Kit Siang’s ‘biggest losers’ jibe riles Sabahans

Joe Fernandez | Malaysiakini

DAP stalwart Lim Kit Siang has distressed BN leaders in Sabah no end with his Feb 28 statement in Kota Kinabalu that the KadazanDusunMuruts (KDMs) – the largest indigenous group in the state – are the biggest losers under the ruling coalition.

The reverberations are still echoing throughout the state and is likely to haunt BN in the run-up to the next general election.

Lim had also linked the biggest losers tag with the continued ban on the book, ‘Peter Mojuntin  Golden Son of the Kadazan’, by former Malacca DAP leader Bernard Sta Maria. He has since initiated an online campaign to get the ban on the book lifted.

The book is about Sabah’s leader Mojuntin, who died in the plane crash together with a number of other top leaders including the state’s first chief minister Fuad Stephens in 1976.

Sabah Chief Minister Musa Aman, a Pathan-Dusun, castigated Lim in no uncertain terms for being irresponsible. He was particularly upset that Lim pointed out that Umno had held the CM’s post for 11 of the last 16 years, the Chinese for four years and the KDM for only nine months.

He’s trying to stir racial tension in Sabah, said Musa on the sidelines of a special Friday meeting of Sabah BN component party leaders at Sri Gaya, the Chief Minister’s official residence in Kota Kinabalu.

Musa went on to stress that the KDM and Chinese are well-represented in the state cabinet. They are also holding many important posts in the civil service, added Musa.

His comments drew varied reactions from BN and other leaders in the state.

Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) secretary-general Teo Chee Kang noted that Lim had also accused Chinese leaders in Sabah of not doing enough for the community after claiming that the KDMs were the biggest losers under the BN.

Parti Bersatu Sabah (PBS) vice-president Herbert Timbon Lagadan thinks that Lim is instigating the KDM community in an attempt to fish for their votes.

The people of Sabah must be aware of the opposition tiger clothed in sheep’s clothing, warned Lagadan. We must resist any attempt to divide and weaken us. The opposition does not want to see us strong.

Deputy Chief Minister Joseph Pairin Kitingan (left) was more cautious in his remarks and admitted that there is always room for improvement.

We are always looking at this (improvement), commented Pairin. The opposition is just trying to confuse the people. We should not panic over Lim’s statement just because he has been in politics a long time.

Umno Penampang chief John Ambrose is worried that Lim linked the position of the KDM to the ban on the Sta Maria book, among others.

Of course, we want to see the government lift the ban on the book but national interest must come first, said Ambrose. I hope the ban on the book will be lifted just as the ban on ‘The Malay Dilemma’ by Mahathir has been lifted.

None of the Sabah BN leaders touched on the salient points made by Lim including the drop in KDM representation, percentage-wise, from about 50 percent in 1960 to some 25 percent now.

Lim also stressed that KDM seats had been whittled down to less than 20 or about a third in the state assembly. Both developments were attributed by Lim to the steady influx of illegal immigrants and MyKads being issued to them.

KDM community still poor

Sabah Institute for Development Studies (SIDS) chair Clarence Bongkos Malakun sees Lim making political capital out of Bernard Giluk Dompok’s nine-month stint as chief minister and the scrapping of the rotation formula for the post.

As a Dusun himself, the chief minister is concerned about the KDM community, said Malakun. Of the 10 ministries in the state government, four of the permanent secretaries are KDM.

Malakun however declined to dwell on how many of the KDMs holding the posts were non-Muslim, a point noted by Lim when raising the marginalisation of the KDM community. Muslims are a minority among the KDM. Instead, Malakun labeled Lim a racist.

The SIDS chief conceded that poverty was a problem among the KDM but stressed that something was being done about this through agropolitian projects. Tongod, Pitas, Nabawan, Keningau, Kemabong and Beluran  all poverty-stricken KDM areas  are the focus of attention by the state government, according to Malakun. Lim has no issues to raise in Sabah.

Kota Kinabalu MP Hiew King Cheu is skeptical of figures cited by Malakun who was among those instrumental in overthrowing the PBS government in 1994.

So few of the 38,500 state civil servants are from the KDM community, charged Hiew who is also Sabah DAP chair. Not many KDMs are heads of departments with the federal government.

Hiew also claimed that the BN had re-classified some 500,000 KDMs and other native groups under the category of ‘Others’ (Lain-Lain).

Sabah is an electoral fixed deposit for the BN because the KDM are kingmakers, said Hiew. However, they are not being given the importance they deserve.

Sabah Progressive Party (Sapp) president Yong Teck Lee wants the unity factor to be kept in mind despite the subservient attitude of local leaders.

The federal BN cannot form a government in Putranaya without the support of Sabah and Sarawak, stressed Yong on what can bring people in the two states together. We are kingmakers after the March 8, 2008 general elections.

The rest of the opposition meanwhile stands by Lim on the alleged marginalisation of the KDM community in Sabah under BN rule.

Like the Dayaks in neighbouring Sarawak, they note that the KDM have been divided by the powers-that-be among all political parties in the state while Umno has forced itself on the Muslims including KDM Muslims as their only option.

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 7 March 2010, 11:30 am and is filed under
Sabah
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Dr. Chen – the indefatigable Malaysian warrior for justice and democracy

                This entry was posted on Monday, 8 March 2010, 9:26 am and is filed under
DAP
,
Dr. Chen Man Hin
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Najib losing battle for 1Malaysia when a rational and level-headed Umno leader like Second Finance Minister Husni could make a racist remark when he is under influence of Penang UMNO

The Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak is fighting a losing battle for his 1Malaysia slogan and concept when a rational and level-headed Umno leader like the Second Finance Minister Datuk Ahmad Husni Mohd Hanadzlah could make a racist remark when he is under the influence of Penang Umno.

DAP MP for Jelutong Jeff Ooi has asked Husni to apologise for making a racist remark at a dinner organized by the Penang Malay Chamber of Commerce on Friday, where he said: “
Kalau orang Cina di Pulau Pinang buli kita, kita lawan balik orang Cina
”.

