Challenge of Pakatan Harapan is to convince  all voters  that the victims of the RM50 billion 1MDB scandal are the 30 million Malaysians as corruption is not a victimless crime

The challenge of Pakatan Harapan is to convince all voters that the victims of the RM50 billion 1MDB scandal are the 30 million Malaysians as corruption is not a victimless crime.

In normal crimes like theft, robbery or murder, it is easy to know the victims but corruption seems to be a remote and distant matter of little or no concern to the public, especially as there appears to be no victims.

This is however the greatest fallacy of all –  that corruption is a victimless crime.

It is not an easy or straightforward matter to convey the message to the ordinary rakyat that they are in fact the victims of mega scandals or major corruptions  like the 1MDB scandal, which has catapulted Malaysia to the global league as one of world’s leading corrupt nations in the past few years.

This is why Malaysia occupies the top three places in recent international rankings on global corruption, whether the third place in international website, foreignpolicy.com on the  world’s “worst corruption scandal in 2015”, TIME magazine’s ranking of “global corruption” or the Economist’s second placing in its second index of crony capitalism.

It is an indictment of the role,  responsibility and relevance of the three branches of government, viz the Executive, Parliament  and the Judiciary (as well as the Fourth Estate with regard to the printed media) that they have  allowed Malaysia to attain such international infamy and disrepute as a global corrupt nation  in a matter of a few years without any attempt to salvage the nation’s good name and reputation.

Even now, while the whole world is agog at the depth of deceit and the immensity of the nation’s first global financial scandal – the RM50 billion 1MDB scandal – all the national institutions in Malaysia are engaged in a great pretence and charade that the 1MDB scandal does not exist at all.

The only way to burst this balloon of pretence and charade  is for Malaysians to realise and understand that the RM50 billion 1MDB scandal is not a victimless crime, and that the  30 million Malaysians and future generations are the victims of this financial scandal as eventually the Malaysian government will have bear full responsibility for the 1MDB debts.

Parliament is meeting on Monday for two weeks. Will Parliament help to impress on Malaysians  that the victims of the RM50 billion 1MDB scandal are the 30 million Malaysians and future generations or will Parliament continue to be a party to the greatest public charade of all times in Malaysia that corruption is a victimless crime?

(Speech at the “Pantang Undur – Berani kerana Benar” ceramah at  Sungai Tong, Setiu on Friday, 13th May 2016 at 5 pm)

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 14 May 2016, 6:44 am and is filed under
Corruption
,
Financial Scandals
,
Najib Razak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


RM50 billion 1MDB scandal is equivalent to 100 years of Kelantan’s annual state budget

The Kelantan Amanah Chairman, Datuk Wan Abdul Rahim Wan Abdullah tells me that the annual budget for the Kelantan state is about RM500 million a year.

This would mean that the RM50 billion 1MDB scandal is equivalent to 100 years of Kelantan’s annual state budget – an indication of the enormity and magnitude of the nation’s first global financial scandal and why it is imperative that the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak who is also the Finance Minister should accept immediate and full responsibility and accountability for the worst  case of public governance in almost six decades of the nation’s history.

The 1MDB global scandal would be a leading issue in the Sungai Besar  and Kuala Kangsar parliamentary by-elections, with the nomination date fixed for June 5 and polling on June 18.

PAS contested on behalf of Pakatan Rakyat in both constituencies in the 13th GE in May 2013, with the PAS candidate losing by 399 votes in Sungai Besasr and 1,082 votes in Kuala Kangsar.

PAS candidates in the by-election in Sungai Besar and Kuala Kangsar will not get more votes in  either constituency in  the 2013 general elections, as their votes can only be lower, as PAS has alienated considerable segment of voters in both constituencies and is no more a Pakatan Rakyat component party.

The 2013 General Elections results would not be a reliable indicator of the voting trends for the PAS candidates in Sungai Besar and Kuala Kangsar, as  the 2004 General Elections would be a more correct reflection.

In the 2004 General Election, the PAS  candidate in the Sungai Besar constituency lost by a majority of 7,349 votes, securing 33.1% of the votes cast.

In Kuala Kangsar in the 2004 general election, the PAS candidate lost by a majority of 5,557  votes securing 32.9% of the votes cast.

These 2004 election statistics would be more relevant than either the 2008 or 2013 figures, which have to be taken into consideration if the primary objective is to consider how best to win the two by-elections to deliver a major setback for Najib with the 1MDB scandal as the major theme in the two by-elections.

As the Pakatan Harapan Presidents’ Council has to take a final decision on the two by-elections, let us  wait for its decision.

(Speech at the Parti Amanah dinner at Tok Bali, Pasir Puteh on Friday, 13th May 2016 at 9.30 pm)

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 14 May 2016, 12:10 pm and is filed under
Elections
,
Pakatan Harapan
,
PAS
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Why is Najib absconding to UK next week when he should be in Parliament to give full and satisfactory accounting on the exploding 1MDB global financial scandal?

It has been reported that the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri  Najib Razak  will be making a “working visit” to the United Kingdom from Sunday  to May 18 to promote investment between the two countries.

It would appear that Najib’s overseas itinerary had been planned to enable him to  avoid parliamentary responsibility and accountability with  Parliament  scheduled to reconvene on Monday.

Why is Najib absconding to UK  when he should be in Parliament to give full and satisfactory accounting on the exploding 1MDB global financial scandal?

Why is Najib going  away from the country  when he should have given top priority to his  attendance of Parliament among all his Prime Ministerial duties especially with the 1MDB scandal assuming such an explosive dimension?

All the pieces of the monstrous jigsaw puzzle of Najib’s RM50 billion 1MDB and RM4.2 billion ‘donation’ twin mega scandals seem to be  falling into place, proving among other things, that the twin 1MDB and “donation” scandals are in fact  one big mega financial scandal!

For the first time, SRC International is now linked to the 1MDB scandal. Also for the first time, international media reports are linking Najib’s RM4.2 billion “donations” to 1MDB, as well as linking 1MDB’s multibillion USD payments  to the mysterious British Virgin Island-registered firm Aabar Investment PJS Limited (as distinct from the Abu Dhabi firm Aabar Investment PJS) to Najib beneficiaries.

Instead of standing up in Parliament to give full and satisfactory accounting for the exploding 1MDB global financial scandal, including the presentation of a White Paper on 1MDB and setting aside three days for a full Parliamentary debate on 1MDB and  the PAC report on 1MDB, Najib has chosen to abscond overseas.

This is the height of Prime Ministerial irresponsibility and negligence!

Is there another Commonwealth Parliamentary democracy where the Prime Minister deliberately plan his overseas programme so that he could play truant from Parliament?

How many times have Najib commited such an  irresponsible Prime Ministerial  act in his six years as Prime Minister?

If Najib had to go to the UK, he should have made it to London yesterday so that he could play a leading role in the Global Anti-Corruption Summit in London hosted by the United Kingdom Government, as it is was the second most  important global anti-corruption conference held after the16th International Anti-Corruption Conference (IACC) in Putrajaya last September with the theme of “Ending Impunity: People, Integrity and Action”.

The 16th IACC was supposed to be the high-water mark of Najib’s six-year anti-corruption campaign and show-case him as one of the exemplary global leaders spearheading a transformation programme with anti-corruption as one of its core objectives.

But the 16th IACC  became a major flop and sham for Malaysia with Najib mired in his twin mega scandals to the extent that Najib had to cancel the keynote address he was scheduled to deliver.

But Najib’s absence from the Global Anti-Corruption Summit in London yesterday was probably a blessing in disguise for Malaysia, for it would otherwise have been an even more humiliating experience for Najib and Malaysia, as he would not be able to answer all the questions about the 1MDB scandal, just as he was unable to answer them at the 16th IACC Conference in Putrajaya last September, and he had to give it a most “humiliating” miss!

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 14 May 2016, 8:45 am and is filed under
Corruption
,
Financial Scandals
,
Najib Razak
,
Parliament
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


I have visited 130 parliamentary constituencies during my six-month suspension from Parliament and all Malaysians, regardless of race, religion or region want Najib to answer two simple questions about Najib’s global financial scandal – where the money came from and where the money had gone to!

This morning, I want to report to the voters of Gelang Patah that I have visited 130 parliamentary constituencies in the country during my six-month suspension from Parliament and I will return to Parliament tomorrow.

Only two days ago, I visited Kuala Terengganu, Marang, Setiu and Besut in  Terengganu and Pasir Puteh in Kelantan.

Wherever I went in the 130 Parliamentary constituencies in the past six months, Malaysians regardless of race, religion or region want Najib to answer the two simple questions about his global financial scandal – where the money came from and where the money had gone to!

I apologise to the people of Gelang Patah for being suspended for six months from Parliament, not because I had stolen, robbed, murdered or guilty of corruption, but because I had wanted the Prime Minister to answer two simple questions about his global financial scandals – Where the money came from and where the money have gone to.

Six months later, Najib has not been able to answer these two simple questions, but his twin mega scandals have continue to mushroom to become ever more monstrous, with Malaysia topping the global charts as among the most corrupt nations in the world like the third place in international website, foreignpolicy.com’s ranking of the world’s “worst corruption scandal in 2015” at the end of last year, TIME magazine’s second ranking of “global corruption” in March or the Economist’s second placing in its second index of crony capitalism early this month.

Six months ago, we were talking about Najib’s RM2.6 billion “donation” scandal and the RM42 billion 1MDB scandal – today, we are talking about Najib’s RM4.2 billion “donation” scandal and the RM50-55 billion 1MDB scandal!

The last few days probably saw a “game changer” in the international expose of Najib’s twin mega scandals in the past year, with the media in the United States, United Kingdom, Singapore and other countries zeroing in  on them, when the various pieces of the  monstrous 1MDB jig-saw puzzle seem to be falling into place, with the following revelations:

*that Najib’s twin 1MDB and “donation” scandals are in fact one big mega financial scandal!

*The SRC International  linked to the 1MDB scandal.

