RM6,000 from a licensed moneylender.”

SCMP reported that the emerging trend comes after an Isis cell leader in Malaysia urged followers to apply for the loans in order to help them join the fight in the Middle East.

Despite numerous Isis supporters and sympathisers being arrested by police, Malaysians have not been discouraged from attempting to join up with Isis.

To date, at least 59 Malaysians are officially known to have joined Isis.

More than 65 have been arrested by police either on their way to Syria and Iraq or on their way back since the start of last year.

“There are no indications that these two women will return to Malaysia. The chances of that is very slim, hence the loan is not likely to be repaid,” the official told SCMP.

Apart from seeking martyrdom, some Malaysians went to Syria because they wanted to live in an Islamic caliphate, which was declared in an area straddling Syria and Iraq in June last year.

Malaysia, according to Isis supporters, is an infidel state as it maintains a secular constitution.

“We arrested a family of five in Shah Alam who sold off their business, property and land and were about to move to Syria,” said the official.

Shah Alam is located 25 kilometres outside the capital city of Kuala Lumpur.

“This family owns one restaurant and three kindergartens,” the official said.

At least six Malaysians have died in Syria and Iraq fighting for Isis, said the official, who also confirmed that a former Malaysian Armed Forces commando was among 135 Isis-linked militants detained by Saudi Arabian authorities in Riyadh in December. – January 11, 2015.

                This entry was posted on Monday, 12 January 2015, 4:14 am and is filed under
Islamic state
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


The latest in the quadrilateral Zahid-Phua-Shafee-Khalid tangle – Muhyiddin’s sudden interest rather fishy

Deputy Prime Minister, Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin, has belatedly answered the  question I posed last Thursday: “Was the Home Minister’s infamous letter to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), vouching for the integrity of an alleged Malaysian gambling kingpin Paul Phua standing trial in Las Vegas, Nevada in direct contradiction to the police’s earlier communication with FBI, discussed at the Cabinet meeting yesterday？”

Five days after I had asked the question, Muhyiddin said in Cyberjaya that the Cabinet was not aware of Zahid’s letter to the United States authorities on the alleged gambling kingpin Phua and that the Cabinet “did not discuss” the matter beforehand.

He said any further elaboration of the matter would come after he had studied the issue at hand.

He also said he was not aware of the differing versions being aired about Phua’s case by the latter’s lawyer Muhammad Shafee Abdullah and Inspector-General of Police Khalid Abu Bakar.

My goodness, what type of a Deputy Prime Minister and Cabinet Ministers do we have in Malaysia!

If Muhyiddin had read my media statement entitled “Strange case of Home Minister writing a letter to FBI vouching for the integrity of an alleged gambling kingpin has become ‘curiouser and curiouser’” issued on January 5, two days before the Cabinet meeting on 7th January, the Deputy Prime Minister would have been fully briefed about the “curious” case of the Zahid-Phua-Shafee-Khalid quadrilateral tangle involving the Home Minister who is eyeing the post of Prime Minister of Malaysia, the alleged gambling kingpin standing trial in Las Vegas, a major UMNO power-broker who seemed to be surrogate of former Prime Minister Tun Mahathir and eyeing to replace Tan Sri Gani Patail as Attorney-General and the incumbent Inspector-General of Police.

It will not be easy to assembly a more potent bag of pyrotechnics in Malaysia  represented by these four personalities – but while the whole literate population were agog with their punches and counter-punches, the  jabs and feints,  the DPM and the rest of the Cabinet were blissful ignorant as if they were living in a different world from the 30 million Malaysians!

Could this be  possible?

No Malaysian would believe that the Deputy Prime Minister and the other Cabinet Ministers did not know about the Zahid-Phua-Shafee-Khalid quadrilateral tangle, as it was Biggest Show in Malaysia in the new year, making national and international news every day in the new year – putting in the shade other scandals and disasters like the multi-billion ringgit 1MDB scandal and the 2014-2015 worst floods catastrophe in living memory in Malaysia!

This being the case, Muhyiddin and the rest of the Cabinet Ministers should explain why they had failed their public responsibilities and duties in failing to raise the Zahid-Phua-Shafee-Khalid quadrilateral tangle in last Wednesday’s Cabinet, especially if the Ministers care for the interests and international reputation of the country!

Why did Zahid contradict the Police version to FBI about Phua without seeking police agreement or even knowledge, and why did he act arbitrarily and undiplomatically in circumventing the Foreign Ministry?

Why was Zahid’s letter withdrawn in the Nevada District Court in Las Vegas after Putrajaya objected to it being used in Puah’s defence?

Why had the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak kept his silence until now, and why is Muhyiddin only showing interest and concern now?

Zahid’s letter was clearly in defence of Phua. Who objected to it being used in open court proceedings? Zahid, the Attorney-General, the Police or the Prime Minister himself? Now we know it was definitely not the Deputy Prime Minister or the other Ministers!

Can Malaysians have answers from the Prime Minister, the Home Minister and the IGP on this infamous Zahid-Phua-Shafee-Khalid quadrilateral tangle?

And also answer  from Muhyiddin  why he had failed to raise the issue in last Wednesday’s Cabinet?

Muhyiddin sudden interest in the  quadrilateral Zahid-Phua-Shafee-Khalid scandal is most unusual and even fishy, but this is subject for another occasion.

                This entry was posted on Monday, 12 January 2015, 4:14 pm and is filed under
Muhyiddin Yassin
,
Najib Razak
,
Police
,
Zahid
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Buddhist volunteers bring work and cheer in Manek Urai

BY
ZURAIRI AR

PUBLISHED: JANUARY 13, 2015 07:02 AM

The Malay Mail Online

Volunteers from Penang-based Buddhist Tzu-Chi Merits Society Malaysia help residents of Manek Urai to clean up after the flood. ― Pictures by Yusof Mat Isa

KUALA KRAI, Jan 13 ― After weeks of devastating floods, a palpable air of excitement replaced the forlorn mood at the village of Kg Manek Urai Lama here across the weekend.

Struggling under the burden of a disorganised clean-up after arguably the worst floods to hit the state in decades, the residents had seemingly been at a lost.

But on Sunday, it was different. Every road in the village was a bustling hive of activity, as locals purposefully loaded the debris inside dump trucks. Some shoveled mud from homes into wheelbarrows. Here and there, noisy backhoe loaders scraped dirt off the roads.

Leading the efforts and motivating the residents were were a group dressed uniformedly in white pants tucked into rubber boots, khaki vests and white caps.

They were the volunteers from Penang-based Buddhist Tzu-Chi Merits Society Malaysia, a nationwide non-profit humanitarian group.

“If we just distribute cash among the locals, that would not make them any happier. During these few days, when they’re working, they look happy,” the group’s president Koay Ji Yuan told Malay Mail Online when met at the sidelines of the operation.

“Just money would not be enough. We try to give them some purpose to their lives, which was to help their own neighbours,” he said.

Manek Urai residents are seen resting for their lunch meal of rice and vegetarian dishes cooked by local women in a makeshift kitchen.

Around 500 Tzu Chi members joined the operation, bringing with them 19 lorries and seven tractors. The group included two busloads of volunteers from computing giant Intel Malaysia, who wore moss green vests instead.

During Malay Mail Online’s visit to the group’s base on the Manek Urai rail station, hundreds of residents were resting for their lunch meal of rice and vegetarian dishes cooked by local women in a makeshift kitchen. The rice was of a pre-cooked variety that only needed to be soaked in water to be eaten.

The group said it has employed around 1,200 villagers, all victims of the floods, for the clean-up. The villagers were each paid RM100 per day for the two-day operation.

Tzu Chi had divided the village into five main areas to facilitate the cleanup, and the locals were split into groups of around 20 to tackle each area.

“Despite that, yesterday only around 90 per cent of the villagers came to collect their salary. That means they really joined in to help, not for the money,” suggested Koay.

“It is a show of Malaysian compassionate nature, our goodness … And this is the way Malaysia was built upon.”

Residents and volunteers are seen shovelling mud out from the houses.

Koay refused to divulge the exact cost for the operation, however, hinting only that it was several million ringgit, funded by donations.

“We are here to learn from their suffering, that is more important. Money is not important. We encourage our members to learn from this disaster,” he said.

“We try to help them, but we also learn from them. The villagers have become our teacher.”

Several villagers polled by Malay Mail Online said despite the hard work, they were grateful to be “doing something”, rather than just waiting for help to come.

“When the floods happened, I felt so helpless. Especially when I see my family suffer. Getting on my feet again made me feel like a man again,” said a 31-year-old who wanted to be known as Malik.

“If we were to rely on the authorities, we would never be done. It is perhaps better to do this ourselves,” added another called Wan Hasan, who was Malik’s neighbour.

Volunteers take a rest after helping to clean up the mess caused by the flood in Manek Urai.

Among the volunteers were Dr Tang Kiat Beng, 54. He was part of the group’s medical association, which provided five other doctors and five nurses on the ground in Manek Urai.

“Our master teaches us that it is not money which is the most important, but love,” Dr Tang said, referring to 77-year-old Master Cheng Yen, the group’s founder from Taiwan. She founded Tzu Chi in 1966.