Husni’s racist remark was reported in the evening edition of the Penang papers on Saturday night but it  was taken out in the morning editions of the Sunday papers.

Although this racist Husni remark has been denied, it had been caught on tape.

I am very surprised as DAP MPs have always found Husni as a very rational, level-headed and reasonable Deputy Minister and since Najib’s elevation as Prime Minister last April, as Second Finance Minister, and we find it most shocking that he could have uttered such a racially-laden statement, which runs counter to what Najib’s 1Malaysia represents.

The question all Malaysians must ponder is why a usually rational, level-headed and reasonable Umno leader who is very moderate in his views could make such a racist remark completely of his character?

The only explanation is that when Husni went to Penang, he was influenced by the sustained hate campaign of UMNO Penang exploiting the “race and religion” card falsely painting Penang Chief Minister and Pakatan Rakyat Penang State Government as anti-Malay and anti-Islam.

As a moderate Umno leader, Husni should be exercising restraint and check on the irresponsible and seditious campaign by Penang Umno, which took full advantage of Umno-controlled media like Utusan Malaysia and Berita Harian, making a total mockery of Najib’s 1Malaysia campaign – and not to succumb to the Penang Umno virus as to condone and even to aid and abet such an irresponsible and seditious campaign of hate and racism.

When moderate UMNO leaders like Husni could lose their moderate bearings when in the Penang Umno milieu of hate politics, what hope and future is there for Najib’s 1Malaysia slogan and concept?

[
Speech at the opening of the new RM800,000 Kuching DAP premises at Jalan Abang Abdul Rahim, Kuching on Monday, 8th March 2010 at 10 am
]

                This entry was posted on Monday, 8 March 2010, 1:06 pm and is filed under
Najib Razak
,
nation building
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Ong Tee Keat and RM12.5 billion scandal – leave with a bang and not in a whimper

In yesterday’s pathetic 56th MCA Annual General Meeting attended by only 25% of the eligible  MCA delegates and boycotted by the majority of the MCA Ministers, Deputy Ministers, MPs and State Assembly members, MCA President Datuk Seri Ong Tee Keat suggested his present troubles were caused by his investigation of the nation’s biggest financial scandal – the RM12.5 billion Port Klang Free Zone (PKFZ) scandal.

For several months, I had refrained from commenting on the PKFZ scandal after putting intense pressure on Ong to “tell all” about the scandal – at one stage, posing three-questions-a-day for 36 days without pause, totaling 108 questions, to force Ong to act on the PKFZ scandal.

I wanted to give Ong a completely free hand and not to feel to be under any pressure when there were signs that some action were at last being taken to ensure proper accountability for the PKFZ scandal.

However, up to now, only four not major personalities had been charged in court for corruption and abuses of power in the PKFZ scandal before the new year, with the promise by the Attorney-General, Tan Sri Abdul Gani Othman himself that “big fishes” in the PKFZ scandal were almost ready to be brought to book and prosecuted in court.

The whole nation waited in bated breath for the arrest and prosecution of the “sharks” of the RM12.5 billion PKFZ scandal, as nobody really believe that the four middling persons charged last December could be responsible wholly or even for majority part of the PKFZ scandal.

But the waiting of 27 million Malaysians have turned from day-to-day, to week-to-week and now month-to-month.

Malaysians are therefore astounded when Ong attributed his political troubles and survival as MCA President to the PKFZ scandal, when the “sharks” of the PKFZ scandal are still scotfree and not accounted for.

Let me tell Ong – go all out to bring the “sharks’ of the RM12.5 billion PKFZ scandal to justice and not be content with the “small fries”, even if he has to pay the price of being a short-term MCA President and Transport Minister. If he is to leave the Cabinet and MCA leadership, do it with a bang rather than in a whimper.

[
Speech (2) at the opening of the new RM800,000 Kuching DAP premises at Jalan Abang Abdul Rahim, Kuching on Monday, 8th March 2010 at 10 am
]

                This entry was posted on Monday, 8 March 2010, 5:36 pm and is filed under
Corruption
,
PKFZ
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Target of Pakatan Rakyat in Sarawak in the forthcoming state general elections must be to form the next State Government or deny BN 2/3 majority

I feel great satisfaction and a sense of fulfillment at today’s opening of the RM800,000 Kuching DAP premises as it is the culmination of the blood, sweat and tears of DAP leaders, members and supporters in Sarawak in the past 32 years since 1978 when Sarawak DAP was first formed.

We pay tribute to the Chairman of the Building Committee Sdr. Chong Siew Chiang, the founding Sarawak DAP Chairman who had planted the DAP flag in Sarawak in 1978 with a handful of Sarawakian visionaries. Another such visionary, who is with us today, is Sdr. Ling Sie Ming, the “dragon slayer” in the 1982 general elections when Sarawak DAP made the parliamentary breakthrough winning two parliamentary seats.

But the DAP struggle in Sarawak was a very arduous and testing one, as we were unable to make a breakthrough in the Sarawak state general elections for 18 years until 1996 when we first sent the Rocket to the Sarawak state assembly with the election of three Sarawak DAP State  Assemblymen.

The May 2006 Sarawak state general election saw another historic breakthrough when DAP Sarawak sent six representatives to the Sarawak state assembly out of a total of nine successful Opposition candidates – a prelude to the March 8 political tsunami of the 2008 general elections in Malaysia.

The question Malaysians are asking is whether the forthcoming Sarawak state general elections, expected anytime this year, will be another curtain-raiser to the completion of the “political tsunami” in Malaysia in the next national general elections to put the Pakatan Rakyat in power in Putrajaya?

Now, Sarawakians can seriously think about the possibility of unseating the Sarawak Barisan Nasional as the next Sarawak state government.

If this is to be achieved, the Opposition must win at least 36 out of the 72 State Assembly seats in Sarawak. At minimum, the objective in the forthcoming Sarawak state general election must be to win at least 24 seats to deny the Barisan Nasional two-thirds majority in the Sarawak State Assembly.

DAP cannot achieve on its own achieve either of these objectives in the next Sarawak state elections.