*Najib’s RM4.2 billion “donations” linked  to 1MDB, especially 1MDB’s multibillion USD payments to the mysterious British Virgin Island-registered firm Aabar Investment PJS Limited (as distinct from the Abu Dhabi firm Aabar Investment PJS) to Najib beneficiaries.

Najib can suppress all reporting about the 1MDB and his “donation” scandals inside the country, and even try to ban the scandal from being raised in Parliament but there is no way to stop the international media from endlessly exposing the various aspects of the nation’s first global financial scandal, as the 1MDB scandal is being investigated by at least eight other countries, in particular the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) in the United States.

If there is no basis  or truth in the mountain of international media reports about Najib’s twin mega scandals in the past year, Najib would have sued the various international publications, like Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, Financial Times of UK, Sydney Morning Herald and The Age of Australia, TIME, Economist as well as CNN and the American and Australian  television channels, for defamation till kingdom come – and it speaks volumes that Najib had not dared to sue anyone of the foreign media  which have continued to publish new exposes about Najib’s role in the 1MDB global scandal.

It is a matter of national shame that despite the fantastic leg-up and tip-offs given by the international media in the past year  based on the national investigations by foreign countries, the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) and the various investigative and enforcement agencies like the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission, Bank Negara and the Police have been such  abject failures in upholding the law to combat financial and corrupt malpractices in the 1MDB scandal.

Najib as the Prime Minister should be in Parliament to answer the two simple questions which had I pursued six months ago – Where have the money come from and where have the money gone to – but he had scooted off to United Kingdom on very weak excuses to avoid parliamentary responsibility and accountability.

DAP and Pakatan Harapan Members of Parliament will continue to demand full and satisfactory accountability for the 1MDB and “donation” scandal, which is why I had suggested four proposals in Parliament beginning tomorrow:

1. Tabling of the Auditor-General’s Report on 1MDB (both interim and final) to Parliament on first day of Parliament tomorrow.

2. A White Paper by Najib to give a comprehensive account on the latest on the 1MDB scandal;

3. Three days set aside for a wide-ranging debate in Parliament on 1MDB; and

4. Directive to the PAC to re-open investigation into the 1MDB scandal.

(Speech at the final kopitiam ceramah in the six-month “Pantang Undur – Berani kerana Benar” nation-wide tour in Gelang Patah on Sunday, 15th May 2016 at 9 am)

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 15 May 2016, 12:03 pm and is filed under
Corruption
,
DAP
,
Financial Scandals
,
Najib Razak
,
Parliament
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Johor should take  over the baton from Sarawak to be the vanguard for political change in Malaysia

At the mid-point of the 11th Sarawak state general election campaign on April 30, I warned that seven of the 13 seats carved out of the 12 State Assembly constituencies won by DAP in last general election were in “danger list” for the May 7 poll.

A week later, on Polling Day, I was proved right when DAP could only win  seven of the 12 seats won five years ago.

DAP Sarawak fought the 11th Sarawak state general election with two objectives:

(I) to defend and win the 13 State Assembly seats carved out of the 12 DAP seats

 won in the last general elections; and

(2) to achieve a breakthrough in the Dayak-dominated seats to expand DAP support from the urban areas.

I had hoped that DAP candidate Modi Bimol could win the Tasik Biru state assembly seat, and that was why I was in Tasek Biru on Nomination Day.

But the combined artillery and firepower of the Barisan Nasional national and state “heavyweights” including the Sarawak Chief Minister and the Malaysian Prime Minister who led  a long queue of State and Federal VIPS to descend on  the constituency with monetary offers and other goodies, succeeded in foiling Modi from the DAP election breakthrough. In the event, Modi lost by 1,288 votes.

I had right from the beginning of the election campaign acknowledged that the 11th Sarawak state general election was not about deciding who would be the Sarawak Chief Minister and who would form the Sarawak State Government as both these questions had already been  decided on Nomination Day –  i.e. Adenan Satem as Sarawak Chief Minister and Sarawak Barisan Nasional as the Sarawak State Government.

I even said that the goal of denying Adenan two-thirds state assembly majority would be quite impossible, as it would mean the Opposition collectively electing at least 28 State Assembly seats in Sarawak.

What was achievable was to elect a strong, effective and principled Opposition team in the Sarawak state assembly to ensure that Adenan keeps his host of election promises and equally important, ensure that Adenan does abuse his powers as the Sarawak Chief Minister for the next five years.

DAP suffered a major defeat in the 11th Sarawak general election held last Saturday, reduced to seven state assembly seats from the 12 won five years ago in the 20111 Sarawak state general election.

It was unfortunate that Pakatan Harapan could not present a united team in the Sarawak state general elections, but the 11th Sarawak state general elections were most  favourable to  Sarawak Barisan Nasional because of the “Abdullah effect in 2004 General Elections”  with Adenan as the  new Chief Minister  after 33 years of Taib Mahmud as  Chief Minister – as well as Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak fighting for his “political life”.

From the results of the 11th Sarawak state general elections, it was obvious that even if Pakatan Harapan had been to present an united front, the Sarawak election results on May 7 would not be very different with BN winning from 70 to 72 seats in the 82-seat Sarawak State Assembly.

DAP suffered a major defeat in the May 7 Sarawak state elections, but  it was not the most devastating defeat that DAP had suffered in our 50 year history.

In the 1999 general election, for instance, DAP was reduced to 10 Parliamentary seats and a single seat in the Penang State Assembly, when in 1986, DAP had  won 24 Parliamentary seats while in the 1990 general election, DAP had won 14 Penang State Assembly seats.

Even Karpal Singh and myself lost in  the parliamentary elections in 1999.

But we did not give up and surrender. Today, thanks to the perseverance, stamina and commitment of DAP leaders and supporters, DAP is the second largest party in Parliament after UMNO, leading the Penang State Government and part of the Selangor DAP State Government, with the most number of State Assembly seats in the country.

I am confident that the electoral debacle and reverses  of DAP Sarawak  in the recent Sarawak state election would become  a stepping stone for the Sarawak DAP to achieve greater heights than in the past in its political struggle to be a political party for all Sarawakians – not only in the urban but also rural areas;  the voice not only the  Chinese but also  Dayaks and Malays in Sarawak.

Sarawak had played the role as the vanguard for political change in Malaysia  for the past ten years.

The 2006 Sarawak general election with the historic result in the election of six DAP Sarawak State  Assemblymen was the prelude to the “political tsunami” in the 11th Malaysian General Election in 2008, which saw UMNO/BN losing its two-thirds parliamentary majority for the first time and UMNO/BN’s loss of five state governments – Kelantan, Kedah, Perak, Selangor and Penang.

The 2011 Sarawak State general election which saw DAP State Assemblymen doubled from six to 12 was the prelude to the 13th General Election in 2013, which would have changed Federal Government in Putrajaya if the democratic system was fair and democratic, not marred by constituency gerrymandering, as 53 per cent of the electorate voted for Putrajaya change of government.

Sarawak cannot perform a “triple” in the 2016 State General Election to continue to be in the vanguard for political change in Malaysia, needing a respite before returning to the forefront for  political change and meaningful development.

Johor must now take over the baton from Sarawak to be the vanguard for political change in Malaysia.

This role of being the vanguard for political change in Malaysia now falls on the shoulders of Johor and the leaders of Johor DAP and Johor Pakatan Harapan must rise up to the occasion to assume this new and great national responsibility and challenge.

(Speech at the DAP kopitiam ceramah in Pontian on Saturday, May 14, 2016 at 9 pm)

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 15 May 2016, 7:39 am and is filed under
DAP
,
Elections
,
Johore
,
Sarawak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Four ways for Najib and Parliament to redeem their abject failure to ensure responsibility and accountability for first global financial scandal in nation’s history

I have visited 130 parliamentary constituencies in the country in my nation-wide “Pantang Undur – Berani kerana Benar” nation-wide tour during my six-month suspension from Parliament in October last year.

Only three days ago, I visited Kuala Terengganu, Marang, Setiu and Besut in  Terengganu and Pasir Puteh in Kelantan.

Wherever I went in the 130 Parliamentary constituencies in the past six months, Malaysians regardless of race, religion or region want the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razal to answer the two simple questions about his global financial scandal – where the money came from and where the money had gone to!

I had not  stolen, robbed, murdered or guilty of a global corruption to the tune of RM50 – 55 billion and I shall persist in my  demand that  the Prime Minister must answer two simple questions about his global financial scandals – Where the money came from and where the money have gone to.

After my six-month suspension from Parliament, Najib has not only been unable to answer these two simple questions,  his twin mega scandals have continue to mushroom to become ever more monstrous, with Malaysia topping the global charts as among the most corrupt nations in the world like the third place in international website, foreignpolicy.com’s ranking of the world’s “worst corruption scandal in 2015” at the end of last year, TIME magazine’s second ranking of “global corruption” in March or the Economist’s second placing in its second index of crony capitalism early this month.

Six months ago, we were talking about Najib’s RM2.6 billion “donation” scandal and the RM42 billion 1MDB scandal – today, we are talking about Najib’s RM4.2 billion “donation” scandal and the RM50-55 billion 1MDB scandal!

But we are no nearer to finding out answers to two simple questions, which resonate throughout the country among Malaysians, regardless of race, religion or region: Where the money in the global financial scandals  came from where the money have gone go!

The last few days have probably been a “game changer” in the international expose of Najib’s twin mega scandals in the past year, with the media in the United States, United Kingdom, Singapore and other countries zeroing in  on them, when the various pieces of the  monstrous 1MDB jig-saw puzzle seem to be falling into place, with the following revelations:

•        that Najib’s twin 1MDB and “donation” scandals are in fact one big mega financial scandal!

•        Najib’s RM4.2 billion “donations” linked  to 1MDB;

•        The linking of SRC International  to the 1MDB scandal.

•        MDB’s multibillion USD payments to the mysterious shell companies like  British Virgin Island-registered firm Aabar Investment PJS Limited (as distinct from the Abu Dhabi firm Aabar Investment PJS) linked  to Najib beneficiaries and personalities closely associated with Penang billionaire Jho Low.