“So, the villagers might get RM100 per day, but we tell them that if one person had donated RM1, then it means you have received the love of 100 people. That’s why you need to stand up.”

Dr Tang said that before the locals could start working, they had needed to share their grief and suffering first. Both Koay and him recounted the story of a police officer from Malacca stationed in Manek Urai who broke down in tears after sharing her plight and worries with the group.

“Before this, all they could see was grey. Seeing outside people coming, they began to see colours, some hope,” said Dr Tang.

Tzu Chi had divided the village into five main areas to facilitate the cleanup, and the locals were split into groups of around 20 to tackle each areas.

Manek Urai, over 20 km south of Kuala Krai town, was among the worst-hit areas in the recent floods that saw over 250,000 Malaysians displaced from their homes.

The floods devastated both Kg Manek Urai Lama and Kg Manek Urai Baru, leaving most homes in ruins and the families without shelter. As of this week, the victims were still reeling from the disaster.

The occupational health doctor said Manek Urai was the group’s last stop after helping out in Kota Baru and Kuala Krai. It would return to base first before planning its second mission.

In the background, a song in Malay was repeated from the speakers. Its lyrics included lines such as “We are one family, loyal to each other.”

“We human beings, we are all the same. Regardless of religion, skin colour, race or nationality. When disaster strikes, we all would feel it,” Dr Tang said.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 13 January 2015, 11:03 am and is filed under
Kelantan
,
NaturaL disaster
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Call on Cabinet tomorrow to convene a special Parliamentary meeting end of this month to present a revised 2015 Budget

The Cabinet tomorrow should do what it should have done at its last Cabinet meeting for 2014  on Dec. 17 – to convene a Special meeting of Parliament this month to present a revised Budget 2015.

When the Budget 2015 was drawn up, it was based on the oil price assumption of US$100 (RM357) per barrel.

Since the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak presented Budget 2015 on Oct. 25, Brent crude prices had fallen from  US$100 to a six year-low of US$47.36.

Oil and gas-related income is a backbone of the Malaysian economy as it currently accounts for 30% of the government’s total revenue.

With the plunge in crude oil prices, the Government is duty-bound to  revise the 2015 Budget and  seek parliamentary  approval for revision of the 2015 Budget.

The Cabinet should decide on convening a Special Parliament before the end of  January now that  Prime Minister who is also Finance Minsiter has finally conceded today on the need to restructure the 2015 Budget.

The revised 2015  Budget is urgent and imperative as a result of economic and financial developments with far-reaching implications, like the  Malaysian ringgit hitting a 5 ½ low versus the dollar, touching a low of 3.5870 versus the dollar as of 0626 GMT, it lowest since July 2009 and the  RM36 billion fall in Malaysia’s foreign reserves in 2014.

The 2015 Budget of RM273.9 billion is clearly not sustainable as a result of the plunging commodity  prices, not only oil, but also palm oil and  rubber. In fact, economists are warning that Malaysia may be facing a deflation.

A special Parliament meeting should also debate the many urgent issues confronting the country, including (1) the worst floods catastrophe in living memory; (2) the Report of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Illegal Immigrants in Sabah; (3)  the RM1.3 trillion illegal capital flight in the ten years from 2003 to 2012; and (4) the urgent need for moderates in Malaysia regardless of race, religion, region or politics to unite and  defeat the rhetoric and politics  of hate, bigotry, intolerance and extremism.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 13 January 2015, 4:48 pm and is filed under
Budget Debate
,
Finance
,
Kelantan
,
Najib Razak
,
Sabah
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Muhyiddin’s faux pas claiming that extremism had never existed among Muslims in Malaysia is of the same class as Najib’s first praise and glorification of Islamic State terrorism

The Deputy Prime Minister, Tan Sri Muhyddin Yassin’s faux pas claiming that extremism had never existed among Muslims in Malaysia is of the same class as the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak’s faux pas giving  praise and glorification of Islamic State terrorism last June.

Muhyiddin’s latest faux pas join’s the DPM’s host of infamous “quotes” like “I am Malay first, Malaysian second” and “Malaysian youngsters are receiving better education than children in the United States, Britain and Germany”.

If there are no extremists among Muslims in Malaysia, how come the Bukit Aman Special Counter Terrorism Division had arrested 51 persons suspected of being Malaysian militants.

Furthermore, why have the number of Muslim Malaysians fighting for Islamic State in Syria and Iraq  gone up from 39 to 59 since October?

And why have Muslim Malaysians even gone to the extent of taking personal loans from banks and money-lenders to pay for their passage  to Syria to join Islamic State and  to fund their living expenses there, knowing that repayment of their loans is very slim?

Why have  at least six Muslim Malaysians died in Syria and Iraq fighting for Islamic State?

Is Muhyiddin also suggesting that Najb’s Global Movement of Moderates has no relevance, role or importance to Malaysia but only for the rest of the  world?

The fact is that there are extremists among all races and religions, whether in Malaysia or in the international arena, people who are so bigoted with racial and religious hatred and intolerance that they pose serious threat to the future of Malaysia and even the world.

This is why moderates of Malaysia, regardless of race, religion, region or politics, must stand united on  this one common issue, to forge the unity of the moderates  to save the country from the bigots and extremists and ensure that the majority voices of moderation, inclusion, tolerance and harmony  drown out the voices  and rhetoric of extremism, hatred and disharmony.

Muhyiddin should be careful with his statements and speeches, for his call for “stern action” to be taken against Lawyers for Liberty (LFL) director Eric Paulsen was followed up by swift police action the same night, involving about 20 police personnel to arrest Paulsen under the Sedition Act for his tweet accusing the Islamic Development Department (JAKIM) of promoting extremism.

Was it necessary for the Police to stage such a major show of force, when Paulsen had agreed yesterday to be in Bukit Aman to co-operate with police investigations.

Paulsen’s arrest under the Sedition Act has only highlighted the selectivity of law enforcement, from selective police investigations to the Attorney-General’s selective prosecutions, which have given Malaysia a bad name in the world with regard to the  rule of law and the administration of justice in  Malaysia.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 13 January 2015, 1:57 pm and is filed under
Islamic state
,
Muhyiddin Yassin
,
Najib Razak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Singing the praises of Major Zaidi

By Syerleena Abdul Rashid

Free Malaysia Today

January 13, 2015

COMMENT

This MPPP councillor pays tribute to a “true patriot” who was willing to risk it all to expose a broken electoral system and push for political reforms.

Growing up, everybody had a favourite hero. It could have been Superman, Badang or even a Sesame Street character but as we grew older, our tastes in heroes and our perception of qualities that defined heroism changed. We broke away from fiction and began to look at real life for inspiration. We sought intellectual heroes; political leaders, activists, great thinkers or even authors who observed our societal behaviours and witty life anecdotes while transfixing the subtlety of modern life grievances into words and then, on to pages.

Aristotle believed that heroes were “associated with courage and integrity and a disdain for the cramping compromises by means of which the unheroic majority manage their lives. Heroes were capable of something momentous – the defeat of an enemy, the preservation of a political system, the completion of a voyage – which no one else could have accomplished.” In other words, heroes were the embodiment of a superb spirit.

In modern times, heroic figures included martyrs, whistleblowers and good Samaritans. We often associate heroism with grandiose acts of valour, sacrificing or risking one’s life with unabashed gallantry but heroism can also occur less dramatically – one that is engaged voluntarily and conducted as a service to improve social or political stature. It is often initiated out of compassion without any expectations of material gain.

Many of us, have found highly commendable heroic qualities in everyday men and women; Mahatma Gandhi who taught us the power of passive resistance, Karpal Singh who reminded us to be strong and remain principled in life, Adam Adli who introduced us all to a generation of young Malaysians who were not afraid to reclaim ownership of our country and Ambiga Sreenevasan who displayed fortitude and determination to purge corruption from our system. Of course, there are many more heroes… too many to list, in fact.

Although the multiplicities of individual preferences remain, there exists a recurring trait that distinguishes great men and great women – respectable values and principles that inspire millions and will continue to do so for generations to come. These great men and women show integrity, compassion and moral courage. They remind us of the greater cause and exhibit fortitude and perseverance – Major Zaidi is one of them.

This doting father and husband who served 26 years in the Royal Malaysian Air Force was dishonourably discharged after having being found guilty for highlighting problems with the indelible ink used in GE13. The court found him guilty for breaching two standing orders – speaking to the media without the consent of the Defence Ministry and for sharing confidential information with the media without the consent of the Armed Forces Council. This callous move was somewhat expected, given the increased arrests and charges made to those who dared “criticise” the ruling regime and highlight any irregularities – even on social media.

Major Zaidi did in fact break protocol but he did so because he felt it was his responsibility as a Malaysian to inform the rest of us about the irregularities at hand. He believed in the greater cause and that in itself, is a trait of a true patriot.

Honours are often bestowed upon heroes as an attempt to show appreciation for a job well done. Unfortunately for Major Zaidi, his dismissal will be used as a reminder to keep everyone in line. For him, there will be no celebratory honours for his decades of service nor will there be any songs sung to commemorate his bravery and achievements – at least, not from the mainstream right.