It is the challenge to Pakatan Rakyat as it can only be achieved through the collective effort of the Pakatan Rakyat parties together with the support and co-operation of friendly political parties, groups and individuals in Sarawak.

I am hopeful that the Pakatan Rakyat parties in Sarawak have learnt from the lessons of the 12th general elections in 2008 and that the Pakatan Rakyat will fight as one unit in the forthcoming state general elections.

[
Speech (3) at the opening of the new RM800,000 Kuching DAP premises at Jalan Abang Abdul Rahim, Kuching on Monday, 8th March 2010 at 10 am
]

                This entry was posted on Monday, 8 March 2010, 6:24 pm and is filed under
DAP
,
Election
,
Pakatan Rakyat
,
Sarawak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Towards A Developed Malaysia – Part 5

By
M. Bakri Musa

[Presented at the Third Annual Alif Ba Ta Forum, “1Malaysia Towards Vision 2020,” Rochester Institute of Technology, NY, December 5, 2009, organized by Kelab UMNO NY-NJ.  The presentation can be viewed at www.youtube.com (search under “Bakri Musa RIT”) or through
this link
]

Part Five of Six:         Q&A Con’td:

Q 4:     How can we unite Malaysians when we have these separate school systems?

MBM:
  The underpinning of the national school policy, as articulated in the Razak Report of 1956, was that if young Malaysians were to learn the same language, read the same books, study the same history, then we would all idolize the same heroes and subscribe to the same values.  With a common base and shared goals, national unity would be that more readily achievable.

            It was not an unreasonable assumption.  Tun Razak’s national schools were a definite improvement over the then existing vernacular schools.  At least Malaysians now know more about Tunku Abdul Rahman than Nehru or Chiang Kai Shek, and can speak the national language, an achievement that should not be belittled.

            Instead of building on that, we have over time corroded the noble values of the Razak Plan such that today we are even more segregated racially then we were during colonial rule.  There are many factors contributing to this sad affair, among them the increasing Islamization and the de-emphasis of English in our national schools.  I have elaborated on this in my book An Education System Worthy of Malaysia and elsewhere.  Today young Malaysians may be reading the same books or learning the same facts, but they are not doing it together in class as they have voluntarily segregated themselves, with the Chinese attending Chinese schools and Malays, national schools.  That is the crux of the problem.

            I have a different perspective.  I could not care less if we have a thousand school systems, as long as young Malaysians from the different races are learning together in class, playing together on the school fields, and participating in the same school plays and bands, then we would more likely end up as a nation less segregated and consequently more united.  I would focus on making our schools integrated; the student body must reflect the general community.  How that is done is for each school to decide.  To encourage that effort, I would reward through generous funding those schools that are fully integrated so they could enhance their programs to attract a broad spectrum of Malaysians.

Q 5:     What school system is best for Malaysia?

MBM:
  I do not know.  That is not an attempt at false modesty on my part.  I cannot honestly say that I know what is best for the children of a fisherman in Ulu Kelantan as compared to the needs of the children of a diplomat at Bukit Tunku.

            This certainty I do know.  Our schools must have a function beyond only educating our children; they should also serve as an instrument to bring our young together; dwifungsi (dual functions) as the Indonesians would say of their military.  Otherwise we would have a highly educated but divided society, another Northern Ireland.

            So if we were to have a single school system, then it should have only the two requirements.  One, the enrolment must reflect the community; two, its curriculum should have the core of Malay, English, science, and mathematics.  Beyond that, each school should be given the latitude to chart its own course, including choosing its language of instruction.

Q 6:     Can you comment on the recent policy reversal with respect to the teaching of science and mathematics in English?

MBM:
  I do not wish to go over the various arguments except to point to two incontrovertible facts.  One, we are better off knowing two languages instead of just one.  Quite apart from enhancing our marketability, being bilingual offers other significant cognitive advantages, like being able to see things from different perspectives.  I would leave it to the professionals on how best to make our children bilingual.

            Two, the bulk of the literature in science and technology is in English.  If we have to depend on translations, that means we are putting an unnecessary barrier in getting to the forefront of scientific knowledge.  I support the teaching of science and mathematics in English because of these two realities.

            There is no point in saying that the Japanese learn science in their language.  They have had centuries of experience; we do not.  Besides, they are already so far ahead of us.  If we were to “Look East,” the Japan we should emulate would be the Japan following the Meiji Restoration.  Then realizing how far behind they were as compared to the West, the Japanese sent thousands of their senior officials abroad for extended study tours to learn and absorb the best practices.  Additionally, Japan imported massive number of teachers and scientists from the West.  Even today thousands of young Americans go to Japan to teach English (the JET Program).

            I question the relevance to Malaysia of the UNESCO report favoring the use of mother tongue.  That report was concerned with the languages of small tribes and the fear that those languages would disappear.  Malay is the native language of over a quarter billion people; there is no likelihood it would suffer such a fate.

            I would go beyond being bilingual and make Malaysians trilingual, or at least have a working knowledge of a third.  Non-Malays are already trilingual:  Malay, English, and their mother tongue.  Malays could too:  Malay, English, and Arabic.  In truth I could not care less what the second and third languages are, but I presume for most Malays, English and Arabic would be the easiest to learn.

            Apart from the cognitive advantages, there are other benefits of knowing another language.  According to the Sapir-Whorf theory of linguistic relativity, the way we look at reality is shaped by our language.  Thus we think and behave differently because of the differences in our languages.  I will illustrate this with a seemingly unrelated account.

            A few years ago Korea Airlines suffered through a series of terrible crashes such that the authorities were considering banning the airline from American airspace.  These accidents were all due to pilot errors.  The tragedy was that often the first officer and flight engineer were fully aware of the dangers they were in but were too scared of contradicting their captain.  This fear subordinates have of their superiors is a feature of many Asian cultures, ours included.

            To remedy the situation, the airline hired an American consultant; he immediately recognized this major cultural impediment to effective cockpit communications.  As a foreigner he had little hope of changing Korean culture.  Instead, he prevailed upon management to impose an all-English rule in the cockpit.  Once the crew enters the plane, all communications must be in English.  He justified that on the basis that English is the language of aviation.  He also instituted other changes, like enhancing their communication skills.