Najib can suppress all reporting about the 1MDB and his “donation” scandals inside the country, and even try to ban the scandal from being raised in Parliament but there is no way to stop the international media from endlessly exposing the various aspects of the nation’s first global financial scandal, as the 1MDB scandal is being investigated by at least eight other countries, in particular the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) in the United States.

If there is no basis  or truth in the mountain of international media reports about Najib’s twin mega scandals in the past year, Najib would have sued the various international publications, like Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, Financial Times of UK, Sydney Morning Herald and The Age of Australia, TIME, Economist as well as CNN and the American and Australian  television channels, for defamation till kingdom come – and it speaks volumes that Najib had not dared to sue anyone of the foreign media  which have continued to publish new exposes about Najib’s role in the 1MDB global scandal.

It is a matter of national shame that despite the fantastic leg-up and tip-offs given by the international media in the past year  based on the national investigations by foreign countries, the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) and the various investigative and enforcement agencies like the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission, Bank Negara and the Police have been such  abject failures in upholding the law to combat financial and corrupt malpractices in the 1MDB scandal.

Najib as the Prime Minister should be in Parliament to answer the two simple questions – Where have the money come from and where have the money gone to – but he had scooted off to United Kingdom on very weak excuses to avoid parliamentary responsibility and accountability.

I had suggested four ways for Najib and Parliament to begin to redeem  their abject failure for over a year to ensure responsibility and accountability for the  first global financial scandal in the nation history, viz:

1. Tabling of the Auditor-General’s Report on 1MDB (both interim and final) to Parliament on first day of Parliament tomorrow.

2. A White Paper by Najib to give a comprehensive account on the latest on the 1MDB scandal;

3. Three days set aside for a wide-ranging debate in Parliament on 1MDB; and

4. Directive to the PAC to re-open investigation into the 1MDB scandal.

Let the nation and the world see whether Najib and Parliament are capable of living up to their  responsibilities in this fortnight of parliamentary meeting.

(Media Conference Statement in Parliament on 16th May 2016 at 10 am on his return to Parliament after six-month suspension)

                This entry was posted on Monday, 16 May 2016, 4:40 pm and is filed under
Corruption
,
DAP
,
Financial Scandals
,
Najib Razak
,
Parliament
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Learning Islam From Muslims, and Muslims Learning Islam

Bakri Musa

16th May 2016

A Review of Shahab Ahmed’s What Is Islam. The Importance of Being Islamic

Second of Two Parts

            In the first part of my essay I recalled Shahab Ahmed’s elegant albeit oxymoronic phrase “coherent contradictions” to describe the dizzying diversity and puzzling perplexities that are the norms in Islam, then and now.

As for “reforming” Islam, the current fetish among Muslims and non-Muslims alike, Ahmed did not have much praise or hope for these reformers, ancient or modern. This was not out of any Islam-does-not-need-reforming sentiment, rather that those reformers limited themselves to reading only the Text (Koran) and then were consumed with their arcane legalistic and hermeneutical interpretations. They ignored the “Pre-Text” and “Con-Text,” or more crucially, how Islam is believed, practiced, and contributed to by Muslims past and present, scholars and ordinary believers alike.

            Or in Shahab Ahmed’s words, “how Islam makes Muslims as Muslims make Islam.” Much can be learned about Islam, and about Muslims, from just that.

            We can only learn if we do not let ourselves be trapped by the limitations of language but instead continually explore the greater, wider, and deeper meanings of those words, imageries and metaphors. This applies not only to learning the Koran but also other Revelations, and indeed any readings.

            This exploration would necessitate the constant questioning and reappraising of the presently accepted. As per Sa’adi’s Gulistan, only three things have no durability without their concomitants:  wealth without trade, knowledge without debate, and rulers without justice.

            The rapid expansion of the knowledge of Islam and of the faith itself during its first few centuries was attributable in part to the robust and often none-too-peaceful debates among its adherents. Consider the battles between the literalist Kharijites and the rationalist Mu’tazilites that still rage to this day, or the theological argument whether the Koran was created or eternal. As for the prophet, even he was challenged, and often, to demonstrate the legitimacy of his mission and prophethood.

Followers of the various sects and fiqhs harbor profound and irreconcilable differences, yet they all profess to read and learn from the same Koran and abide by the teachings of the same Prophet Muhammad.

            Muslims today look longingly to the glorious days of early Islam with the effervescence of its intellectual and other activities. We would do well to examine what was with the environment then that made those early Muslims so productively prolific and creative. Instead we are content with endlessly praising the prophet and those early Muslims while failing to emulate their sterling examples.

For one, those ancient Muslim scholars did not shy away from learning even from the atheistic Greek philosophers. To those early Muslims, knowledge is knowledge, and thus worth pursuing. They did not differentiate between secular and religious knowledge or the equally futile current pursuit of its “Islamization,” a particular fad of contemporary Muslim scholars especially those from the Third World, as exemplified by the late Syed Naquib Al Attas.

Today we shy away from learning from the so-called kafir West. Instead we are content to denigrating its evident shortcomings instead of emulating its spectacular successes.

            As for dealing with our differences, Muslims have failed to learn from our own Prophet Muhammad. Legend has it he had instructed his followers who were on a journey to meet at a certain place for their Asar prayers. One group was delayed, and arguments arose within whether they should stop for their prayers or rush on so they could pray together with the prophet at their agreed-upon destination. When they later brought up their disagreement to Prophet Muhammad, his answer was simple. Both interpretations were correct. His central message was that they should stay together and not endanger themselves by separating from each other. This simple wisdom, that there could be more than one valid interpretation, still baffles many.

As per the Koran, Allah will not let his ummah go astray. Meaning, listen to the ummah. This was what Shahab Ahmed did; and we are the beneficiaries of his worthy endeavor.

            When there are differences, we must first ascertain that they are real and not apparent. When you say that an object is blue and I say it is green, the difference may be with the lenses we are wearing or the light under which we view the object instead of its intrinsic color. Even where the differences are real, they may be of the blind-men-and-the-elephant fable variety, meaning only the details vary but the underlying beast or principle is the same.

            The mission then should be not to denigrate or belittle our differences, or allow them be sources of strife, rather to let them be the stimulus or inspiration for us to explore and deduce the underlying unifying principle.

            Consider the universal law of gravity, as demonstrated by the simplistic Newton’s apple falling to the ground observation. Expressed thus, it is readily comprehensible by the masses.

            However if one were to be on a Ferris wheel and at a sufficiently high speed where the centrifugal force exceeds gravitational pull, and then let the apple fly out of our hands while at the top of the ride, the apple would “fall” towards the sky, at least for a brief moment. This is the same principle used to train astronauts where they would be momentarily weightless as the plane makes a sharp arc dive towards the ground.

            The apple “falling” up to the sky contradicts Newton’s observation, but if we were to understand the underlying principle of gravitational pull expressed elegantly by the formula F=G x M1M2/r2 (where F is the force, M the masses, r the distance between the two bodies, and G a constant), then the two observations of the apple falling to the ground and to the sky are not contradictory but illustrative of the same underlying principle.

            Contradictions in Islam are often of this nature, as well as that of the blind-men-and-the-elephant variety. We must continue exploring the meaning of the Koran. We may never discover the ultimate truth, for in the words of the Koran, Allahu alam (only Allah knows), but the search itself can be very enlightening.

            We may not be able to discern or extrapolate exactly the shape of the elephant from the various contradictory accounts, but if we could just appreciate the fact that they are all manifestations of the same beast, then we are already far ahead.

            Going back to my Minanagkabau tradition of inheritance going only to daughters, this contradicting of the Koran may be illusory and that at the core my culture and the Koran are expressing the same sentiment. That is, inheritance should go to those who would look after their ageing parents, or be in a position to do so. In Bedouin culture, as per the “Pre-Text” of the Koran, that would be the sons. With my matriarchal Minangkabau culture where sons are traditionally engaged in merantau (wanderlust) and with more than a few expected not to return, that responsibility of parental care would fall on the daughters.

            As for ancestor worship, again here we are trapped by words. There is a definite difference between respecting and honoring our past heroes and luminaries by building mausoleums and monuments in their honor, versus ancestor worship. However it is also not difficult to imagine the former degenerating into the latter, again demonstrating Ahmed’s spectrum and axis of values.

            Similar controversy rages among Muslims with respect to observing Maulud Nabi, the prophet’s birthday. Are Muslims “celebrating” it in the manner of Christians with their Christmas or are we “honoring” the prophet by recalling his wisdom and exemplary qualities on the occasion of his birthday?

            As has been tragically demonstrated far too often, words, like sticks and stones, can really hurt you, especially words of the Revelation.

            Shahab Ahmed’s greatest contribution to Muslims with this book is his message for us to continue exploring the varied meanings of the words, imageries, metaphors and other elements of language used in the Koran before those words hurt us, and others. At the pragmatic level, by learning and familiarizing ourselves with the various manifestations of Islam we would be able to get a better understanding of this great faith.

            For non-Muslims, this book will enlighten them as to the vast and infinite manifestations of Islam. This appreciation will help them understand that when a Muslim undertakes an action in the name of Islam, that’s only his particular vision of the faith. The whole Muslim ummah thus should not be condemned, praised, or in any way be held responsible.

            Though modestly priced and readily readable, this book is unlikely to get wide readership especially among Muslims in the Third World. There the reading culture is at best rudimentary and the oral tradition is still strong. Witness the mega crowds at sermons and religious lectures. If that is not already a severe obstacle and burden, then there is the penchant of Muslim leaders to ban books carrying views at variance to those accepted by the authorities.

            The ideas presented in this book could albeit with great difficulty be compressed into an hour’s lecture and then distributed in the social media. If some enterprising soul were to do that, Shahab Ahmed’s ideas and illuminating perspectives would get a wider audience. Granted an oral presentation would not have the same impact or retentive power as a book. For that, it would be far more productive if there were to be a Readers’ Digest version of this volume, translated in the various languages used by Muslims. This book could be considerably abridged and made much thinner by dispensing with the detailed documentations and lengthy quotes. Having it in paperback edition would also make it more affordable in the greater Muslim world.