In one sweeping moment, Major Zaidi enhanced our understanding of a broken system and heightened our awareness as well as commitment to political reforms. What the future holds for Major Zaidi is anyone’s guess but his courage to highlight the level of corruption that has permeated our political system is worthy of a standing ovation from every single peace-loving Malaysian alive today.

Heroic action is the only remedy to evil and it begins with thoughts, determination and the will to overcome the evils that exist in our present structure.

Syerleena Abdul Rashid is an MPPP Councillor. She is also secretary of DAPSY Bukit Bendera and director of Political Education, DAP Wanita Bukit Bendera.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 13 January 2015, 10:10 am and is filed under
Crime
,
Defence
,
Elections
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


When an opinion becomes a criminal matter

COMMENTARY BY THE MALAYSIAN INSIDER

13 January 2015

It took no fewer than 20 policemen to arrest Eric Paulsen last night, just hours after Deputy Prime Minister Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin asked for an investigation into the human rights lawyer’s tweet that religious authorities were promoting extremism through Friday prayer sermons.

And it took no less than the Inspector-General of Police Tan Sri Khalid Abu Bakar to use the same Twitter microblogging network to announce Paulsen’s arrest – akin to revealing a major breakthrough in solving crime or arrest of kingpins.

Impressive, to say the least, considering that Paulsen was left unmolested when he lodged a report earlier yesterday over death threats following his tweet, which he had taken down after a barrage of criticism.

There was no move to arrest him then although the IGP had already said there would be a probe into the lawyer’s tweet under the Sedition Act. None. Like clockwork, action was only taken after the DPM commented on the matter.

What is even more impressive is that Paulsen had yet to be remanded for the federal police chief to send off a series of tweets on Paulsen’s opinion about Malaysia’s Department of Islamic Development (Jakim) sermons promoting extremism.

“@PDRMsia. Jgn ambil mudah Keamaman yg kita sama2 kecapi ini. Jgn sesekali cuba mérosakkan/koyakkan fabric masyarakat majmuk yg kita…

“@PDRMsia Eric Paulsen angkuh dan ingat dia akan berjaya menghasut Rakyat Malaysia supaya menghancurkan semangat masyarakat 1 M’sia kita.

“@PDRMsia bagi amaran kpd mana2 org baik lelaki dan wanita yg bersekongkol dgn nya supaya lebih waras dan jgn cuba mengancam…

“@PDRMsia …keamanan dan kesejahteraan Malaysia,” the IGP said on his timeline.

It would appear that in the eyes of the police and government, an opinion about a government agency can be a criminal offence. When did it become an offence to hold an opinion in Malaysia?

All the more so when the federal police chief has decided that on the basis of one tweet, Paulsen wants to incite Malaysians to destroy the 1Malaysia spirit. Really? Can we conflate questioning Jakim to either insulting Islam or demolishing the 1Malaysia spirit? What rocket science is this?

In defending Jakim, Muhyiddin said that many non-Muslims do not know Islam. Probably but most Malaysians understand the language of divisiveness and fairness.

As mentioned before, Paulsen must answer for his tweet but there should not be any selective persecution in Malaysia. Others who have threatened slaps or to burn holy books have gotten away without even a slap on the wrist.

Now if that is not bordering on a criminal offence, what more an opinion? – January 13, 2015.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 13 January 2015, 9:13 am and is filed under
Human Rights
,
Islam
,
Muhyiddin Yassin
,
Police
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Cabinet should revisit the question why an emergency was not declared for the worst floods catastrophe in living memory, affecting millions of people, evacuated a quarter of a million people, cost 23 lives and caused losses running into billions of ringgit and give assurance an emergency would be declared for future disasters

Malaysians must be very disappointed that despite calls from many quarters, the Barisan Nasional Government had failed to declare a state of emergency, limited in place and time, over the worst floods catastrophe in living memory, affecting millions of people, evacuated a quarter of a million people, cost 23 lives and caused losses running into billions of ringgit.

It even created flood history in  Malaysia in knocking out the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak who subsequently claimed that he was also a flood victim –  “confining him to bed for days” due to the infection with E. Coli bacteria while visiting flood-affected states.

Actually, Najib was a flood-victim twice over, as he was forced to cut short his vacation in Hawaii earlier, returning to Malaysia on a commercial flight, creating a mystery as to the whereabouts of the government official jet which had flown Najib Hawaii in the first place.

The Cabinet should revisit the question why an emergency was not declared for the worst floods catastrophe in living memory, and the Prime Minister should give an assurance that in future disasters of such magnitude, the Federal Government would not fail in its duty to declare a state of emergency to mobilise the entire national resources, particularly the 150,000-strong armed forces, to render the quickest help and relief to the disaster victims.

The reports in the  past week about  the aftermath of the  worst floods catastrophe in living memory are all painful reminders of the lost opportunities in providing the most immediate relief and help to the flood victims, particularly in Kelantan but also in Terengganu, Pahang and Perak which could have been rendered if a state of emergency had been declared and all national, state and local resources, together with the 150,000-strong armed services, mobilized in a national disaster mitigation and relief operation.

In such circumstances, the death toll would not be 23, the number of flood victims not as massive as millions of people and the losses in the gargantuan figure of billions of ringgit.

On Sunday, the Health Minister Datuk S. Subramaniam talked about the Health Ministry wanting to have its own “air force” and “navy” in future flood disasters, as the Ministry had not been able to provide good health services during floods because assets such as helicopters and boats had to be shared with other agencies.

He said that the Ministry was considering having helicopters and boats at the disposal of hospitals and clinics to ferry patients in flooded areas.

This raises the question why a state of emergency had not been declared to direct all available helicopters and boats belonging  to all agencies to be dispatched to the flood-stricken areas to save lives, evacuate flood victims and provide essential services and supplies?

In the past few days, Malaysians read harrowing accounts of communities being stranded without food, water and essential supplies for several days, although they were occasions for Malaysians regardless of race and religion  to demonstrate their humanity, concern and unity to reach these isolated communities with much-needed aid, although they could not get any help or attention from the official authorities.

What however continues to be a bugbear to all flood victims and all who had taken part in the flood relief operations is the astounding claim by the Deputy Finance Minister Datuk Ahmad Maslan on January 5 that the Federal Government had spent RM800 million through the National Security Council (NSC) to help flood victims in flood-stricken states for the provision of food supply, logistics and cleaning houses of the victims.

Did any Minister question in the Cabinet this  scandalous claim by Mazlan that RM800 million had already been spent by the Federal Government on Jan 5  for the “provision of food supply, logistics and cleaning houses of flood victims”, as the flood victims and all flood relief workers from civic organisations and political parties could not sense of any such RM800 million expenditure for the flood victims, whether in Kelantan, Terengganu or Pahang?

If the Federal government bill was already RM800 million on January 5 to provide “food supply, logistics and cleaning houses” of flood victims, what is the bill today on January 14?

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 14 January 2015, 10:54 am and is filed under
Kelantan
,
Najib Razak
,
NaturaL disaster
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


I am not Charlie

By
RK Anand
 | 8:42AM Jan 14, 2015

Malaysiakini

COMMENT In 72 hours, more than a dozen lives were taken and Paris was shrouded in fear.

The catalyst being a satirical weekly that prided itself in the flagellation of all that is considered sacred, not only to Muslims but others as well.

To be honest, I had been unaware of Charlie Hebdo’s existence until two masked gunmen stormed its office and killed its staff during an editorial meeting.

Curious, I browsed the Internet for the caricatures that had spurred the bloodbath. What I discovered left me mortified.

The cartoons were distasteful and disrespectful. I believe that even Voltaire, who is often dragged into the discussion on free speech, would disapprove of them too.

Freedom of expression cannot and should not be used as a premise to defend such publications.

While resorting to protect the sanctity of a faith with bullets instead of debates must be condemned, Charlie Hebdo cannot be placed on a pedestal either.

Liberties must be safeguarded but there must exist a sense of responsibility.

It does not come with a carte blanche for one to spew the same kind of animus with ink that terrorists do with blood.

Operating in a nation with six million Muslims, knowing well that it could lead to a devastating backlash, Charlie Hebdo had diced with danger.

Its staff were courageous no doubt. Then again, there is a fine line that separates bravado from absurdity.

And these cartoonists gave their lives for what? Offensive images, which even made non-Muslims cringe.

Religious extremism must not for a single instance be justified, but insulting Prophet Muhammad offends not the jihadists alone but all Muslims, even those who denounce terrorism in the name of Islam.

Would non-Muslims condone a publication from the Islamic world lampooning their prophets and saints in a similar demeaning manner?

Indeed, the retaliation should not include murder, but then again, radicals and lunatics exist in all faiths.

Mutual respect

Just like the terrorists, Charlie Hebdo failed to make the world a better place, and it appears that their sacrifice had been in vain apart from strengthening the position of the right-wing in Europe.

If Charlie Hebdo chose to stencilise its creative juices to build and not burn bridges, the lives and deaths would hold greater significance.

Set aside the arguments on freedom of expression, there is nothing complex at work here apart from the simple value imparted on us as children – respect.

It is disheartening to note that when there appears to be massive coverage of the men behind the attacks and Islamic terrorism, there is little about the nature of Charlie Hebdo’s contents.