            A remarkable thing happened.  He found that junior officers were now more open, direct and most importantly, clear when communicating with their superiors.  Whereas before they would convey their disagreements with their superiors in the most indirect and obtuse way, now those junior officers had no difficulty expressing them forthrightly.

            How did that happen?  Apparently in Korean language there are multiple ways of referring to “you” and “I” depending on the status of the speaker and the person addressed.  Just like Malay language, when a commoner addresses a royalty, he would refer to himself as patek (slave) while the sultan refers to himself as beta (royal “we”).  In English, it is only “I” and “You,” so the status barrier, or what cultural anthropologists refer to as power distance, is eliminated.  Today, directly as a consequence of the English-only cockpit policy, Korea Airlines is one of the safest airlines.  A remarkable transformation!

            Recently Mahathir lamented that his greatest failure was not being able to change Malay culture.  It is pure hubris on his part to think that he could change our culture.  If he had been more modest, he could have effected significant changes in Malays by making us learn English.  At least then we could address ourselves as “I” or “we” and not as slaves when addressing a member of the royalty.  Then we would not have witnessed the incongruity of our language as demonstrated by Mentri Besar Nizar of Perak when he respectfully disagreed with his sultan, “Patek memohon derhaka … ” (I, your slave, beg to be treasonous with Your Majesty!)  Malay language is just not equipped for such direct or frontal communications.

            Many of our sultans sit on the governing boards of important institutions.  How could there be robust discussions in such meetings when everyone would be deferring to the sultan?  Senior scholars, seasoned politicians, and hard-nosed corporate captains suddenly become meek and genuflect to the sultan.  That cannot be good.  One way to overcome that would be to communicate in English.  It would be so much easier to say in English, “I am sorry Your Royal Highness, I respectfully disagree!”  I challenge anyone to say that in Malay and then be brave enough to say it to a sultan!  It just cannot be done; that is the constraint of our language and culture.

Q 7:     You have these wonderful ideas like air-conditioning our schools and equipping them with modern laboratories.  Those are expensive propositions.  How can we afford them?

MBM:
  You are sounding like a politician or civil servant already!  “No funds lah!” is their chronic excuse.  We have the money, but we spend it foolishly, as in the billions wasted bailing out those GLCs.

            I will illustrate the misplaced priorities of our officials with this small incident.  A senior official was visiting California recently.  At a private conversation I noted to him that our officials do not carry laptops when they travel abroad and wondered how they would keep in touch with their offices back home.  Besides, what do they do on the long trans-Pacific flights and the hours waiting at airports?

            His response was to blame the government for not supplying its senior officers with laptops.  My rebuttal was that that if they had traveled business instead of first class, the government would have plenty of leftover cash to buy them fancy laptops!  That demonstrates the priorities of our officials at the micro level and involving only a few thousand ringgit.  The same misplaced priorities occur at the macro level, and with a price tag of billions.

            Along the same point, if we have open competitive biddings, our schools and their laboratories would cost considerably less.  We have the resources if only we use them wisely.

Q 8:     How can we use our schools specifically and education system generally to open up Malaysian minds?  Malaysians today are better educated than ever, with many ministers having impressive degrees from leading universities, but their mindset is still kampong.

MBM:
  That is a profound question and observation.  I will try to answer by stating a few simple and obvious facts.  First, schooling does not equal learning.  If you were to ask the many who dropped out why they did so, invariably their answer would be that they were not learning anything at school.

            Second, the classroom is not the only place where you can learn.  The boy who helps his father at his kedai kopi is learning many things, like customer relations, cash flow, and inventory control.  He may not know them through such terms but he is still absorbing the essence of those concepts.  If he had stayed in a Malaysian school he probably still could not balance his checkbook.

            There was a study many years ago of those kampong girls working in the factories of multinational companies – the Minah Karans (Hot girls!).  Most had attended only primary school, hence the derogatory label.  Yet after a few years of working, those girls had a social profile associated more with those who had completed secondary schooling.  Meaning, they marry late, save more, and have fewer children.  Obviously working in a factory taught them many lessons such as to be punctual, value time and money, and be independent.  Those are useful lessons of life, and they will never learn that in school, at least not our schools.  Working in those factories of multinational companies made them escape their kampong mindset far more effectively than had they completed their local schooling or even attended local universities.

            As for opening up Malaysian minds, you would automatically achieve that if you are not intent on closing them.  What goes on in our schools today, especially religious schools, is nothing more than indoctrination masquerading as education.  We are intent on closing minds.  Children are by nature curious; they have an innate desire to explore.  All we have to do is leave them alone; we would of course go further if we equip them with the necessary tools.

            One such tool is language skills.  I would like our students be fluently bilingual for reasons discussed earlier.  The two natural languages for us would be Malay and English.  Then we should ensure that they have the necessary quantitative skills so they could think with some degree of precision and not merely agak agak (wild guesses).  Meaning, emphasize mathematics.  Lastly, I would encourage critical thinking through reading literature, even our simple folktales.

            Consider my favorite childhood story, Batu belah, Batu melangkup.  You know, the story of the mother who sulked and ran away to disappear into a cave because her children had eaten all the food and left her with nothing.  If after reading that story in class, the teacher would ask the girls to imagine themselves as the mother.  She is now in the cave alone and a jinn would appear to grant her one final wish:  to deliver her last letter to her children.  Now ask the girls to write that letter.  For the boys, imagine that you, being the eldest and now responsible for your siblings, the jinn too had also given you a similar wish.  Now write that last letter to your mother.

            Imagine the different responses!  That is the sort of classroom assignments that would encourage students to think creatively and explore their inner world.  You can be sure that the answer is not given at the back of the book!  Nor would there be any “prep” essays available for download!  Such an exercise would really challenge and bring out the intelligence and creativity of your students.

            Literature is exciting and helps develop our powers of critical thinking, but only if we go beyond the “who said what and to whom,” and, if I may add, on what page!