            Spreading Shahab Ahmed’s ideas far and wide would be a splendid way to honor this brilliant young thinker, quite apart from disseminating a much more enlightened view of our great faith.

                This entry was posted on Monday, 16 May 2016, 3:11 pm and is filed under
Bakri Musa
,
Islam
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Victory and insecurity – Sarawak results and trajectories

By
Bridget Welsh

13 May 2016, 11:25 am

Malaysia Kini

With the ‘landslide’ results of the Sarawak election last week, it would appear on the surface that Malaysia’s Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak has been given a political reprieve. His close ally Sarawak’s Chief Minister Adenan Satem secured an overwhelming majority of 72 out of 82 seats, or 87 percent of the seats.

The Barisan Nasional (BN) coalition gained 8.3 percent of the popular vote, to a total of 63.7 percent compared to the 55.4 percent it won in 2011.

It would seem that the message sent across the world was that Sarawakians support the BN. They appear to care little for corruption, abuse of power, an electoral system that relies on massive vote buying, gross distortions of electoral constituencies and abuse of political position against opposition alternatives.

They were not moved by one of the most serious global money-laundering scandals. In fact, while this may be true for some of the electorate, this reading of the election is not complete.

The Sarawak results point to Malaysia’s opposition’s weaknesses and potentially even more debilitating trends ahead, as hope for change through the ballot box is deteriorating. At the same time, the BN ‘victory’ also should be understood of as hollow, as the Sarawak ‘victory’ foreshadows serious problems ahead for the incumbent leadership at both the state and national levels.

A decisive Pakatan defeat

A preliminary analysis of the results at the seat and polling station levels suggests that the election results were as much about the opposition than the government. The Sarawak 2016 election reveal serious fundamental electoral weaknesses for the opposition that go well beyond the 8.3 percent swing toward the BN. The results show that the BN has seriously undercut the opposition’s traditional political base.

While further work is necessary to study the data and these assessments below are preliminary, the initial statistical analysis of the results suggests three important findings.

First of all, voter turnout levels fell across all the different ethnic communities, except the Orang Ulu. This largely rural ethnic community remained highly engaged in the campaign, as new seats were created and competitive contests in places such as Marudi, Mulu and Ba’kelalan and higher mobilisation by the BN machinery brought more Orang Ulu to the polls.

The 2016 Sarawak voter turnout numbers across communities were higher when compared to the 2011 state elections, but dropped significantly when compared to the 2013 general election. The largest declines were among Malays, followed by Chinese. The turnout results suggest that more Malaysians are less enthusiastic about the electoral options.

This lower turnout was especially impactful for the opposition, which has weaker machinery and relied on connecting to voters through issues. The opposition pull to the polls weakened, as the opposition did not inspire.

The voter turnout patterns also show the trend discussed earlier of the BN using the rural areas as its base, as turnout in rural areas remained high due to mobilisation through better machinery and resources. Despite the opposition moving into rural constituencies, the BN capitalised on its advantage in these areas.

The second major shift in voting occurred in support levels for the BN by ethnicity and place. The biggest swing in support for the BN when compared to earlier elections occurred among the Orang Ulu, with an estimated 15.1 percent swing from 2013 in favour of the incumbent government.

This was followed by an estimated 9.5 percent swing among the Chinese. There was a considerably more moderate boost for the BN among Iban and Bidayuh, estimated at 3.3 percent.

What these findings show is that the communities that were most inclined to support the opposition in Sarawak have swung back to the BN. In short, the base of the opposition support has been seriously undercut in 2016. Fence-sitters and swing constituencies returned to the BN fold.

We also see a pattern where the opposition is losing ground in urban areas, with an estimated 10.5 percent gain in support for the BN in these areas. A similar gain of an estimated 10.3 percent was made in semi-rural areas, with the least ground made for the BN in rural areas, an estimated swing of 7.1 percent.

To put this another way, the opposition did not lose as much in rural areas (so some of the rural engagement did have an impact despite the higher mobilisation by the BN), but lost ground in the core areas where it has traditionally won support and in areas where it was making headway electorally.

The third finding in voting is that the opposition is losing support among the young. Looking at a preliminary (and as yet incomplete) sample of saluran data, we see a narrowing of the generation gap, with younger voters more inclined to vote for the BN than in previous elections. Large number of Sarawakian youth do not register, but those that did register were less inclined to support the opposition this time round than in the last two elections.

The estimated swing among youth toward the BN compared to the 2013 election was 7 percent. Here too, this points to a deterioration of opposition support among a key group that it was winning.

Dissecting the opposition losses

Much has been made about the multi-corner fights between opposition parties, especially between DAP and PKR. This issue dominated the first few days of the campaign and sent the clear message to the Sarawak electorate (and the Malaysian electorate more generally) that the contest was about position and positioning rather than meaningful representation.

PKR proved itself the most ineffective in managing its electoral alliances as it fought battles against DAP and PAS, but ultimately voters rejected all of them. No political party made gains.

While the numbers alone suggest that the BN would have won seats such as Batu Kitang and Mulu without opposition squabbling, the symbolic importance of the infighting should not be underestimated. It showed an opposition that was insecure working together and self-centredly focused on victory for individual parties and individuals.

Beyond this message, the main change in the 2016 campaign was the fact that the opposition did not cooperate in campaigning. Rarely did opposition members from different political parties work together on the ground, or appear together in a ceramah. Working in silos affected machinery and engagement with voters across ethnicities.

For example, one cannot underestimate the limited ability of the DAP to appeal across races, when its campaign was conducted largely in Chinese dialects, especially in the urban areas. To understand the swing away from the opposition in these urban and semi-urban areas, one has to look at the capacity of all the political parties to cross the ethnic divide.

All showed weaknesses, as ethnic majority campaigning predominated. Urban and semi-urban areas are increasingly multi-ethnic, and non-Chinese. The DAP losses in Batu Kawah, Meradong and Piasau were affected by limited cross-ethnic appeals. A similar problem existed for PKR in Jepak and Machan. The impact of this was especially potent after the 2015 gerrymandering.

There were declines in the majority of Chinese across many of the opposition seats and more mixed seats. The BN won the most from the opposition’s declining multi-ethnic appeal, as gerrymandering made the short-comings in bridging ethnic communities even more prominent. Sarawak 2016 showed that in electoral appeals all of the opposition political parties is limited. They cannot go it alone and expect to win.

Another factor that affected the opposition was perception of the stakes involved in the contest. Voters across Sarawak did not see the 2016 polls as changing the national or state landscape. Pakatan Harapan was not perceived as a viable national alternative, because it did not act or present itself as such. Adenan was touted to win well before polls began, and many did not see a difference with a greater opposition presence at the state level.

In fact, the opposition was among some perceived as increasingly irrelevant. In a period of economic decline and uncertainty, voters opted for the familiar rather than the unknown, the functioning rather than the dysfunctional, the winner rather than the loser. Chinese voters in particular, especially businessmen, opted for access to the state government rather than distance.

Financially, many opted not back a loser, as donations to the opposition fell sharply. The opposition’s capitalisation of anger and protest in a negative campaign, failed in its delivery of a positive reason to vote for it. Not only did the opposition underestimate the anger toward the BN, it underappreciated the anger toward itself for failing to offer a substantive reason to vote for it. Many no longer believe the opposition’s electoral promise that is can bring about change.

Unless the opposition is able to gain a significant foothold in the Borneo states of Sarawak and Sabah, which comprise 20 percent of the total seats in the federal parliament, it will not be able to win national power. Moreover, unless it is able to resolve festering internal problems and to reconnect with critical swing groups in the electorate, the Sarawak 2016 swing will replicate itself in the next general election to be held by the end of the 2018 (or even sooner).

Insecurity is dominant within the opposition, as infighting and mutual destruction has eroded and are further eroding their chances of electoral victory.

Adenan’s not so secure win

At the same time, the Sarawak 2016 election showed that insecurity was a key driver for the BN, in the money spent/promised, the abuse of power by banning people, the delineation and overall overkill nature of the campaign. Now both Adenan and Najib face serious post-electoral challenges, with the former already a lame duck and the latter trying to duck serious international investigations in a scandal that will financially impact generations of Malaysians.

Adenan faces two immediate challenges. He has to choose a successor and the future team. Attention is already moving after the polls for jockeying for position and parties. The focus is turning towards positioning individuals and parties not only in the Adenan government, but also in a post-Adenan one.

The infighting within the BN will intensify, including within his own party, Parti Pesaka Bumiputera Bersatu (PBB). Arguably one of the most serious electoral challenges to the BN in Sarawak came from disenchanted former BN candidates, in seats such as Ngemah, Serembu, Tamin and Simanggang, and candidates supported by opposing BN camps such as in Dudong. Independents won 4.9 percent of the overall vote.

Electoral history in Malaysia such as in 1995 and 2004 show that large electoral victories are often followed by internal splits, and this is already happening in Sarawak. BN fragmentation remains serious. Adenan is not as strong as he appears. He lacks the resources to use patronage as effectively as his predecessor, and as he has stated he is only a one-term CM, he has limited ability to use fear and loss of position to keep the BN in line.

Adenan’s weakness is accentuated by the fact that he has raised expectations and faces structural problems in delivery to voters. A la Pak Lah, everyone expects Adenan to meet his promises.

From assuring that the 40 percent of Christians in Sarawak that their rights will not be violated to educators expecting greater control over the curriculum, Adenan has to go beyond words to actions. Adenan has made the fatal mistake of overpromising and importantly promising conflicting things to different groups.

If there is one area that is perhaps the most difficult for Adenan to deliver on his promises, it involves the economy. Sarawak is now facing negative global conditions in key sectors such as oil and gas, with lower prices for palm oil. There is a noticeable decline in the vibrancy of the economy, as the youth continue to leave in droves.

Adenan does not have a clear road map for Sarawak’s economic transformation, beyond infrastructure. Economically there will likely be even greater dependence on the federal government (if the price of oil remains as it is) and reluctance by the federal government to pay up.

Politically Adenan will face conflict with the federal government in other areas such as religion and education. Compromises will have to be made. Adenan is not in a strong position, despite his mandate and he no longer has the check of the Sarawak elections as a card to play in his negotiations with federal authorities. In areas such as oil revenue, Adenan is already appearing to abdicate.