As activist Sally Khon succinctly put it, “It unsettles me to think that the reason so much of the outpouring of support for Charlie Hebdo is driven not just by the violence suffered or a defence of free speech, but by the opportunity to implicitly support jabs at Islam. But judging by some of the coverage, it seems a fair assumption to make.”

The Charlie Hebdo journalists and editors did not deserve to die.

But while I sympathise with the families who have lost their loved ones to a heinous act of violence, I am, however, not Charlie.

__

RK ANAND is not a Muslim. He is a member of Team Malaysiakini.

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 14 January 2015, 5:45 pm and is filed under
Media
,
Press
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


In 2015 delimitation, is Najib going for ‘nuclear’?

By
Ong Kian Ming
 | 10:23AM Jan 12, 2015

Malaysiakini

MP SPEAKS The map for the proposed new seats in Sarawak was publicly displayed on Monday, Jan 5, 2015. The timing of this display – before the display of the Sabah and peninsular Malaysia maps – and the proposed changes – 11 proposed new state seats without a single new parliament seat – was unprecedented.

The Sarawak delimitation exercise also points to a more worrying possibility – that Najib will exercise a ‘nuclear’ option for the upcoming peninsular Malaysia and Sabah delimitation exercise.

What exactly is this nuclear option? That no parliament seats would be added in either peninsular Malaysia or Sabah, that state seats would be added only in the states where the BN enjoys a two-thirds majority in the state legislature and boundaries would be redrawn in BN’s favour in states with no additional parliament and state seats.

Past four delimitations

In the four delimitation exercises since 1974, additional parliament seats have been proposed and added in each. From the initial 144 parliament and 362 state seats, a total of 78 parliament and 214 state seats have been added to arrive at the 222 parliament and 572 state seats we have today (not including the 11 proposed new seats in Sarawak)

For parliament seats to be added, Article 46 of the federal constitution, which states the number of parliament seats by each state, needs to be amended. This requires a two-thirds majority in Parliament, which has been enjoyed by the BN in each of the past four delimitation exercises.

At the state level, the state constitution needs to be amended in order to increase the number of state seats. [
1
] Given that the BN has enjoyed a two-thirds parliamentary majority in each of the past four delimitation exercises, amending the constitution in order to increase the number of parliament seats was never an issue.

But there have been instances in the past delimitation exercises when no parliament or state seats were added in certain states because of political reasons.

For example, no parliament and state seats were added in Penang in the 1994 delimitation exercise because the BN only won 55 percent of the state seats in the 1990 state elections and would have encountered opposition resistance to amend the state constitution to increase the number of state seats.

Similarly, no parliament and state seats were added in Sabah in the 1994 delimitation exercise because the BN lost control of the Sabah state legislature after the last minute withdrawal of the PBS from the BN just prior to the 1990 general elections.

No new seats in weak areas

In the same vein, no parliament and state seats were added in Kedah in the 2003 delimitation exercise because the BN lost its two-thirds majority in the state legislature after losing the Lunas state seat by election in 2000.

In the same delimitation exercise, no parliament and state seats were added in Terengganu, where the BN had lost all but four out of 32 state seats and eight out of eight parliament seats in the 1999 general elections.

It made political sense for the BN not to want to have the EC add any seats in these states since the chances of the opposition winning the new seats are higher in opposition controlled states.

Even in cases where seats are added in opposition-controlled states, they are added in areas with greater BN support.

For example, a new parliament seat was added in the district of Jeli in the 1994 delimitation exercise. It was one of the two parliament seats won by BN in Kelantan in the 1995 general elections.

In the 2003 delimitation exercise, two state seats were added in Kelantan, one in Jeli and one in Gua Musang, both of which were won by BN in the 2004 general election. [
2
]

The fact that there were no parliaments seats added in Sarawak is a very good indication that the yet to be revealed peninsular Malaysia and Sabah delimitation plans will also not include parliamentary seat increases.

Footnotes:

[
1
] Although in the case of Sarawak, the number of state seats is not listed in the state constitution but in a state ordinance.

Hence, only a simple majority in the state legislature is needed to amend the state ordinance to change the number of state seats, which was what occurred in the state legislature in Sarawak on Nov 11, 2014.

[
2
] In a conversation with a Kelantan PAS leader who was involved in both delimitation exercise, the implicit ‘threat’ towards the Kelantan state government was that if it did not accept the changes proposed by the EC, a more drastic redrawing of the state and parliament boundaries that would be even more disadvantageous to PAS would be proposed, without any increase parliament or state seats.

Tomorrow Part 2: Why BN needs not increase parliament seats

ONG KIAN MING is the DAP MP for Serdang and the DAP representative in the Pakatan Rakyat delimitation exercises committee.

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 14 January 2015, 12:11 pm and is filed under
Elections
,
Parliament
,
Sarawak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


My father would be shocked, says Nazir Razak

BY THE MALAYSIAN INSIDER

14 January 2015

The youngest son of Malaysia’s second prime minister Tun Abdul Razak, who died on this day 39 years ago, has called for the setting up of a national consultative council to bring Malaysians together, just as his father did after the 1969 race riots.

Banker Datuk Seri Nazir Razak said this when asked by The Malaysian Insider (TMI) what message his father would convey if he could speak to Malaysians today.

“I think he would say that it is time to set up another national consultative council, like he did in 1970, to discuss critical issues around preserving harmony and fostering unity amongst Malaysians,” says Nazir.  “I think he would be shocked that it is 2015 and race and religion divide Malaysians even more today than during his time.”

Nazir was replying to questions posed to him and his other brothers, Johari, Nizam and Nazim  about their father as part of a series of articles TMI will be publishing over the next few days to mark the passing of Razak, who died of leukaemia in London in 1976, to the shock of the nation, at the young age of 54.

Razak and his wife Tun Rahah had five sons and the eldest is, of course, Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak.

Taking over as Prime Minister in 1971, Razak formed the Barisan Nasional to include erstwhile opposition parties like PAS, the Gerakan and SUPP as part of his national reconciliation efforts.

Abroad, his biggest achievement was establishing diplomatic relations with Communist China in 1974 – the first member of Asean to do so. Beijing had till then supported communist insurgencies in many southeast Asian countries.

Historians say that it was unfortunate that Razak died too soon as he was only into the fifth year of implementing key policies introduced post 1969, like the New Economic Policy (NEP) and the National Education Policy that led to the conversion of the medium of instruction in national schools from English to Bahasa Malaysia.

Despite the fact that radical policies were introduced to stabilise the country post 1969 and were opposed by some as being pro-Malays, those who knew him well and even his political opponents say that Razak was a strong advocate of moderation and multi-racialism.

“As the most outstanding leader among our founding fathers, it was Tun Razak who wished our country to be the multi-religious, multi-racial one that would be to the well being of all Malaysians,” says Tun Musa Hitam, who back in the early 1970s was deemed as a young turk of Umno and a prodigy of Razak.

DAP stalwart Lim Kit Siang says that together with Tunku Abdul Rahman and Tun Hussein Onn, Razak  made sure that Malaysia stayed as a strong secular and multiracial society in the first 25 years after independence.

“During their premierships from 1957 to 1981, the basis of Malaysia as a multi-racial, democratic, secular state where Islam is the federal religion was not in question,” he told TMI.

Tan Sri Ramon Navaratnam, then a young civil servant, says Razak was an inspiration to civil servants as he led by example.  “As a prime minister, he touched all our lives by his wonderful example. And at that time, we took it for granted because such was the ethics of civil service then,” he says.

Another trait of Razak that was legendary was his frugality and his careful use of public money and this was something he had always impressed on his children.

“He made sure of the distinction between private funds and public funds,” says Nizam.  “Spending on family was always private (money).”

Tun Abdul Razak, seen here with a young Nazir Razak, was a busy man but he still had time for his children. – File pic, January 14, 2015.Tun Abdul Razak, seen here with a young Nazir Razak, was a busy man but he still had time for his children. – File pic, January 14, 2015.Below is the full  Q&A with Johari, Nizam, Nazim and Nazir. Over the next few days TMI will be carrying the interviews with Musa, Lim, Ramon, Kassim Ahmad, Tan Sri Abdullah (Kok Lanas) Ahmad and Tan Sri Michael Chen on their thoughts on Razak and his legacy.

TMI: January 14, 2015, would be the 39th anniversary of the passing of your father Tun Abdul Razak. How would the family be marking the occasion?

Nizam: As with every year for the last 38 years we are holding tahlil prayers to mark the occasion. This is one day of the year that the family locks in the calendar. We invite family friends, relatives and the friends who were his contemporaries.

Nazir: This year it will be held at the Ar Rahah Mosque in Bangsar South.

TMI: 39 years is a long time ago but what do you remember of that day in January 14, 1976, and the days leading to his passing? We understand the children were not aware of how ill he was. Where were you then and when were you told that the illness was terminal?

Johari: I was with my father in London during his last days there. I was studying law at Lincolns Inn and it was during the Christmas holidays that he came to London. I was told that it was only for a check-up and I was not aware that it was for anything more serious. I remember that after he arrived, we went straight from the airport to the hospital and remember thinking that it was strange that we went straight to the London clinic. If it was only a check-up, there seem to be no reason why we had to rush there without checking into the hotel.