            Our education system today succeeds only in creating an obsession with paper qualifications – credentialism.  I am stunned at how many chief ministers and corporate chiefs who unabashedly display their “doctorates” from known degree mills.  They are not even embarrassed.  Worse, nobody in the media exposes their fraud.

Q 9:  [Question from a hearing-impaired student; his question and my answer were translated by a sign language interpreter.]

When I was a student in Malaysia, my teachers would always ignore those of us at the bottom of the class.  The teachers focused only on the top students.  So I was pleased with your allocation and in not ignoring the bottom decile.

First, I want to make one point clear.  When I label a part of the population as being at the bottom or top decile, I am merely referring to a particular attribute that I am measuring.  It does NOT make any judgment on the whole person or his other abilities and attributes.  I want to emphasize that, and that is why I specifically choose an attribute – the ability to fish – that has no emotive or other association.

            In focusing on the “top” students, your teachers were making a value judgment, presumably based on test scores.  Let me make a confession here.  If I were a student in Malaysia today, I would have long ago been kicked out of school.  In fact that nearly happened to me at my afternoon religious school, for misbehaving in class per the ustad’s standards.  Fortunately my wise father saw something in me and took me out before I was expelled!  If you live in a kampong, you know that took considerable courage on his part.

            Your teachers back home assumed that you, being hearing impaired, were also dumb; hence their reactions to you.  Here in America and specifically RIT, we do not use the label “deaf.”  I am told that there are nearly a thousand hearing-impaired students at RIT diligently preparing to be productive citizens.  If they had been Malaysians, ignored by their teachers, they would end up as Mat Rempits.  They would be perfect for that as the roar of their machines would not bother them in the least!

            Yesterday at Friday prayers on campus, there was a sign language translator interpreting the khutba.  What a wonderful sight!  I challenge anyone to cite a similar example anywhere in the Muslim world.  To Muslims who are hearing-impaired, the Imam’s prayers and sermons are nothing but lips quivering and hands gesturing.  Here on the campus of a private secular university in a Christian country, a hearing-impaired Muslim gets to ‘hear’ a khutba!

Next:  Concluding Part:  Part Six of Six:  Q&A Con’td

                This entry was posted on Monday, 8 March 2010, 9:30 am and is filed under
Bakri Musa
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Has Najib’s New Economic Model been hijacked by Neo-NEP Umnoputras like Perkasa forcing another delay in its announcement?

The assurance by the Deputy Prime Minister Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin that no Malaysian would be sidelined in the New Economic Model (NEM) is not convincing when from all indications,  the NEM has been hijacked by Neo-NEP Umnoputras like Perkasa, forcing another delay in its announcement.

When Datuk Seri Najib Razak became Prime Minister last April, he announced that the government would introduce a new economic model for the country to ensure that Malaysia makes a quantum leap to escape the middle-income trap to become a high-income country through greater emphasis on innovation, creativity and competitiveness.

In May last year, the Second Finance Minister, Datuk Seri Ahmad Husni Hanadzlah said the new economic model would be announced in the second half of the year.

Time is clearly of the critical essence to launch a new economic model as Husni subsequently admitted in a very frank speech in December that the country had lost a decade in economic stagnation.

In actual fact, Malaysia had lost not only one decade in economic stagnation but four decades in failing to fully realize the economic potential of the rich natural and human resources of the country, resulting in Malaysia losing out not only to other countries including Singapore, Taiwan, South Korea but at risk of being overtaken by an increasing list of other countries like Vietnam, Thailand and even Indonesia.

However, the time-line for the announcement of the new economic model has been repeatedly deferred, from last year to the beginning of this year, then to this month to coincide with the completion of Najib as Prime Minister  and now to June when the 10th Malaysia Plan will be presented to Parliament.

The disruption of the plan to announce the new economic model to commemorate Najib’s first year as Prime Minister is a setback for Najib’s 1Malaysia as well as a competitive and innovative new economic model and a success for the plethora of Neo-NEP Umnoputra NGOs and NGIs to whom have been outsourced the agenda of Umno’s NEP-putras.

Malaysians and the world are wondering what new economic model of greater innovation, creativity and competitiveness could be formulated by Najib against the backdrop of reactionary and extremist pressures with irresponsible and baseless alarms  like “the Chinese community will take over the country in the next general elections” and  that Article 153 of the Constitution would be trampled upon with Malay interests (when they mean Neo-NEP Umnoputra interests) sidelined.

I call on the Cabinet tomorrow to make a bold policy decision to make public the draft New Economic Model and invite public consultation and input and not to allow irresponsible interest groups inimical to the 1Malaysia concept and vision to hijack and monopolise the formulation of the New Economic Model.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 9 March 2010, 2:21 pm and is filed under
Economics
,
Najib Razak
,
UMNO
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Not a time to lose March 8 spirit

By Kee Thuan Chye

There was a lot of optimism right after March 8, 2008. There was a sense that things would get better. But has there been much change two years since that day?

Instead of seeing multi-racialism being freely accepted and manifested in government policies, we find ourselves becoming more divided along racial lines. Right after March 8, Umno embarked on its campaign to warn the Malays that they were under threat and to rise up against this.

The government has assumed a schizophrenic personality – the prime minister talks about 1Malaysia while his deputy says things that are completely contradictory. The PM talks about multi-racial unity while his own party campaigns for Malay unity.

Many of us had hoped that, after the elections, both Barisan Nasional and Pakatan Rakyat would set aside their political differences and get down to the business of working for the national interest, of saving this country.

Instead, they have been doing their darnedest to do the dirty on each other. BN is coming out tops in that effort because it has the media under its control. Both seem to be doing their worst to win the next general election.

We hoped for leaders who would be honest, clean and respectful of us the people, who would not think we were stupid or immature. Quite soon after Najib Abdul Razak took over as prime minister, he told a gathering of senior mainstream media editors: “I have no baggage.”

The editors nearly fell off their chairs. If the No. 1 leader of this country can say something like that, what can we expect of the rest?

No wonder then Home Minister Syed Hamid Albar could say that Sin Chew Daily journalist Tan Hoon Cheng had been detained under the Internal Security Act (ISA) “for her own protection”. And current Home Minister Hishammuddin Hussein (right) could come out to defend the cow-head protestors and actually say “they felt victimised”.