Najib’s false consciousness – the spell of victory

Najib remains on the political firing line. If there was one lesson for Najib in the Sarawak campaign, it was that an unpopular leader should turn over power if they want to win handsomely. The Sarawak results would have been very different with former chief minister Abdul Taib Mahmud at the helm.

The challenges against Najib’s leadership are only likely to deepen with the persistence of the 1MDB scandal as well as the slowing economy. Najib remains deeply unpopular, even in Sarawak. Umno, and the BN, have a much stronger chance of winning without Najib than with him in the next election.

Beyond the personal electoral liability that the premier faces, Najib personifies ‘cash as king’ politics. The increase in spending in the Sarawak campaign will be expected to be continued in the next contests, the by-elections and later the GE. Everyone will want a part of the largess, as demands are increasing.

They want their share of 1MDB. Najib will face the challenge of coming up with the cash to continue payoff and support levels. Where will it come from in a global contracting economy and conditions of rising national debt will be a key question. The situation ahead for Najib is insecure in terms of resources, in spite of the missing 1MDB funds that he mismanaged.

Last, but not least, 1MDB is not going away. The urgings to resign will continue. Many in the international community are distancing themselves from a man whose scandal has crossed lines of acceptability, and the international media will not back away from the story.

The investigations are not going away. In fact, they are coming closer to home, to Najib’s family. The situation is one that is untenable, and insecurities remain real despite electoral victory. The Sarawak results may give the impression of strength, but they obscures real consistent weakness, a false consciousness of victory.

In Malaysia’s never-ending politicking, two by-elections now loom. Malaysians are fed up with campaigns and current political conditions. They would rather more focus on governing, solving problems, and building the country’s reputation rather than having it be damaged by a scandal-bound leader.

The trends in curbing media, arresting opposition politicians and using resources are not likely to end with last week’s results. Neither is the opposition likely to fully appreciate the devastating trends that show deep erosion in their support, as bickering has already started over the by-elections. Sarawak’s 2016 polls were sadly ultimately a victory for insecurity, rather than Malaysians.

Part 1:
‘Same Old’ in Sarawak campaign

Part 2:
Stopping ‘change’ – Sarawak’s electoral battlegrounds

Part 3:
It’s raining money in Sarawak

Part 4:
A ‘fixed’ result – Sarawak’s electoral distortions

Part 5:
Victory and insecurity – Sarawak results and trajectories

____

BRIDGET WELSH is Professor of Political Science at Ipek University, Senior Research Associate at the Center for East Asian Democratic Studies of National Taiwan University, Senior Associate Fellow of The Habibie Center, and University Fellow of Charles Darwin University.

This article, which first appeared in New Mandala, is the final instalment in a five-part series. Bridget Welsh would like to thank Sarawakians for their sharing of views and welcomes additional polling station data from candidates, both winners and losers. The preliminary analysis above is based on seat results and a quarter of the polling station results.

                This entry was posted on Monday, 16 May 2016, 11:07 am and is filed under
Bridget Welsh
,
Elections
,
Sarawak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Myths about the forthcoming Sungai Besar and Kuala Kangsar parliamentary  by-elections

The Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak has said that he would reshuffle his Cabinet.

Instead of reshuffling his jumbo-sized Cabinet of 36 Ministers, he should do some pruning and remove his Cabinet of deadwood and half-past six Ministers, starting with Najib himself relinquishing the Finance Minister’s portfolio and more than halving the number of Ministers in the Prime Minister’s Department who now comprise some 30 per cent of the Cabinet.

How many of the 36 Ministers were in Parliament yesterday to pay last respects to two BN/UMNO  Members of Parliament, Sungai Besar MP Datuk Noriah Kasnon who was Deputy Minister of Plantation Industries and Commodities and Kuala Kangsar MP Datuk Wan Mohammad Khair-jl Anuar Wan Ahmad, who was also the Malaysian Palm Oil Board Chairman, in the minute of silence observed at the beginning of Parliament?

The  first row of the first block in Parliament headed by the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak, Deputy Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Zahid Hamidi, the Transport Minister Datuk Seri Liow Tiong Lai and the Health Minister Datuk S. Subramaniam was totally empty while  the first block was virtually empty!

Why were some 90 per cent of the jumbo-sized Cabinet absent in Parliament yesterday to pay the one-minute last respect to Noriah and Wan Mohammad Khairil?

There have been some myths about the impending Sungai Besar and Kuala Kangsar parliamentary by-elections, with nomination fixed for June 5 and polling on June 18.

Firstly, there is the myth that PAS can win both by-elections in a one-to-one fight with UMNO.

This is  not borne out by election statistics.  The  PAS President Datuk Seri Abdul Hadi Awang knew this and this was why he said that whatever the outcome, PAS will not lose anything by contesting in the two by-elections.

It is true that the PAS  candidates lost by a wafer-thin majority of 399 votes in Sungai Besar and a slim majority of 1,082 votes in Kuala Kangsar.

Sungai Besar, which was  won by BN  with 49.6%  of the total votes cast,  is among the 16 most marginal seats won by the Barisan Nasional in the 13th GE  with less than 50% of the votes cast, while Kuala Kangsar won with 50.4% of the votes cast  is among the 30 BN marginal seats won with less than 51% of the votes cast.

However the votes won by the PAS candidates in Sungai Besar and Kuala Kangsar in the 13th General Elections on May 5, 2013 were the highest ever achieved by PAS candidates, because they were standing as Pakatan Rakyat and not just PAS candidates.

In the forthcoming by-elections for both Sungai Besar and Kuala Kangsar, in a one-to-one contest with UMNO, the PAS candidates in both constituencies cannot win higher votes but only lower votes as not only non-Malay voters but a sizable number of Malay voters will not vote for PAS because PAS had caused the disintegration of Pakatan Rakyat.

Although the PAS candidate in Sungai Besar secured 18,296 votes (or 48.6% of the votes cast)  as against 18,695 votes for the UMNO candidate in 2013 GE and 11,060 votes against 16,069 votes for the UMNO candidate in 2008 GE (PAS securing 39.6% of votes cast), it was the 2004 GE results which are the more correct reflection of PAS strength in Sungai Besar when it secured 7,988 votes against UMNO’s 15,337  – losing by a huge majority of 7,349 votes or PAS securing 33.1% per cent of the votes cast.

The same story applies to the Kuala Kangsar seat. The PAS candidate came very  close to victory in the 2013 GE because he was standing as a Pakatan Rakyat candidate, losing by 1.082 votes in securing 13,136 votes against UMNO’s 14,218 votes (with PAS securing 46.6% of the votes cast in a three-cornered contest).

In the 2008 GE, the PAS candidate lost by 1,458 votes when he secured 9,277 votes  (or 44.7% of votes cast) against the UMNO candidate’s 10,735 votes; but it was the 2004 GE which reflected the true position of PAS influence in the constituency when it lost by 5,557 votes by securing 5,748 votes as against the UMNO candidate who won 11,305 votes (or PAS securing 32,9% of the total votes cast).

Secondly, there is the myth that a PAS candidate in a one-to-one contest with UMNO in both constituencies is a rare opportunity to send a message of change to Barisan Nasional.

This seems to be quite odd when the two top leaders of PAS are the only opposition leaders in the country who have defended the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak on his twin  global financial scandals which had haunted and hounded the Prime Minister for over a year.

Will Hadi and the PAS Mursyidul Am, Harun Din, retract their statements?

In fact, PAS seems to be developing a new personality as a UMNO and Najib-friendly party.

Will the two top PAS leaders endorse and support the “Save Malaysia” Declaration to save Malaysia from the corruption, abuses of power, repression and injustices of the Najib premiership – the latest example being the undemocratic and arbitrary barring of the Bersih chairperson Maria Chin Abdullah from leaving the country to travel to South Korea to be honoured internationally with the Gwangju Prize for Human Rights Award.

The third myth is that the coming twin by-elections for Sungai Besar and Kuala Kangsar could act as an indicator for the possible fate of 81 marginal constituencies out of 222 seats amid the ongoing 1MDB saga and RM4.2 billion political donation scandal in the next general election.

This is however subject to the proviso that Najib’s twin mega scandals will be the main issues in the two by-elections.

The fourth myth is that UMNO will definitely win in a three-cornered contest. What could be “game changer” to debunk this myth in the two by-elections?

These are among the considerations the Pakatan Harapan President Council will have to deliberate on the two parliamentary by-elections next month.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 17 May 2016, 8:27 am and is filed under
Corruption
,
Elections
,
Najib Razak
,
Parliament
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Zahid Hamidi should  tender apology to  Maria Chin and Tony Pua and  take immediate action to restore their fundamental democratic right to travel freely overseas

The ban on Bersih Chairperson Maria Chin Abdullah from travel overseas confirms the age-old maxim “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely” and the need for constant vigilance as well as effective checks-and-balance against abuses and excesses of power.

But what has come as a surprise is that the former PAC Chairman Datuk Nur Jazlan Mohamed should be afflicted by this human failing so quick and fast less than a year after his appointment as Deputy Home Minister when he said yesterday that the government need not have to give reasons for  barring Maria Chin from leaving Malaysia.

The ban on Maria Chin from travelling overseas is wrong on three grounds.

 It is

(i)	Undemocratic – raising the question whether the Najib government is committed to democratic principles and practices;

(ii)	Violation of fundamental liberty on freedom of movement – an utterly retrogressive step which had never been done by anyone of the five Malaysian Prime Ministers of the past, Tunku Abdul Rahman, Tun Razak, Tun Hussein Onn, Tun Mahathir and Tun Abdullah Badawi; and

(iii)	Makes a complete mockery of Malaysia’s commitment to promote human rights, especially as Maria Chin was travelling to South Korea to receive the Gwangju Prize on Human Rights Award, an award previously bestowed upon Aung Sang Suu Kyi and Xanana Gusmao.  Why have a Suhakam when the government is prepared to so blatantly abuse human rights in Malaysia?