I was only told by the doctor a week before he died that he had been suffering from leukaemia  and that he was diagnosed around September 1969. In fact, the doctors had at that time told him that he had at the most two more years left. You can imagine the shock I felt when I was told by the doctor. It was almost unbelievable since as far as I knew, he was never sick and to suddenly be told not only that he had leukaemia but also that he did not have much longer to live.

In my naivety I asked the doctor how many more years did he have left? The doctor replied without mincing any words that it was not a matter of years or months or even weeks. It was only a matter of days.

He never told the family. The doctor told us not to discuss with him as he might be upset that we had been told. This might also indicate to him that he might not have longer to live and might adversely affect him. Till today, I am not sure why he did not want the family to know but my guess is he did not want us to worry. He also did not want any political instability which would probably arise if other people knew of his leukaemia and that he might not live much longer.

He kept working right up to the end and did not stop to take time off as many people would have if they were suffering from a terminal disease.

Nizam: I was 17 at the time, studying in England. We were excited when we received the news of our father coming to London during our Christmas holidays for a rest. I did not have any plans for Christmas except to stay in London so his visit was a welcome treat.

I was taken aback when I saw him alight from the plane. He looked terribly gaunt and not at all well but as we had been told he had been unwell and was coming to rest, I thought this was a normal ‘sick and then recover’ situation.

My father was hospitalised for some days. After he was discharged, I thought everything was going to be normal. My mother’s sudden appearance was not a surprise and did not set off any alarm bells. We had some memorable days in London with many walks in the parks and nostalgic visits to his favourite restaurants and shops.

In less than a week after his discharge he had a relapse and was readmitted to the hospital. It was then that I was taken aside by the doctor who informed me that my father was seriously ill. Like any child I didn’t want to consider any eventuality other than a recovery. However his condition steadily worsened and within a few days after being told he was seriously ill, he passed away. I was by his side when he passed away as it was my ‘shift’ early that morning.

One unforgettable incident when he was out of hospital was his insistence on buying me a present which was unusual because buying things for the children was normally my mother’s domain. My father actually followed me to buy a present. I eventually settled for a squash racquet. Little did I know that this was his “farewell” present.  He had bought something for everyone. Needless to say this racquet is treasured and has never been used.

Nazim: I was unaware of the seriousness of the illness, neither was I told that it was terminal. However when I was to postpone my return back to school when term started I realised that it was more serious than I had thought.

Nazir: I was 9 years old. I remember being left at home alone for a long time while he was being treated in London but I had no inkling of how ill he was. A few days before he died, Najib came back to KL so even more reason not to think of the worst.

Then one day I was told to pack my bags as he (Tun Razak) wanted to see me, and that Najib and I would be flying that night itself. Initially I was thrilled as I had never been overseas, and I was going all the way to London. I became a little worried when it dawn on me that something must be very wrong; we were breaking family protocol that said we only get to travel overseas after turning 10. But, I still did not think he was dying.

Then some hours later, before we left for the airport, the phone rang for Najib. I was next to him and listened as he reacted to the news that Dad had died. I was in complete shock.

TMI:  What was Tun Razak like as a father, politician and prime minister?

Johari: He was a loving but stern father who emphasised the importance of studying and getting a good job. He told us to always be humble and to help other less fortunate people. He sent us to boarding school so that we could learn to stand on our own two feet. He always felt that we might be spoilt staying at home with so many servants and other people being nice to us because we were the children of the prime minister. He was always very busy but had time to talk to me whenever I asked him any question.

Nizam: Despite being very busy as a prime minister, my father always kept a watchful eye over me especially on my academic performance. He never missed a report card. Quality time with him was limited though but we tried to make the most of what we had which was normally the lunches and dinners when he ate at home and post-dinner family time. Holidays did not always present good opportunities to spend time with him because there were always an entourage of people who followed him on trips and as a young child/teenager I was always in the “background”.

Nazim: As a father he was caring and was always very concerned about our well being and most of all our studies. He  charted my education and that became a target for me to complete them in the years to come.

TMI: What were the values that he as a father tried to inculcate into you as his son?

Johari: To work hard, to be humble and to respect and help other people.

Nizam: My way of learning his values was to observe the things he stood for. Humility, simplicity, honesty, hard work and frugality were some of the more important values I learnt from his conduct in life and in politics. I can never forget how careful he always was with government spending on himself and family.

He made sure of the distinction between private funds and public funds. Spending on family was always private. Additionally, my father never forgot that he was there to serve the people. His ultimate purpose was to uplift and improve the quality of life of the people. He never forgot where he came from and the hardship he had gone through.

He sent me at a young age to study in England because he knew that was the way I could grow up without being sheltered and having an easy life.

Nazim: He always stressed the importance and value of education, strong discipline, honesty and hard work. He always undertook his tasks very seriously, be it studies, sports or the positions he served in.

TMI: As his son, how are you trying to live up to those values now that you are a father with children of your own, and with responsibilities of your own whether in private or public service?

Johari: Of course, as a son, I do try to live up to his values and to inculcate the same values in my children.

Nazim: I try to measure up to his dedication, determination and above all his loyalty and hard work. He was passionate about his work and passionate about his goals in life.

TMI: As the prime minister, your dad was obviously a very busy man but on the occasions when there was family time, did he ever talk about his job and what he was trying to do and achieve for the country?

Johari: We were a relatively young family. He did not discuss his job directly with us as he wanted us to concentrate on our studies and not be distracted by political issues. We did listen to many discussions that took place in the house when other people were present. We also talked to his advisers and others working with him and by talking to them we learnt about his job and what he was trying to achieve for the country.

Nizam: Given that I was very young at that time (17) it would have been inappropriate to discuss serious national issues with me. In any case I was away studying in London from the age of 13 so there was not much occasion to do so even when I was older and able to understand national issues better. I do remember two occasions when he talked to me on national issues. The first was during the May 1969 incident. He was very upset at what had happened. I was 11 at that time and I remember he told me that fighting had broken out in the streets. He just couldn’t fathom how the situation could have deteriorated to that extent.

The second again an upsetting incident, concerned an aid that was offered to the country. It was obvious that he did not agree with the terms of the aid. He was furious, saying that he didn’t care if we didn’t get colour TV in Malaysia as long as Malaysians remained in control of its own destiny.

TMI: Your father took over as prime minister in the aftermath of the 1969 race riots and one of the first things he did was to stitch together a new coalition in Barisan Nasional by bringing in parties that were in opposition to the Alliance e.g. Parti Gerakan, the People’s Progressive Party, PAS, SUPP, just to name a few. The coalition that he founded is today under a lot of stress and facing a lot of challenges. Do you have any thoughts about this?

Nazim: The coalition was the best solution in the aftermath of the riots. It is now 39 years and society has changed (and)… the world has changed.

Nazir: It was a very different time and set of challenges. He was a democrat. When he had dictatorial powers in the aftermath of May 13th he chose to return power to Parliament as soon as possible even though many people around him tried to convince him to maintain NOC rule. He formed a bigger coalition of parties with BN as a legitimate way of lessening political tensions while preserving parliamentary democracy.

I think he would have realised that the BN formula would change and evolve over time. I believe that he had hoped that in 20 years (by 1990) the NEP experiment would have succeeded in eradicating poverty and closing the wealth disparity between races, and create the foundations for more conventional democratic politics.

TMI: How do you think your father would be remembered by Malaysians 39 years after his death? What do you think will be his enduring legacy?

Johari: As an honest man who worked tirelessly and selflessly for the country. He abhorred corruption and self-aggrandisement. His thoughts were always for the people. Their welfare was his priority. His focus was on the development of the country. Politics took a backseat for him.

Nizam: Of his many achievements, I believe rural development is his most enduring. Hence of all the titles accorded to former leaders, his was “Bapa Pembangunan”. Although prime ministers since then have not placed as much emphasis on rural development as he had done, the strategies and institutions he put in place have continued and endured long after his death. The restoration of democracy and uniting the country after 1969 and the formation of Barisan Nasional were his two other major achievements.

Nazir: Tun Razak should be remembered for dedicating his life to the nation. When he knew he was dying, he pushed himself harder at work. He was not interested in personal material gain and was in fact even more frugal when it came to government finances. So, even those who disagree with his politics or policies tend to respect the person.

He has been aptly dubbed the Father of Development. He was deputy PM from independence until he became PM, but under Tunku’s leadership style the DPM was like a chief operating officer in today’s corporate parlance. Therefore, he was the key figure behind so much of what happened in the first 19 years of Malaysia’s life – from rural development to education, to negotiating peace with Indonesia, to forming Asean.

I think it is also important to recognise that he left a great legacy of leaders for the future. He spotted and groomed the likes of Mahathir, Musa, Razaleigh, Badawi, Rafidah and Keng Yaik in politics and Zain Azraai, Navaratnam, Thong Yaw Hong, Sarji and Azizan in the civil service. Truly great leaders ensure their organisations succeed after they are gone, and even though he died suddenly, he had groomed a cadre of very capable leaders.

TMI:  If your father could speak to the people of Malaysia today, what message do you think he will convey to us – the people, the politicians and those who are in positions of power?

Nazir: I think he would say that it is time to set up another national consultative council, like he did in 1970, to discuss critical issues around preserving harmony and fostering unity amongst Malaysians. I think he would be shocked that it is 2015 and race and religion divide Malaysians even more today than during his time. – January 14, 2015.