But the ‘best’ comment on that incident came from Dr Mohd Khir Toyo: “There was no religious significance in bringing the head. The cow is a stupid creature and (the protestors) wanted to point out that the (Selangor) state government was being stupid.”

How did such a person become menteri besar of Selangor?

Instead of being a formidable force providing a strong opposition in Parliament, Pakatan is now fighting to salvage its image. The number of elected representatives who have quit PKR is distressing, and Pakatan can’t blame the mainstream media for this. Neither can Pakatan blame anyone for its ability to produce ‘frogs’.

Anwar Ibrahim promised us defections from BN to Pakatan on Sept 16, 2008, but it never happened. Now it’s happening – but the defectors are from Pakatan. In any case, Anwar’s attempt to take over the federal government on Sept 16 was misguided and merely exposed his true ambition – to be prime minister, above all else.

We now see infighting among Pakatan’s elected representatives. We hear allegations of corruption in their ranks. We realise that many of them are in public service not to serve the public but to serve their own interests. All these negative developments threaten to erode our faith in Pakatan. Can they put their act together? Can they form a viable government?

After March 8, we hoped the government would undo the damage that had been inflicted on our country by the man who screwed up our institutions, created a culture of fear, fostered the negotiated contract, invested our money in white elephants – and still doesn’t know when to shut up. The Americans could only make ‘Avatar’; he managed to lead a country to the dogs. And yet the government has not dismantled the culture he created in order to restore our faith in the country’s institutions.

On the issue of race, Najib’s 1Malaysia project is mere window-dressing. It’s old wine in a new bottle. And I’m not apologising for the non-halal reference. I leave that sort of apologising to Star.

What 1Malaysia is there when Najib says one thing and his deputy, Muhyiddin Yassin, says the direct opposite? The very day Najib publicly unveiled the 1Malaysia logo, Muhyiddin said Umno would fight to the last drop of blood to protect Malay rights. He has also said the BTN courses are uniting Malaysians in line with the 1Malaysia concept. How? Pray tell.

What 1Malaysia is there when Najib says one thing and his aide Nasir Safar says the Indians came to this country as beggars and the Chinese as prostitutes? And that “We can anytime revoke the citizenship of the Indians in Malaysia”?

Media failures

More insidious is the rise of the right-wing movement that the government has done nothing to discourage. Only last week, the Home Ministry granted its most prominent group, Perkasa, a permit to publish a fortnightly newspaper. Meanwhile, Utusan Malaysia and Berita Harian continue to pour poison into the ears of the Malays by spinning that they are losing their land and privileges.

Surely, Najib could put a stop to such spin since the newspapers are owned by Umno? Why doesn’t he? Is it because he encourages media freedom? If so, why do we still have the Printing Presses and Publications Act, which requires media organisations to renew their licences every year at the pleasure of the home minister? Why is it still there to turn media owners and editors into eunuchs?

Star recently published an article which critiqued the caning of the three Muslim women for illicit sex, and public caning in general. When a few Muslim NGOs complained, the Home Ministry promptly issued the newspaper a show-cause letter. The ministry also insisted on an apology. So the paper dutifully apologised. No doubt all this is meant to intimidate Star so it won’t dare to run such articles again.

Should it be frightened? How do we push the parameters if we continue to be frightened? How do we encourage healthy public debate? I personally doubt the ministry would close down Star. The public repercussions would be negative for the government. More importantly, BN would cease to have an important organ for the dissemination of its propaganda. Star reaches out to a wide non-Malay, mainly middle-class readership. BN can’t afford not to reach out to these people.

Even after March 8, the mainstream media is failing us. Remember how relatively balanced they were in the months after March 8? Their owners realised that for the sake of public acceptance, they had to temper their pro-government bias and so they opened the window of objectivity by a few degrees. Besides, they had to hedge their bets in case Anwar did manage to take over the government.

But then when Sept 16 didn’t happen, there was no need to consider that any more. So the mainstream media stopped being balanced. Months later, Najib took over as PM. He tightened the screws. Thereafter, the mainstream media went back to bashing Pakatan.

Selective change

To be fair to Najib, he has shown that he’s serious about economic reform and he’s trying to make Malaysia more competitive and to lure foreign investors. He has also come up with the Government’s Transformation Programme that identifies six key areas in which the government intends to improve its service to the public.

The effects of all these, however, are not conspicuous yet. He did try to table three laws in Parliament to settle the touchy issue of religious conversion but this was forestalled at the last minute by the Conference of Rulers. But meanwhile, where are the institutional reforms?

When he became PM, he released numerous ISA detainees, among them the Hindraf leaders. But wasn’t that done with the next general election in mind – to win back the Indians? What about the more important issue – the ISA itself? What is being done about that? And what about the Universities and University Colleges Act, which denies student participation in not just political activities but also social activities that are not approved by the vice-chancellor?

Recently, the Universiti Malaya Speaker’s Corner was reactivated and a deputy minister who was somehow present at the event called it a clear example of the government’s open approach. Someone should test what can’t be said at that Speaker’s Corner.

What about the law enforcement institutions? We have yet to see the setting-up of the IPCMC which could help reduce crime and police corruption, and promote better observance of human rights by the police.

The ACA was reformed to become the MACC to battle corruption more effectively. Look at what it’s doing these days – mostly picking on opposition politicians to bring them to shame. Almost every opposition leader worth his salt is being investigated by the MACC. If you are not being investigated, you haven’t arrived.

We could also go into the attorney-general’s office and ask what has happened to the Lingam case, the PKFZ case, the RMAF case, the Hasbie Safar case, and whether the people who placed wild-boar’s heads in the two mosques have been arrested. What do you think we might discover?

Shaking off fear

So, what good has March 8 brought us after all?

Fundamentally, I think Malaysians are becoming more courageous. More and more are speaking up. Fewer and fewer are kowtowing to the people in high places. We are struggling to shake off the culture of fear – and I think we are succeeding. Look at the turnout at candlelight vigils and protest marches.