Maria Chin is the second Malaysian personality to be barred from travelling overseas – the first was the DAP National Publicity Secretary,  MP for PJ Utara and Public Accounts Committee (PAC) member Tony Pua.

Pua had to go to court to compel the government to give the reason for his ban, that his travel rights were restricted allegedly because he was under police investigations for “activities detrimental to parliamentary democracy” although he had so far been called in for questioning by the police only as a witness in police investigations.

By such logic, the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak should be banned from travelling overseas for his twin global financial scandals, the RM50-55 billion 1MDB and RM4.2 billion “donation” scandals, which are being investigated by at least eight separate countries, including the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) of the United States.

I call on the Deputy Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Zahid Hamidi, to assume personal responsibility for the violation of Maria Chin and Tony Pua’s democratic and human rights in barring them from travelling overseas, tender a personal apology and  to take immediate action to restore to Maria Chin and Tony Pua their  fundamental democratic right to travel freely overseas.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 17 May 2016, 11:10 am and is filed under
Human Rights
,
Parliament
,
Zahid
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Would Azalina refer herself to the Committee of Privileges for lying in Parliament or would there be an Acting Minister in the PM’s Department appointed to be in charge of parliamentary affairs to refer Azalina to Committee of Privileges?

Would the Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, Datuk Azalina Othman Said refer herself to the Parliamentary Committee of Privileges for lying in Parliament, or would there be an Acting Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department appointed to be in charge of parliamentary affairs to refer Azalina to the Committee of Privileges?

Public Accounts Committee (PAC) member and DAP MP for  PJ Utara, Tony Pua has made a very serious charge that Azalina had lied in replying to the DAP MP for Bagan Lim Guan Eng that PAC members were informed about the deleted lines from the PAC Report on 1MDB.

Pua said Azalina lied in Parliament when she said in her parliamentary reply on Monday that the PAC Chairman Datuk Hasan Arifin had informed or showed PAC members letter from Bank Negara Malaysia which stated that the information provided to the PAC was confidential and not for public consumption.

Azalina had replied to Guan Eng that Hasan had received Bank Negara’s information which stated all the information given was “confidential for the purpose of intelligence only and not for court usage or public report” and that all PAC members were informed of the matter via a letter penned by the PAC chief to the deputy governor of the central bank on April 6.

I have received confirmation from the Deputy Chairman of PAC, Dr. Tan Seng Giaw (Kepong) that PAC members were never informed about the matter by the PAC Chairman on April 6 and that Azalina had told a lie in Parliament.

Pua had said that the final PAC meeting on April 4  approved the PAC report on 1MDB for publication, and that Hasan “never at any point of time communicated with the PAC members on any developments subsequent to the meeting on April 4”.

Hence PAC members were shocked to discover, upon perusing the tabled report, that two crucial lines in the report was deleted unilaterally by the PAC chairperson.

The lines deleted concerned Bank Negara’s information that Good Star Ltd, into which US$1.03 billion from 1MDB’s joint venture with PetroSaudi International was diverted to, was owned by an individual and not linked to the PetroSaudi group as claimed.

I fully agree with Pua that the deleted lines indicated a brazen case of misappropriation by 1MDB, which also proved as  true  the allegations made by 1MDB critics such as Sarawak Report, The Edge, The Wall Street Journal and opposition critics.

Why is Azalina trying to hide the fact that the  “mover and shaker” of 1MDB, Penang billionaire Jho Low, was in fact the owner of Good Star Ltd and even more important, why a  Cabinet Minister is still involved in a conspiracy of silence to hide the true facts of the RM50-55 billion 1MDB global financial scandal from Members of Parliament and 30 million Malaysians – when it is the subject of international investigation by about eight different countries?

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 18 May 2016, 2:55 pm and is filed under
Corruption
,
Financial Scandals
,
Parliament
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Azalina has committed double contempt of Parliament when she defended her lie in Parliament in her reply to Guan Eng on the PAC Report on 1MDB

The Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, Datuk Azalina Othman had committed a double contempt of Parliament when she defended her lie in Parliament in her reply to DAP MP for Bagan, Lim Guan Eng, claiming that Public Accounts Committee (PAC) members were informed about the deleted lines from the PAC Report on 1MDB.

In her written reply on Monday, Azalina had lied that PAC Chairman Datuk Hasan Arifin had informed or showed PAC members letter from Bank Negara Malaysia which stated that the information provided to the PAC was confidential for the purpose of intelligence only and not for court usage or  public consumption.

DAP MP for PJ Utara, Tony Pua, who is a PAC Member has described Azalina’s answer as a lie, making very clear that after the the final PAC meeting on April 4 which approved the PAC report on 1MDB for publication,  Hasan “never at any point of time communicated with the PAC members on any developments subsequent to the meeting on April 4”.

I have spoken to the Deputy Chairman of PAC, Dr. Tan Seng Giaw (MP – Kepong) and he has confirmed that what Pua said was true and factual, and that PAC members were never informed about Bank Negara’s letter before PAC Report on 1MDB was tabled in Parliament on April 7, and that Azalina had told a lie in Parliament.

Thus, when Azalina yesterday denied that she lied to Parliament when she said PAC members had been informed about the deleted lines in the PAC report on 1MDB, and that Pua’s statement was untrue and made without any basis, Azalina had committed a double contempt of Parliament.

In her statement of “double contempt of Parliament” yesterday, Azalina said she was replying in her capacity as the Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department in charge of Parliament, and that her reply was based on information given by the PAC secretariat that members of the committee have been informed about the PAC chairperson’s letter to the Bank Negara deputy governor on April 6.

Firstly, Azalina should know that her responsibility as Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department in charge of Parliament does not confer on her the privilege to tell lies in Parliament, let alone being guilty of “double contempt of Parliament”.

Secondly, Azalina should not resort to the cowardly refuge of “passing the buck” to a nameless person in the  PAC secretariat but must bear responsibility for the truth or otherwise of her reply in Parliament.

Dr. Tan and Pua have said that Azalina had lied as they were never informed about the Bank Negara’s letter before the tabling of the PAC Report on 1MDB in Parliament on April 7.

Let all the other PAC members speak up, whether they had been informed by the PAC Chairman of the Bank Negara’s letter before the tabling of the PAC Report on 1MDB in Parliament on April 7.

In fact, let the PAC Chairman speak up, whether he had shown the Bank Negara letter to the other members of the PAC before April 7. In fact, let the Hassan produce the letter to MPs and the public.

If the PAC Chairman is not prepared to make such a clarification, is he fit to be PAC Chairman to ensure honesty, truth and integrity in the stewardship of public  finances?

I am more intrigued why Azalina is trying to defend the indefensible in the deletion of the lines in the PAC Report on 1MDB concerning  Bank Negara’s information that Good Star Ltd, into which US$1.03 billion from 1MDB’s joint venture with PetroSaudi International was diverted to, was owned by an individual and not linked to the PetroSaudi group as claimed.

Everyone who follows the long and shameful 1MDB saga know that the  “mover and shaker” of 1MDB, Penang billionaire Jho Low, was in fact the owner of Good Star Ltd.

Why is Azalina trying to “wrap fire in pape”r,  and join the  “conspiracy of silence” to hide the true facts of the RM50-55 billion 1MDB global financial scandal from Members of Parliament and 30 million Malaysians – when it is the subject of international investigation by about seven different countries, including the Federal  Bureau of Investigations (FBI) of the United States?

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 19 May 2016, 12:36 pm and is filed under
Corruption
,
Financial Scandals
,
Parliament
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Call for public inquiry into the tragic helicopter crash during the 11th Sarawak general election causing the death of six people, including a deputy minister and another MP

The 11th Sarawak state general election has ended on May 7 polling with fairly expected results, the re-election of Tan Sri Adenan Satem as Sarawak Chief Minister, the formation of the new Sarawak State Government by Sarawak Barisan Nasional and the failure to deny Adenan two-thirds majority in the 82-seat Sarawak State Assembly.

I had publicly predicted these three results after Nomination Day on April 25, and I was not greatly surprised by the outcome of the 11th Sarawak state general elections.

One of the disappointments of the 11th Sarawak state general elections was the inability of Pakatan Harapan to campaign as one team, and which saw multi-cornered contests even involving Pakatan Harapan parties, but the results have shown that it had not materially affected the results of the Sarawak state general election.

A combined and united Pakatan Harapan in the Sarawak state general election would have found it difficult to regain the 15 state assembly seats won by DAP and PKR five years ago in the 2011 state general election, but there is no doubt that the failure to present an united  front by Pakatan Harapan parties caused great disappointment all-round and should be a lesson to all Pakatan Harapan parties for the future.

The three Pakatan Harapan parties netted 30.5% of the popular votes cast in the May 7 Sarawak polls comprising DAP 19.35%, PKR 10.08% and Amanah 1.12%.

DAP had set out in the  11th Sarawak state general election with two objectives:

(I) to defend and win the 12 State Assembly seats won in the last state general elections; and

(2) to achieve a breakthrough in the Dayak-dominated seats to expand DAP support from the urban areas.

At the mid-point of the Sarawak state general election campaign on April 30, I warned that seven of the 13 seats carved out of the 12 State Assembly constituencies won by DAP in last general election were in “danger list” for the May 7 poll.

I was proved quite right when DAP could only win seven of the 12 seats won five years ago but this  gave me no pleasure whatsoever.

I had hoped that DAP candidate Modi Bimol could win the Tasik Biru state assembly seat, and that was why I was in Tasek Biru on Nomination Day.

But the combined artillery and firepower of the Barisan Nasional national and state “heavyweights” including the Sarawak Chief Minister and the Malaysian Prime Minister who led a long queue of State and Federal VIPS to descend on Tasik Biru  with monetary offers and other goodies, succeeded in foiling Modi from the DAP election breakthrough.  Modi lost by 1,288 votes.

DAP candidate Sanjan Daik had performed creditably  in Mambong while the three  candidates Paren Nyawi in Katibas, Larry Asap in Bukit Goram  and Baba Emperan of Samalaju hold out much promise for the future.