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 14 January 2015, 8:13 am and is filed under
Najib Razak
,
nation building
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Paris: The world meets and marches in solidarity

Observer

14.1.2015

This is a message addressed to the Prime Minister written more in sorrow than anger. This is a plea.

A somber Sunday. I have just seen the CNN live telecast of the solidarity march.

A million and a half souls came together to condemn the barbaric murders in Paris earlier in week perpetuated by agents of terror associated with radical Islam, a minority of the billion plus followers of Islam.

The march drew leaders from across the globe. The scenes depicted heads of Government from across Europe; there were others from Asia and Africa. There were Muslim leaders – King Abdullah of Jordan; the Prime Minister X of Turkey; PM. Netanyahu of Israel; President Mahmoud Abbas of the Palestinian Authority marched with clasped hands.

The crowds waved flags of many nations – both Christian and Muslim. Islam clerics joined in the denunciation of the terrorists.

The scene portrayed an emotional outpouring of grief and defiance of the murderers who had not differentiated between Christian, Jew, or Muslim as the victims belonged to all three faiths.

As a Malaysian, I was overcome with shame and sadness, as there was no sign that my country was prepared to take a firm stand and join the vast majority in a united stand against those who preach and dispense terror and hate.

There was no Malaysian presence and not a single flag flew to signify that Malaysia was one with the rest of the world in sending a message to the forces of evil that murder and mayhem were not the answer to expressing feelings of being aggrieved.

There were pathetic remarks by some Malaysian leaders, past and present, offering justification for the catastrophic blood letting. Nor were there clerics who came forth to voice words of comfort.

The Prime Minister has speechified about the virtues of moderation on many occasions in foreign fora.

He has yet to speak to a domestic audience in the National Language on the same theme.

The events in the French capital elicited a brief comment; Wisma Putra issued a wishy-washy statement.

There was no effort by the Prime Minister to go to the French Embassy in Kuala Lumpur to sign the book of condolence or to join other world leaders uniting in Paris in condemnation of the murderous acts.

His weak reactions bring into question his sincerity and commitment to the message of moderation. His double speak has destroyed his credibility and claims to leadership as a moderate.

Regaining credibility and re-establishing his claims as a leader pledged to promoting moderation will demand actions to back his seeming hollow words addressed to selective audiences.

A number of demonstrable actions are within easy reach. These include:

•	Go to the ground and deliver the message of moderation;

•	Adopt a resolution in the March sitting of Parliament condemning terrorism;

•	Curb the vitriolic and hate filled messages carried by the media and NGOs;

•	Redouble efforts to prevent Malaysians joining or supporting the so-called Jihadist campaign;

•	At the international level, use Malaysia’s membership of the UN Security Council to propose a resolution condemning acts of terrorism;

•	In the capacity of ASEAN Chair, have ASEAN adopt measures to prevent nationals from lending support to or joining ISIS;

•	Lead OIC countries to take steps to deny support for groups espousing terrorism.

Any failure to take actions will be viewed by the world at large as a failure of leadership and less than full commitment to checking the forces of evil.

The Prime Minister has a choice: Act now to establish his legacy as a leader promoting moderation even as he attempts to push Malaysia into the ranks of developed nations or be labeled a weak and insincere leader who stood still even as forces of reaction perpetrated barbaric deeds and left the country a divided nation struggling to find a place among nations truly practicing moderation.

A Saddened Malaysian.

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 14 January 2015, 8:53 am and is filed under
Najib Razak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


What does ‘moderate’ mean?

By Hafidz Baharom

Free Malaysia Today

January 14, 2015

COMMENT

The writer disagrees with those who say that extremism is not a major Malaysian problem.

I would like to respond to the letter dated January 12 published in The Star entitled “Ethnic divide, not extremism is the problem” signed by 33 high-profile learned Malays from all walks of life . They argued that ethnic divide and not extremism is the major problem facing Malaysia.

I do not deny a growing ethnic divide. I take Shah Alam as an example. The citizenry of Shah Alam has always been majority Malay, yet in my time at primary and secondary school, we still had a large group of non-Malay friends in the classroom. Such is not the case these days.

However, this was not the issue highlighted by the open letter of the 25 retired civil servants to the Prime Minister. Instead, the letter focused on the internal struggle within the Malay community and, in particular, on those using religion as a mere tool to garner support.

In my definition, the fight against extremism is the struggle against those who insist on using the Malay community and Islam to call to behaviour that either is violent, instils fear, or is just plain ridiculous.

In other words, anything beyond moderate is “zalim” or extreme.

While the learned group of 33 has pointed out that we do have numerous houses of worship for all religions, is it not the Muslims who are stopping the building of new ones?

I take you back to Shah Alam, where such challenges have happened. A Hindu temple was proposed to be moved to a different location, and some saw it as a reason to rally Muslims to protest with the head of a cow not more than 500 feet from my house.

They stomped and spat on it, a symbolic insult to Hindus since they consider the cow a sacred animal. Is this not the work of extremists?

During the town hall discussion led by then Menteri Besar Tan Sri Khalid Ibrahim on this issue, some even threatened to hurl chairs while screaming expletives. Is this not extreme?

And Eric Paulsen has received death threats from Malay Muslims for wrongly quipping that Jakim was promoting extremism every Friday. I disagree with him, but I do not call for violence, because that would be an extremist response. Can those “moderates” you speak of in your letter say the same?

I see these acts of promoting violence as an abuse of Islam and as fitting my definition of extremism. The freedom to worship is guaranteed not only by the Federal Constitution, but by Islam itself. I would use the Emirate of Granada as an example. All were free to worship as they believed. Similarly, during Islamic Jerusalem, freedom to worship was allowed.

Agenda of vilification

Recently, Islam was used yet again to instil fear in the Malay Muslim community. The halal status of bottled water was questioned because a Hindu icon appeared on the label. I ask all 33 of you to consider; was there truly a threat to the halal status of water because of this? Would you not consider this extreme?

The learned group cannot deny that there is an agenda of vilifying Malaysians of other faiths using bogeyman tactics that have no standing in this country. For instance, suddenly a Korean pop band is not only considered as an agent to convert Muslims to Christianity, and at the same time also a Jewish agenda.

I do acknowledge the learned members’ point that moderation is relative to geographical location. But I am awed that the learned group considers Saudi practices as examples of moderation.

The question that the 25 retired civil servants raised was this: what truly defines a moderate in our own country’s borders? Where are the lines drawn between moderate, liberal and extreme as per our Federal Constitution?

The learned group does not address this point at all, but it is around this point that all other points raised by the G25 revolve. The group’s open letter to the Prime Minister was subsequently supported by the “I Am #26″ campaign.

I hold fast to the belief that a moderate and progressive Malay Malaysian community has somehow been left in the yesteryears, and pray that we all can get a proper platform to discuss how to reach that social equilibrium once more.

Until such a platform for intellectual discussion is in place, how can we know that your proposed solution to review the Federal Constitution is what every Malaysian wants?

I believe that coexistence within this multi-ethnic, multi-religious nation should be and must always be based on decisions made out of mutual respect. I note that this mutual respect is under threat by elements on both sides of the divide.

As such, let us all agree to have proper discourse on a proper platform, as the 25 retired civil servants have asked for. This will give the learned group and everyone else the opportunity to listen to the various viewpoints coming from Malaysians so that we can find a truly Malaysian definition of what it means to be a moderate. In other words, let us have a moderation of ourselves as Malaysians before we act.

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 14 January 2015, 11:55 am and is filed under
Malaysian Dream
,
nation building
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Malaysians should remember the first three Prime Ministers, Tunku, Razak and Hussein as under them, there was no question whatsoever that Malaysia is a liberal, democratic, multi-racial, secular state with Islam as the religion of Federation

Banker Datuk Seri Nazir Razak, the youngest son of our second Prime Minister Tun Abdul Razak, has said that his father would be shocked 39 years after his death –  57 years after Merdeka and 51 years after Malaysia – that  race and religion divide Malaysians even more today than during his time.

It is against this sombre backdrop of nation-building after five decades that we are gathered here to remember Tun Razak and his legacy to the country.

Last year, Malaysia was bedevilled by a host of  disasters and misfortunes like

(1) the two air crashes of MH370 on March 8 and MH 17 of July 17 with a total toll of 537 crew members and passengers of different nationalities, together with a third air disaster in a year Air Asia QZ8501 which crashed into Java Sea with 162 victims on Dec. 28;

(2)  the year-end worst floods catastrophe in living memory;

(3) the burgeoning multi-billion ringgit 1MDB scandal threatening to become the “mother of all financial scandals” in Malaysia;

(4) the disastrous Report of  Royal Commission of Inquiry into the “mother of all problems in Sabah”, the 40-year-old nightmare of illegal immigrants in Sabah, but which turned out to be the latest of the four-decade-old merry-go-round leading to nowhere;

(5) the bleak and gloomy economic picture with the  plunge in crude oil prices hitting a six-year low with Brent crude falling as low as US$45.19 and US crude as low as US$44.20 and the plunge in price of other commodities like palm oil and rubber;

(6)  the unprecedented rise of bigotry and extremism putting to the ultimate test the Merdeka and Malaysia national compacts of 1957 and 1963 to be a model to the world of successful multi-racial, multi-lingual, multi-religious and multi-cultural harmony, tolerance and co-existence.