At the protests against the ISA detention of Tan Hoon Cheng, Raja Petra Kamarudin and Teresa Kok, people whom you’d never expected to see at such gatherings actually showed up. Three years ago, such people would not have dared come near such activities.

There is a new spirit of defiance now, and we have models of defiance to show us the way – among them Anwar Ibrahim since the reformasi days, Raja Petra, P Uthayakumar, Mohammad Nizar Jamaluddin and his Perak band, and Malaysiakini. Instead of giving in to authoritative pressure, they stood tall. And that’s how it should be.

Malaysians are no longer so afraid of another May 13. Sure, there is always the possibility of racial riots flaring up but people are generally more sensible now. Besides, no responsible government would want racial riots to erupt and frighten away investors. The recent ‘Allah’ issue reinforces that. Despite the puny efforts of a few to create an incident by fire-bombing churches, attacking a surau and depositing wild-boar heads in mosques, the opportunity for riots fizzled out.

The political battlefields of Malaysia are no longer so clear-cut and marked by Malays versus non-Malays. From the time of reformasi in the late 1990s, the split within the Malay community has been evident.

In the 1999 general election (GE), it was the non-Malay voters who saved BN from possibly losing its two-thirds majority. Compared to the 1995 GE, Umno’s votes in 1999 dropped by 8 percent. Najib nearly got voted out of the Pekan constituency. He scraped through with a majority of only 241 votes.

In fact, as long ago as the mid-70s, it had already been predicted that a time would come when the major political strife would be between the Malays. The failure of the NEP to evenly redistribute wealth among the Malays has accelerated this. A class fight is settling in between the Malays who have not and the Malays who have a lot.

The real issue now is corruption. Many Malays have come to realise that the people who join Umno these days are largely doing so not because they believe in helping their own community but because they want to get rich.

Umno still tries to sell the idea of ketuanan Melayu but to the Malay have-nots, what is the meaning of that ketuanan? Even so, when push comes to shove, anything can happen. Much will depend on how effectively Umno plays the racial game. While it is unwise to look at the Malays as a monolith, it is equally unwise to ignore the tribal instincts of a community. Especially when it’s constantly being told that it’s under siege.

Looking forward on a more optimistic note, however, we have to acknowledge that March 8 has given us something precious for the next GE, and hopefully for longer into the future – choice. Now we have two coalitions to offer us their idea of a better deal. If we want to retain this duopoly that should work to our benefit, we have to nurture it. It sure beats having a monopoly.

The next GE will be crucial. It will determine whether we’ll get more of the same old, same old or whether we will get real change. Whether we will continue to be a nation divided along racial lines or be hopeful of being a truly Malaysian nation. If we are to keep the March 8 spirit alive and make irreversible the trend to take Malaysia out of the dark ages, we have to do our part. Those who have not yet registered as voters should do so as soon as possible.

It’s going to be a tough GE. Najib will want to prove himself worthy of being PM by winning it. He hasn’t won one yet. He’s PM now by default. He’s PM because of 2,600 Umno delegates. That’s the number that actually decided who would become prime minister. Only 2,600. We have seen in his handling of Perak how ruthless he can be when it comes to such things. So we need to be vigilant.

One of the tactics BN will resort to is gerrymandering. This might explain the recent PKR defections. BN will need a two-thirds majority to push through a Bill in Parliament calling for a redelineation of parliamentary constituencies. If it succeeds, redelineation will be really bad news for Pakatan. The opposition will have to strive even harder to win constituencies re-drawn to favour BN.

As it stands, Sabah and Sarawak seem secure for BN. To ensure that, Najib has been pumping more and more money into those states. In the peninsula, 70 percent of the current parliamentary seats are Malay-majority seats. That’s where PAS and PKR have to work really hard to deliver the votes. If they lose the battle for the Malay votes and Sabah and Sarawak remain loyal to BN, not only will Pakatan not make it to Putrajaya; BN might get back its two-thirds majority.

Whatever it is, when the next general election comes around, it might be appropriate to recall the words of Franklin Roosevelt: “The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.”

Choice is what we have now. That has been the gift of March 8. We should exercise that choice – for the betterment of our country. And exercise it without fear.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 9 March 2010, 5:00 am and is filed under
Kee Thuan Chye
,
Najib Razak
,
Pakatan Rakyat
,
Post-2008 general election
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Charge N H Chan for contempt or resign, CJ?

By
Martin Jalleh

The integrity of the judiciary has been badly mauled by a legal lion who does not mince his words no matter how high or mighty a judge thinks he is. He has called a spade a spade and certain members of the judiciary an “incompetent” and even an “idiotic” bunch!

All the Chief Justice (CJ) and the judges in the Palace of Justice have managed to do is remain mum, mute and mumble amongst themselves as N H Chan methodically makes them out for who they really are and the mockery they have made of the law!

The respected, renowned and retired Justice N H Chan is very frustrated, fed-up and furious at how the judiciary which he had served so faithfully has been reduced to a farce run by those who are legal and intellectual frauds or what he has called “imposters”!

With each passing compromised judgment N H Chan unhesitatingly hits out at judges with an increasingly sharper sting. He leaves no stone unturned, no errant judge uncovered. They can “no longer mask their hyperbole judgments with unintelligible garbage”.

“Fools on the bench”

In his latest scathing critique, he said the rakyat is “stunned by the ignorance of our judges of the highest court in the land”, as seen in the recent Federal Court’s decision not to review Anwar Ibrahim’s application to review its previous decision dismissing his application for disclosure of documents for his second sodomy trial.

N H Chan said the Federal Court’s approach to Rule 137 of the Rules of the Federal Court 1995 was “inconsistent” and “dishonest” and “those ignoramuses” were talking “utter nonsense”. Those “inane judges cannot even understand plain English”! He put it very plainly and painfully!

Calling the three-member panel of Justice Zulkefli Ahmad Makinuddin, Mohd Ghazali Mohd Yusoff and Heliliah Mohd Yusof “incompetent”, he added “perhaps they were clowns as their statements were laughable”.