DAP suffered a major defeat in the 11th Sarawak general election on May 7, reduced to seven state assembly seats from the 12 won five years ago in the 2011 Sarawak state general election but it was not the most devastating defeat that DAP had suffered in our 50 year history.

In the 1999 general election, for instance, DAP was reduced to 10 Parliamentary seats and a single seat in the Penang State Assembly, when in 1986, DAP had won 24 Parliamentary seats while in the 1990 general election, DAP had won 14 Penang State Assembly seats.

Even Karpal Singh and I myself lost in the parliamentary elections in 1999.

But we did not give up and surrender. Today, thanks to the perseverance, stamina and commitment of DAP leaders and supporters, DAP is the second largest party in Parliament after UMNO, leading the Penang State Government and part of the Selangor DAP State Government, with the most number of State Assembly seats in the country.

I am confident that the electoral debacle and reverses of DAP Sarawak in the recent Sarawak state election would become a stepping stone for the Sarawak DAP to achieve greater heights than in the past in its political struggle to be a political party for all Sarawakians – not only in the urban but also rural areas; the voice not only the Chinese but also Dayaks and Malays in Sarawak.

The saddest and tragic event during the Sarawak state election was the helicopter crash which killed six persons, including the Deputy Minister of Plantation Industries and Commodities and Sungai Besar MP, Datuk Noriah Kasnon and MP for Kuala Kangsar Datuk Wan Mohammad Khair-ir Anua Wan Ahmad in Batang Lupar on May 5.

Could such a tragedy be avoided?

There should be a full public inquiry into the tragic Eurocopter A350 crash while transporting Noriah and Wan Mohammad Khair-ir from Betong to Kuching to determine the cause of the tragedy.

I fully agree with the Bernama Chairman Datuk Seri Azman Ujang that Malaysia, particularly Sarawak, does not have a good record on helicopter flights, and the latest helicopter disaster killing six persons should be  the cause for a full inquiry into the safety of helicopter flights in the country, the lessons to be learnt from the history of helicopter crashes in Malaysia, particularly Sarawak especially on  the rules covering helicopter flights.

Azman estimated that there had been 15 helicopter crashes in over 15 years with the loss of 33 lives including VIPs – and most noteworthy was another MP and  the Minister without portfolio, Tan Sri Jamaluddin Jarjis.

Azman estimated that some 80 helicopters were in service during the two-week Sarawak state general election campaign, with most outsourced from the Philippines and Indonesia.

Were all the helicopters air-worthy and the  foreign pilots of these Filipino and Indonesian helicopter pilots familiar with the local terrain and the peculiar weather patterns in Sarawak?

One question many are quietly asking in the mourning over the recent helicopter crash was over the death of the Secretary-General of the Ministry of  Plantation Industries and Commodities, Datuk Dr. Sundaran Annamalai, who was one of the six who perished in  the helicopter tragedy.

Why is the Secretary-General of the Ministry of Plantation Industries and Commodities involved in the Barisan Nasional campaign for the Sarawak state general election – which should not have involved government officers, especially top civil service personnel!

Who were the other civil service officers from Putrajaya who were involved in the Barisan Nasional campaign for the Sarawak state general election?

A public inquiry would be able to reveal the full list of the public servants from Putrajaya who were involved in the Barisan Nasional campaign in the Sarawak state general election – which is clearly wrong, electoral abuse and should not be repeated in the future.

(Speech at the DAP Post-Mortem of 11th Sarawak State General Elections in Kuala Lumpur on Wednesday, 18th May 2016 at 11 pm)

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 19 May 2016, 9:16 am and is filed under
DAP
,
Elections
,
Sarawak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Did regulatory slips ‘enable’ the 1MDB scandal?

The Business Times, Singapore

Wednesday, May 18, 2016

WITHIN the span of six years, 1Malaysia Development Bhd’s (1MDB) debt had ballooned 10 times to RM50 billion (S$17 billion) and its business deals are now the subject of probes in seven jurisdictions, including Singapore. Could the mammoth scandal around the state-backed fund have been averted?

The answer is “Yes”, given the events at the strategic investment firm from the outset, which ought to have set off alarm bells at various government agencies, regulatory authorities and financial institutions.

In fact, had there been vigilance and proper checks and balances in the first place, the 1MDB controversy could well have been nipped in the bud.

Barely three months after the firm was formed in February 2009 (it was then called Terengganu Investment Authority under the oil-rich state before it was taken over by the federal government), there were already tell-tale signs from the firm’s RM5 billion government-guaranteed sukuk bond issue, the first in a series of big debts 1MDB would pile on over the years.

The manner in which the sukuk was issued should have raised a red flag. Despite a “no-go” from the board, management pushed through the issue anyway – at an unusual pricing not befitting the firm’s capital base.

No one took heed – not even after Terengganu state authorities raised serious concerns and signalled that the fundraising should be halted given certain improprieties; and not after the resignations of two prominent, high-profile individuals from the 1MDB board within a year of its inception.

What followed instead were several billion-dollar deals with joint-venture partners from the Middle East and big-scale buyouts in the energy and real estate space – all funded with more debt and risks which would in the firm’s short existence lead to crippling financial woes, shaken public trust in Malaysia’s leadership and highest institutions, marred the country’s international reputation, and, more recently, defaults on its bond payment.

All that could have been avoided if someone – be it from 1MDB’s board (past and present members, many of whom hold top posts in government-linked institutions) or the regulatory bodies – had spotted and acted on the irregularities in the original bond issue and, later, the hundreds of millions of dollars funnelled in and out of the country’s banking system.

Regulators abroad too should have been sharper to the warning signs. As it turned out, several financial institutions in Singapore, Switzerland and the United States are now mired in the 1MDB scandal.

Two weeks ago, the Malaysian finance ministry said it would take over the firm’s remaining assets and dissolve its advisory board, chaired by Prime Minister Najib Razak. The ministry (which is also headed by Mr Najib) has accepted the en bloc resignation of 1MDB’s board members. A new structure – albeit a skeletal one as the firm is set to be unwound – does little to mitigate the damage caused by the scandal. It will take a lot more (and a lot longer) for true closure. But at some point, regulators have to acknowledge that their indecision and tardiness in acting had unwittingly turned them into “enablers” of this controversy that has beset the country, its financial system, and its people.

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 19 May 2016, 4:54 pm and is filed under
Corruption
,
Financial Scandals
,
Najib Razak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Stepson of Malaysia’s Najib Razak Bought $34 Million London House With 1MDB Funds

By SIMON CLARK,  GEORGI KANTCHEV and  BRADLEY HOPE

Wall Street Journal

May 19, 2016

Investigators believe that money from the Malaysian fund was used to buy home in 2012

The stepson of Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak bought a £23.25 million ($33.6 million) house in central London in 2012 with money originating from the troubled Malaysian state investment fund 1Malaysia Development Bhd., according to people familiar with the situation.

The redbrick four-story house, built around 1900, is part of a row set back  from the road and protected by security gates, a short walk from Malaysia’s diplomatic mission in London’s exclusive Belgravia neighborhood. The registered owner of the house is Qentas Holdings Ltd., a company based in the British Virgin Islands. Mr. Najib’s stepson is the beneficial owner, the people familiar said.

Investigators believe that money from the Malaysian fund known as 1MDB was used to buy the house in July 2012. The Wall Street Journal has previously reported that  Riza Aziz, a film producer and stepson of the Malaysian leader, used money that originated from 1MDB to buy $50 million worth of properties in New York and Los Angeles and to finance the 2013 movie “The Wolf of Wall Street.”

A spokesman said last week that Mr. Aziz’s film company, Red Granite Pictures, “is responding to all inquiries and cooperating fully.”

“There has never been anything inappropriate about any of Red Granite Pictures or Riza Aziz’s business activities,” the spokesman said. “What they have done and will continue to do is develop and produce successful and acclaimed movies that have generated more than $825 million in world-wide box-office revenues.”

Money used to buy the properties in London and the U.S. was part of at least $238 million that was transferred to an offshore company owned by Mr. Aziz called Red Granite Capital from another offshore company set up to resemble an Abu Dhabi company 1MDB did business with, investigators believe, according to people familiar with the matter.

The offshore company, Aabar Investments PJS Ltd., received more than $3.5 billion from 1MDB over several years. It has a similar name to Aabar Investments PJS in Abu Dhabi, which is owned by one of the Emirate’s sovereign-wealth funds called International Petroleum Investment Co. IPIC has said in a filing to the London Stock Exchange that the Aabar in the British Virgin Islands that transferred money to Red Granite Capital isn’t part of its corporate structure.

A $133 million tranche of the money was received by Red Granite Capital in June 2012, according to documents reviewed by the Journal. The London property was acquired a month later without a mortgage, according to the U.K. Land Registry.

Mr. Aziz has denied wrongdoing, as has Mr. Najib.

Mr. Najib attended a conference in the U.K. capital on May 16 to promote investment in his country. He told business leaders and politicians gathered at Marlborough House, the headquarters of the Commonwealth group of nations, that Malaysia is an “ideal partner.” He urged the audience to look at the “real story in Malaysia” instead of believing certain media stories without specifying which stories he was referring to.

More than $1 billion originating from 1MDB landed in Mr. Najib’s private bank accounts, the Journal has reported, citing people familiar with probes in two countries. Some of the money was used to pay for political spending in Malaysia, as well as clothing and jewels, according to Malaysian investigation documents that include bank-transfer information.

Mr. Najib has acknowledged he received $681 million as a legitimate donation from Saudi Arabia and that most of it was returned. Malaysia’s attorney general agreed the money came from Saudi Arabia legally and cleared Mr. Najib of wrongdoing.

The fund was set up in 2009 by Mr. Najib to boost the economy using money borrowed from the global markets.

1MDB is today at the center of corruption probes by authorities in Malaysia and six other nations. Investigators believe as much as $6 billion of the fund’s money was siphoned away, according to a person familiar with one country’s probe. The fund has said it would cooperate with investigators, but maintained its investments were accounted for.

The Ministry of Finance of Malaysia, the owner of 1MDB, accepted the resignation of the fund’s board of directors earlier this month after a report from a parliamentary committee criticized decisions made by the firm. It also dissolved its board of advisers, which Mr. Najib chaired.