Nobody would have thought that the problems of race and religion would have reached such serious a pass  in the midst of the myriad of disasters and misfortunes but undoubtedly one of the most significant events of the past year  and one of the brightest spots last year was the Open Letter to the Prime Minister by 25 Eminent Malays and the snowballing of support by ordinary moderate Malaysians, regardless of race, religion, politics or region, to save Malaysia from bigot and extremists.

Never before has an Open Letter by the citizenry struck such a resounding chord in our multiracial, multi-cultural and multi-religious nation, as evidenced by the enthusiastic support from all groups of Malaysian society, not confined to Malays and Muslims, like ‘I am #26’ online petition; “KamiJuga25″ (We, too, are 25), both signed by thousands of  supporters; 95 NGOs in Malaysia, 22 Muslim activists and a multitude of support demonstrated by diverse groups and strata of Malaysian society in the past month.

One thought struck me and it is pertinent to raise it as this forum, Would Tun Razak have kept the Eminent 25, who were former top civil servants whether from the educational, medical, judicial or diplomatic services, cooling their heels for over a month,  waiting for an appointment to hear out their pleas that the Prime Minister exercise leadership to get moderate Malaysians to stand up to the extremists who are destroying the  multi-ethnic and multi-religious fabric of the country?

I do not think so.

A Young Turk of Razak’s era, Tun Musa Hitam, said Razak’s legacy, together with the founding fathers of the nation like Tunku Abdul Rahman, Tun Ismail, Tun Tan Cheng Lock, Tun Sambanthan – and Tan Sri Wong Pow Nee and I was present at the launching of his biography “Unsung Patriot” in Penang last week – as well as the founding fathers from Sabah and Sarawak, was for our country to be multi-racial and multi-religious one and the well-being of all Malaysians.

During the debate on the Second Malaysia Plan in Parliament on in July 1971, I declared that DAP support  the overriding objective of the New Economic Policy (NEP) to achieve national unity and its two prongs to eradicate poverty and restructure society to eliminate the identification of race with economic function.

But as DAP and many others had warned, the NEP became  a major source of national division  because it was abused for the enrichment of Umno-putras in the name of the upliftment of bumiputras, with a 20-year policy extended into a 45-year policy.

Only last week, prominent local economist Tan Sri Kamal Salih advocated that the time has come to shelve the bumiputera agenda and focus the national effort on a national policy to uplift all Malaysians regardless of race.

Kamal Salih said Putrajaya must  go for the national agenda and create a national policy that is more inclusive. And if it does that properly, and avoid the pitfalls of the past,  it can achieve its economic goals without having this red flag of being a ‘Bumiputera agenda’.

As Kamal rightly pointed out, If you are trying to reduce inequality and reduce the gap between the rich and the poor, the beneficiaries will be largely Bumiputeras anyway.

As Kamal rightly pointed out, inequality was more prominent within ethnic groups, rather than between them, and poverty could no longer be defined along racial lines.

Ethnicity is no longer the basis for inequality. It has now become define) by income and the disparity between the rich and the poor, the gap between the CEO and the ordinary worker.

Musa Hitam said in The Malaysian Insider today that Razak was fully committed to the cause of multiracialism although within UMNO there was still a very strong lack of political willingness to accept a multiracial Malaysia.

As a result, “Pluralism” and “liberalism”, which actually translate into multiracialism, have become  “dirty words” currently and under intense attack by some Umno personalities as well as related groups.

This is why the Open Letter by the Eminent 25 with the floodtide of support by different sectors of the Malaysian population, regardless of race, religion or region, is very important and  significant, for it is nothing less than a reclamation of the politics of  multiracialism, moderation and inclusion which now faces the greatest  threat and challenge from the politics of racism, intolerance, extremism and exclusion.

Under the first three Prime Ministers, from Tunku Abdul Rahman, Tun Razak and Tun Hussein, in fact for 47 years from 1957 until 2001,Malaysia’s foundation as a liberal, democratic, l multi-racial and secular nation with Islam as the religion of the Federation was never seriously questioned or challenged. This was also the basis for Sabah and Sarawak’s Agreement, embedded in the 20 Points and 18 Points respectively for Sabah and Sarawak in the the formation of Malaysia in 1963.

For this reason, it would be a good idea if Malaysians remember the first three Prime Ministers, Tunku, Razak and Hussein as under them, there was no question whatsoever that Malaysia is a liberal, democratic, multi-racial, secular state with Islam as the religion of Federation.

In fact, the Rukunegara, which was drafted by the National Consultative Council (NCC) under the chairmanship of Razak after the May 13 riots, referred in its preamble to a just, democratic, liberal and progressive society.

This is why I believe that Tun Razak would have given the Eminent 25 more than a sympathetic hearing with regard to their Open Letter, instead of letting them cool their heels for more than a month.

I believe Tun Razak would have fully endorsed the Najib’s initiative in launching the iniative of the Global Movement of Moderates to  rally moderates of the world to marginalise the extremist everywhere, but he would be dismayed and exasperated by Najib’s total inertia to check the rise of extremists and bigots whose rhetoric and politics of hate and intolerance have plunged the country to the worst racial and religious polarisation in the nation’s history.

Nazir has offered the view that if alive today, Razak would say that it is time to set up another national consultative council, like he did in 1970, to discuss critical issues around preserving harmony and fostering unity amongst Malaysians.

This is the challenge of the times.

In my 2015 New Year Message, I had called for an emergency meeting of Parliament to, among other things (i) present a new budget 2015 and an National Economic Salvation Plan in the wake of fast-changing economic world; and (ii) a National Reconciliation Plan to save Malaysia and the world from bigots and extremists.

I think Tun Razak would have received these proposals more positively.

(Speech at the Roketkini forum “Remembering Tun Razak” at Mandarin Court Hotel, Kuala Lumpur on Wednesday, 14th January 2014 at 8.30 pm)

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 15 January 2015, 12:41 am and is filed under
Malaysian Dream
,
Najib Razak
,
NaturaL disaster
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Malaysia’s international reputation has been sullied enough by Zahid’s infamous letter to FBI and Najib must step in to clean up the mess or he would be no different from “Nero playing the fiddle while Rome burns”

On 5th January 2015, I said “The strange case of the Home Minister, Datuk Seri Ahmad Zahid Hamidi writing a letter to the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) vouching for the integrity of an alleged gambling kingpin has become ‘curiouser and  curiouser’”.

I do not think anyone would have expected that ten days later, this strange case of Zahid’s letter to the FBI and the Zahid-Phua-Shafee-Khalid quadrilateral tangle would become “curiouser, curiouser and even more curiouser”!

There was first the attempted clarification by Zahid claiming that his infamous letter to the FBI vouching for the character of  the alleged gambling kingpin Paul Phua Wei Seng –  asserting that Phua was a national asset for having helped the Malaysian government on “projects affecting our national security” and pleading for Phua’s release as “we continue to call upon him to assist us from time to time and as such, we are eager for him to return to Malaysia” – was merely to confirm that the “14K triad” did not exist in the country.

As I said at the time, Zahid would have failed his comprehension test in school if he really believed what he said about his infamous letter to the FBI.

Furthermore, all who believed Zahid’s infamous letter to the FBI was merely to confirm that the “14K triad” did not exist in the country would have also failed their comprehension tests in school as well.

In fact, Zahid has raised more questions than answers.

Firstly, it would appear that Zahid knew what the Inspector-General of Police and the police did not – that Phua had helped the Malaysian government on “projects affecting our national security” and that the Malaysian government was “eager” for Phua’s return to Malaysia so as to enable the Malaysian government to “continue to call upon him to assist us from time to time”.

What are these “projects affecting our national security” which Phua had rendered to the Malaysian government, how many of them, and why is it that the IGP and the police are completely unaware that Phua had been a “national asset”?

Furthermore, what are the “projects affecting our national security” which the Malaysian government is eagerly waiting for Phua’s return to Malaysia so as to call on him for assistance?

Malaysians and MPs from both sides of the House must be very concerned that there  are “national security projects” which the IGP and the Police are totally unaware of, which are privy only to the Home Minister?

Does the Home Ministry run a private police or army, since he seems to be able to conduct “national security projects” completely outside the ken of the IGP and the police?

Zahid was appointed Home Minister on 16th May 2013 after the 13th General

Elections.  In his 20 months as Home Minister, how many such “national security projects” had he been involved in which the IGP and the police knew nothing about?

In this connection, let the former Home Ministers, like Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Hussein, Datuk Seri Syed Hamid Albar, Dato’ Seri Mohd Radzi Sheikh Ahmad , Datuk Azmi Khalid and even Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi declare whether they had been involved in any such “national security projects” which the IGP and the police at the time were not privy to at all.

The second episode was the sudden interest of the Deputy Prime Minister, Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin in the case, when he told a media conference on Monday that the Cabinet did not discuss Zahid’s infamous letter to FBI at the first Cabinet meeting of the year on January 7, although it had already become the first scandal of the Najib premiership in the new year.