1MDB has said it would cooperate with investigations but hasn’t been contacted yet by any outside agency. It has maintained that all its investments are accounted for.

Just four days before Mr. Najib’s London speech, U.K. Prime Minister David Cameron convened a major anticorruption summit at Lancaster House, a few hundred feet from the Commonwealth headquarters. Mr. Cameron condemned unspecified corrupt politicians who steal from their countries and use companies in offshore financial centers to secretly buy properties in London to launder their ill-gotten gains. He announced a new public register of all beneficial owners of property in the U.K. Plans to include property already owned and not just future transactions went further than some had expected. Foreign companies own 44,000 London properties, according to the government.

“We want to clean up our property market and show there’s no home for the corrupt in Britain,” Mr. Cameron said at the conference. “When people steal money from your country and hide it in mine we will expose them and return the money.”

In response to a question from the Journal at the anticorruption conference about Mr. Najib, Mr. Cameron said that the 1MDB controversy won’t deter the U.K. government from doing business with Malaysia. Mr. Cameron said that while he had raised “concerns” with Malaysia, he still wants to promote business ties.

“Britain is an international trading and investing nation,” Mr. Cameron said. “There is no country that is entirely free from corruption.”

Hugo Swire, a minister in the U.K. Foreign Office, attended the Malaysian investment conference. He said there wasn’t a contradiction between the British government’s support for the Malaysian investment conference and the earlier anticorruption conference.

“What we decided there and what was discussed there has universal application but I am not aware that that should impact on anything we are discussing this afternoon,” Mr. Swire said. “I am not setting myself up as a judge and a jury.”

Prime Minister Najib was introduced at the investment conference by Jonathan Marland, a member of the House of Lords and a former trade envoy for Mr. Cameron. Mr. Marland described the conference as “a huge love-in.” He thanked the Malaysian prime minister for his crucial role in securing investment from a Malaysian group of companies in 2012 to redevelop London’s Battersea power station, a multibillion-dollar project by the River Thames.

“When our country was at its knees you came and invested,” Mr. Marland told the Malaysian prime minister. He later told the Journal that he didn’t want to “interfere” in Malaysian internal affairs by commenting on 1MDB.

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 19 May 2016, 2:51 pm and is filed under
Corruption
,
Financial Scandals
,
Najib Razak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


The Malaysia that could be

Michael Vatikiotis

Straits Times

May 15, 2016

Shortly after I arrived in Kuala Lumpur in 1991 as newly appointed bureau chief for the Far Eastern Economic Review, I was introduced to a Malaysian journalist then working here for The Straits Times in Singapore. We worked in a country well known for its disdain for the foreign media; and we were particular targets because our publications were deemed by the government to be biased against or even hostile to Malaysia.

Partly because of the common challenges we faced, but perhaps mostly because we enjoyed eating nasi kandar and roti canai at street- side stalls in Kuala Lumpur or on the many outstation reporting trips we took together, we became good friends.

A quarter of a century later, my close friend Kalimullah Hassan is no longer a journalist – neither am I. Our beloved profession has been much affected by the decline of advertising revenues and the rise of social media. But Kali, as all his friends know him, remains as passionate and concerned about his country as he was when we drove for long hours around rural constituencies in out-of-the-way parts of Kedah, Kelantan and Terengganu covering by-elections.

So when I read his newly published collection of columns and recollections, many of those earnest discussions and arguments we had over steaming cups of teh tarik in the 1990s came flooding back to me. There is his great pride in Malaysia’s ethnic diversity, his deep concern about the divisive racist rhetoric of contested politics and the corrosive impact of patronage and corruption in high places.

Like many of us who have lived or worked in Malaysia, whether we are Malaysian or not, what we see today is a nation once proud of its institutional integrity and ethnic diversity now threatened by a deterioration of the probity and quality of governance and sharply polarised communal tendencies.

Like many of us who have lived or worked in Malaysia, whether we are Malaysian or not, what we see today is a nation once proud of its institutional integrity and ethnic diversity now threatened by a deterioration of the probity and quality of governance and sharply polarised communal tendencies.

For Kali, the country is on a slippery slope. “Intolerance is growing and there is no firm guiding hand, no leadership to lead us back to the right path,” he writes in the introduction. In a bitter postscript to this collection of columns he wrote for The New Straits Times when he was group editor from 2004 to 2007, he bemoans the erosion of ethnic and religious tolerance and the rise of chauvinistic right-wing politicians who have replaced the narrative of renewal and reform with the rhetoric of bigotry and racism.

The book, which is privately published, is unashamedly a romantic yearning for the Malaysia of yesteryear, with endearing sketches of his home town of Kroh along the Thai-Malaysian border, where he grew up the son of immigrant Indian Muslim parents. He loves to describe ordinary Malaysians living modestly and uncomplainingly in rural splendour – “the rich cultural diversity, the beauty of the different cultures, the picture postcard scenery”. This strengthens his belief “that Malaysia is wonderful, its people marvellous”.

How right he is that “if you want to see Malaysia as Malaysia is and as it should be”, then celebrating the Harvest Festival in Sabah is exactly the place to be.

The postscript to the book is where Kali expresses deep disappointment and where he falls victim perhaps to bitterness that is sometimes hard to read. Like Kali, I was extremely optimistic about Malaysia during the years when Abdullah Badawi was prime minister. As much as Mahathir Mohamad helped develop and modernise Malaysia, he was a complex, uncompromising man with deeply ingrained prejudices that made it hard to feel welcome as a foreigner, or safe as a journalist.

Tun Abdullah was a charming breath of fresh air, a man of high moral calibre and moderate views. As Kali notes, his long years in the political wilderness left him neither bitter nor vindictive.

When he was thrust into power after Tun Dr Mahathir’s surprise resignation in 2003, Mr Abdullah set about the uphill task of restoring institutional integrity and dignity to the office of prime minister and was genuinely committed to reform and renewal.

I was drawn to him and his fresh- faced, well-educated advisers. Mr Abdullah and his inner circle, which included Kali, made you feel there was hope for a democratic Malaysia. He was indeed “a decent man… who tried, in his own way, to make the country a more decent place to live in”. But as Kali reveals, there was tremendous pressure on Mr Abdullah to move in the other direction, not least because instead of going quietly into retirement, Dr Mahathir was critical of his successor, whom he considered weak and ineffective.

Being a civilised man of polite moderation, it is true that Mr Abdullah lacked the venom and spite to effectively emasculate his opponents. Kali documents incidents he was witness to where Mr Abdullah refused to use his executive power to influence the courts, or bridle the media. On taking office, he told the judges, as Kali wrote at the time, “that they must preserve the independence of the judiciary and act without fear and favour”.

These affectionately crafted vignettes are among the most valuable in the book, as Mr Abdullah’s premiership is not widely written about.

All that sense of hope and idealism seems like a distant memory today, as Kali would have it. Prime Minister Najib Razak, in his view, has turned the clock back and failed to fulfil his promise of reform. “The Chinese have become more defensive and exclusive than ever; the Christians feel they are constantly under siege; the Malay Muslims, among the poorest in society, fear losing political power; the Indians continue to feel marginalised.”

Kali’s parting shot drives at the heart of what ails Malaysia today, which to my mind is the dangerous erosion of ethnic and religious harmony. He is right that Malaysians have always been conscious of the racial divide, and that there have always been bigots and racists in their midst; neither Singapore nor Malaysia can escape the colonial confection of polarised pluralism. But he has a point when he writes that in Malaysia today “the spirit of family and oneness is remembered only by the aged”.

The Malaysia That Could Be was published privately in Malaysia in March and sold out within weeks. It will be published by Straits Times Press later this year.

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 19 May 2016, 5:06 pm and is filed under
1Malaysia
,
Abdullah Ahmad Badawi
,
Malaysian Dream
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Will any Minister resign tomorrow  on a matter of principle if Cabinet is not prepared to take a policy decision not to emulate  communist countries and closed societies  by countermanding undemocratic ban on Maria Chin and Tony Pua from free travel overseas?

The Deputy Home Minister, Datuk Nur Jazlan Mohamed said that the issuance of a passport is a privilege and not a right.

Nur Jazlan’s argument is flawed, for the right to free travel (which includes  the right to a passport and to travel abroad) is a fundamental human right recognized by universal human rights declarations, whether Article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human rights, Article 12 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights or Article 10 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

Nobody claims that such a human right is absolute, as it is limited like all other human rights  under certain circumstances, but the government must act bona fide, fairly, honestly and honorably and not guilty of arbitrary abuses or excesses of power.

The ban on Bersih Chairperson Maria Chin Abdullah from travelling to South Korea to receive the Gwangju Prize on Human Rights Award and on DAP National Publicity Secretary, MP for PJ Utara and Public Accounts Committee (PAC) member, Tony Pua from travelling overseas are clear examples of such abuses of power and egregious violation of human rights in Malaysia.

This a major regression of human rights in Malaysia, as it marks a lowering of human rights standards which had never been contemplated or practiced by the five previous Prime Ministers of Malaysia – Tunku Abdul Rahman, Razak, Hussein Onn, Mahathir and Abdullah.

Banning citizens from leaving the country to travel freely abroad as been one of the hallmarks of authoritarian or autocratic regimes, especially communist countries and closed societies – in contrast to open, democratic societies.

Why is Malaysia setting new standards for violating human rights instead of establishing new milestones to protect and promote human rights?

Violating the human rights of Malaysians to travel freely overseas represents a new dark age for Malaysia and must be opposed by all freedom and justice-loving Malaysians.

It should be the top item of the agenda in tomorrow’s Cabinet meeting.

Malaysians would want to know whether there will  be any Minister who will resign on a matter of principle tomorrow if the Cabinet is not prepared to take a policy decision not to emulate  communist countries and closed societies  by  countermanding the arbitrary and undemocratic  ban on  Maria Chin and Tony Pua from free travel overseas?

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 19 May 2016, 3:59 pm and is filed under
Human Rights
,
Najib Razak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.