Muhyddin did not explain why he or no other Minister had raised the issue in Cabinet, but said that “any further elaboration of the matter would come after he had studied the issue at hand”.

He also made the startling statement that he was not aware of the differing versions being aired about Phua’s case by the latter’s lawyer Muhammad Shafee Abdullah and Inspector-General of Police Khalid Abu Bakar – although the literate population of Malaysia had been  agog about this discrepancy and Zahid’s infamous letter to FBI since the beginning of the new year.

The third “curiousest” incident came yesterday after the Cabinet meeting when Malaysiakini at 4 p.m. carried a report  that the Foreign Minister, Datuk Anifah Aman had told a press conference  that the Cabinet had heard Zahid’s explanation on his “confidential letter” to the FBI to clear the name of Phua, and the Cabinet agreed to accept his explanation.

No further details were forthcoming from Anifah on what was Zahid’s explanation, as the Foreign Minister told  reporters to ask Zahid himself about the explanation.

This led me to post four tweets, viz:

1. Said Foreign Minister Anifah Musa but he no details! http://goo.gl/DtOBsh Cabinet accepts Zahid’s kingpin letter explanation – Lee Long Hui (Mkini)

2. “We listened to explanation put forward by him and we had agreed to accept explanation given”. Who moved/seconded such motion? Any vote? result?

3. Or has Malaysian Cabinet become a gone case, nothing to be hoped from it? Malaysians deserve a more decent explanation on Zahid-Phua-Shafee-Khalid tangle!

4. PM Najib must speak up as leader of Cabinet and must bear full responsibility. If Cabinet accepts explanation, let Najib say so and explain!

Later, Malaysiakin reported that Wisma Putra clarified that the Cabinet did not “accept” the explanation but merely heard it.

I have heard the KiniTV recording of Anifah’s original comment, where he clearly said:

“Kita telah pun mendengar penjelasan diutarakan oleh beliau dan kita telah pun setuju menerima penjelasan-penjelasan yang telah pun diberikan.”

So it was not Malaysiakin’s fault.  Was Anifah forced to rectify what he had correctly told the press conference earlier?

What is noteworthy is that the Foreign Minister had kept mum about Zahid’s letter to the FBI claiming that the early release of Phua would further “good international relations between our two countries especially in the exchange of information”.

Anifah should explain whether the continued arrest and trial of Phua for illegal gambling in Las Vegas, Nevada would jeopardize the “good international relations”  between Malaysia and the United States, “especially in the exchange of information”.

The Anifah episode in the Zahid-Phua-Shafee-Khalid quadrilateral tangle has not brought any clarity but only further muddied the waters.

Malaysia’s international reputation has been sullied enough by Zahid’s infamous letter to FBI and the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak  must step in to clean up the mess or he would be no different from “Nero playing the fiddle while Rome burns”

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 15 January 2015, 8:08 am and is filed under
Muhyiddin Yassin
,
Najib Razak
,
Police
,
Zahid
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Razak’s NEP both a success and a failure, says ex-aide Abdullah Ahmad

BY
V. ANBALAGAN
, ASSISTANT NEWS EDITOR

Published: 15 January 2015 6:59 AM

The Malaysian Insider

A close confidante of Malaysia’s second prime minister, Tun Abdul Razak Hussein, has rated the country’s controversial affirmative action-based economic policy created by his boss as both a “great success and great failure”, 45 years after it was first implemented.

Tan Sri Abdullah Ahmad, who was Razak’s political secretary, said the New Economic Policy (NEP) had done well to lift the Malays out of poverty and increase the number of Malay professionals in all sectors.

But it has failed in its other objective of eradicating poverty regardless of race, Abdullah, better known as Dollah Kok Lanas, told The Malaysian Insider in an interview as part of a series to commemorate the 39th death anniversary of Razak who died on January 14, 1976.

Abdullah also noted what economists have been telling Putrajaya in recent times, that wealth inequality is no longer between races, but within each race, and in the case of the Malays, concentrated within an elite class.

“Some might argue that the enlarged national economy is indeed being shared across the three main races of the Malaysian society, but (this is) among the 1% or less. I have sympathy with this view.

“Economic policies must be implemented fairly for all, regardless of race or political affiliation, he said.

Abdullah, now 78, was a journalist when Razak took note of him and at age 26, he was appointed Razak’s political secretary. It was the first time such a position had been created in Malaysia.

Abdullah later became the Member of Parliament for Kok Lanas, a seat in Kelantan, and deputy minister. Seen as powerful and ambitious, he was said to be the envy of many for having Razak’s ear. After Razak died, Abdullah was detained under the Internal Security Act for allegedly being a communist.

In this interview, Abdullah shares his memories of working with his late boss, and puts Razak’s pro-Bumiputera economic policies in perspective amid today’s challenges.

TMI:
 What kind of person was Tun Razak to you as a leader, a friend and a colleague?

Abdullah:
 I worked for Razak for 14 consecutive years, uninterrupted from 1962 to 1976.

My designation changed once, from political secretary to deputy minister.

The job description remained the same, the addition being my ministerial duties.

My main role was to be Razak’s eyes and ears, and to say the things he could not; to shield him from foes and to ensure his policies and political directives were carried out.

My opponents loved to say I was his enthusiastic enforcer and the executioner of his words.

I worked with him and not so much for him. I was a colleague; maybe a junior colleague, but I was also a politician and perceived as one. Razak told me to always remember that I was an important member of his administration, but that I was not a member of the civil service.

Razak was a good leader and excellent administrator. He was not a talker but a doer. In modern parlance, he walked the talk. He shared and delegated power.

Results were important to him. The speedier, the better; persuasion, not coercion.

As a colleague, he was dependable, loyal and generous, though rewards came slowly for his close advisers and aide. We would be the last to be thanked and shake his hand.

TMI:
 Please share some of the memorable things he said, or personal experiences you had with him.

Abdullah:
 We were once in a helicopter on the way to inspect some rural projects in Sabak Bernam, Selangor, in the ’60s when we encountered some difficulties during the flight and almost crashed.

However, the Malaysian pilots, the first batch that had taken over from the foreign ones, skillfully brought the helicopter under control to land us safely.

Razak (then deputy prime minister) remained unperturbed throughout, in the tradition of the stiff upper lip, and calmly congratulated the pilots on a job well done.

There was another close shave in Bentong, Pahang, also in the ’60s, when a timber lorry missed our car by inches.

We were not being escorted by a procession of outriders which, even for the deputy prime minister, was unheard of in those days.

Razak’s response to the incident was again typical – he merely asked me to trace the timber company concerned and to enquire with them how such a near-miss could have happened.

TMI:
 What can you recall of him from the time he replaced Tunku Abdul Rahman as prime minister following the May 13, 1969 riots? Did you agree with the pressure against Tunku?

Abdullah:
 The Tunku was openly told by some young Umno turks, the likes of Dr Mahathir (Mohamad), Musa Hitam and some others that he should leave office and give the job to  Razak.

Senior leaders were more circumspect about saying this, so what happened was no surprise to insiders.

The Tunku and his supporters had fought back but gave up when they realised he would lose out in an open fight with the emerging younger group. I was not opposed to what you call “the pressure” because I was part of the group.

TMI:
 Razak set up the Barisan Nasional to replace the Alliance. Do you think this formula of one-race parties sharing power in an alliance is still relevant today, or should Malaysia move towards more inclusive, multiracial political parties?

Abdullah:
 Yes, it is still relevant though I wish it wasn’t because there is still no genuine multiracial party in Malaysia. The DAP is largely still Chinese-based and led; PKR is mainly Malay-based and led, and PAS says it is based on Islam.

It will be a long time before a genuinely multiracial party exists. On the contrary, the demographic trend is moving in the opposite (direction) to a multiracial society. Race-based parties will become stronger.

TMI:
 How do you evaluate Razak’s economic and social integration policies, particularly through the National Economic Policy (1970-1990), in the light of the last few decades – has the policy succeeded? What went wrong? What needs to change?

Abdullah:
 The NEP was a great success and great failure. It succeeded in enlarging the Malay middle class and the number of professional and incipient professionals in its ranks.

However, many of the NEP’s objectives remain unattained, especially the eradication of poverty regardless of race.

Its great failure is that it was not scrupulously implemented. Occupation is still identified with race in Malaysia – the Malays with the government service, including a burgeoning religious bureaucracy, and the non-Malays with the private sector.

Some might argue that the enlarged national economy is indeed being shared across the three main races of the Malaysian society, but (this is) among the 1% or less. I have sympathy with this view.

Economic policies must be implemented fairly for all, regardless of race or political affiliation.

TMI:
 What is Razak’s legacy to Malaysia today?

Abdullah:
 Razak restored stability and then harmony to the country after 1969. He then reinstated parliamentary democracy when he could have ruled by fiat as head of the National Operations Council.

This is in contrast to the trend of concentration of power by those who now hold office in order to make themselves less, not more accountable to the people. Or the current trend to make populist decisions for short-term personal gain rather than correct, objective ones in the long-term public interest.

Razak was much maligned but he was a public-spirited and strategic leader.

He also initiated Malaysia’s diplomatic relationship with China, the first Asean nation to do so in 1974. – January 15, 2015.

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 15 January 2015, 2:12 pm and is filed under
NEP
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.