His searing criticism was that they “…do not know justice from injustice”, and that “such lowly individuals should never be allowed to sit on the seat of Justice…(and) to be judges at all. And yet there are so many of them in the judiciary today ever since the rot begun.”

He shredded into smithereens the “judicial renaissance” of the CJ: “Our country does not need impostors, who pose as judges, to deceive the common people any longer. The common citizenry can now uncover the impostors hiding beneath the mantle of the judicature.”

He laid bare the judicial sham: “With judges such as these in the Malaysian judiciary where, to them, the principles of the law are not to be consonant with justice to be manipulated by them to uphold injustice, it is no wonder that the errant judges have forfeited the confidence of the people. ”

He left them with a stinging slap in the face: “The general public does not respect such judges anymore! They have put themselves beyond the pale. Just like pariahs. Don’t you think they should be despised?”

On High Court judge Justice Mohamad Zabidin Mohd Diah’s rejection of Anwar’s application to have the judge recuse himself from further hearing the sodomy trial, N H Chan said that the judge was talking “utter nonsense” and “knew next to nothing about judicial bias”.

He added that the “moral of this unsavoury episode” is this: if you appoint mediocre lawyers to the Bench you will get substandard judges. The solution to this problem is a simple one. Appoint judges from the cream of the legal profession and you will not find me assailing the judges for incompetence simply because I will not be able to do so.”

Such was his cutting conclusion: “It is only when we have fools on the bench that I can point out that what they have decided is not the law.”

“Bunch of idiots in high places”

N H Chan had not spared the judges in the cases related to the Perak constitutional crisis of his very strong language when scrutinising their decisions (with the exception of Kuala Lumpur High Court Justice Abdul Aziz Abdul Rahim whom he had praised).

He highlighted the “bad” and “perverse” judgments, especially those in the appellate courts, the collective written judgements which were “riddled with contradictions” and how the Perak and Federal Constitutions were toyed with and trampled on by the judges!

During the Perak debacle N H Chan had said that there are “many of our judges today especially among those judges in the higher echelon of the judicial hierarchy who do not seem to know the true meaning of separation of powers in constitutional law. This is most apparent.”

He called some of the judges of the cases of the Perak imbroglio:

Bad judges – they “seem to think that independence means that they can do what they like”

Recalcitrant judges – “they think that words can mean whatever they want them to mean”

Humpty Dumpty judges – “they also think that they are independent of the legislature”.

N H Chan has brought to light how beholden the judiciary is to the Umno-dominated Government. He said the “so-called Perak crisis has brought out a host of cases that showed that the judges gave the impression that they were one-sided. The perception of the people is that they sided with the BN government.”

In the “shocking case” of Zambry v Sivakumar in the Federal Court, he called the judgment by the “infamous five” (judges) Alauddin Mohd Sheriff , Arifin Zakaria, Nik Hashim Ab Rahman, Augustine Paul and Ahmad Makinnuddin, a “perverse decision”.

In the case of Nizar vs Zambry he called the panel of five Federal Court judges made up of the President of the Court of Appeal Alauddin Mohd Sheriff, Chief Judge of Malaya Arifin Zakaria, Zulkefli Ahmad Makinuddin, Ghazali Mohd Yusoff and Abdul Hamid Embong, “myopic judges”.

They “were lost in a quagmire of confused thinking caused by their own incompetence. They found themselves deep in the forest unable to see the wood for the trees. Does this mean that we have a bunch of incompetent judges who sit in the highest court in the land?”

Alas, with the help of N H Chan the public especially those in Perak were able to see for themselves how members of the judiciary had left behind a dead constitution, “bad” and “perverse” decisions, dubious declaratory orders, judgments devoid of reasoned grounds, and disgraceful double standards.

Blind and Biased Judges

N H Chan has “judged the judges”. He considers them, especially those in the appellate courts’ “ignorant”, “inane”, “incompetent” and even “idiots” (which he has strongly inferred).

The public shares his view. In their eyes the judiciary has allowed itself to be intimidated, its independence and impartiality interfered with, and its integrity reduced to ignominy.

In the light of the severe criticism of N H Chan of the judiciary (which is quite unprecedented by a retired judge), surely the Chief Justice cannot stand idly, silently and stoically by – unless Zaki Azmi strenuously, staunchly and solemnly agrees with him!

Further if Zaki continues to remain silent the public will assume that he shares N H Chan’s searing criticism of the judiciary. Logically he would have to resign for he has allowed the reputation of the judiciary to be sullied irreparably.

The judicial shenanigans whom N H Chan has criticized and castigated should also resign for having shamelessly sacrificed justice on the altar of political expediency.

N H Chan’s comments on members of the judiciary have no doubt been bold, blunt and blistering. He has accused judges of being blind, biased and being a bunch of “idiots” and “fools”. He has thrown the gauntlet down.

If the CJ disagrees with N H Chan’s criticisms he should haul the former Court of Appeal judge into court and demand that the latter shows cause for why he should not be cited for contempt! Does Zaki have the guts to take up the gauntlet or will he prefer to allow the judicial circus to go on?

N H Chan has made no bones about it. His blitzkrieg on the judiciary will continue. “Bad guys” had better beware! He will ensure that their names remain in infamy for generations to come unless they recant the wrongs that they have done! He will even write their obituary and if they outlive him there will be others who will take his place!

N H Chan sees the next general elections as the only solution to an unsalvageable judiciary viewed by the public with greater suspicion, skepticism and even scorn. He once commented: “At the present time and judging by what we have experienced so far from the Perak takeover cases, the quality of most of our judges is suspect”.

“In the meantime what should we do with so many bad apples in the barrel? If only there could be a change in government in the next general elections with the opposition winning by a landslide. Then we could get rid of all the bad apples by Act of Parliament.”

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 10 March 2010, 5:50 pm and is filed under
Judiciary
,
Martin Jalleh
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Najib will have no time for affairs of state as Prime Minister if he spends 10 hours a day on Facebook

Even before a full year, the Najib premiership is more than fraying at the edges – showing a serious schizophrenic personality.

The Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak proclaims the slogan and vision of 1Malaysia. Deputy Prime Minister, Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin, however invokes a different image – a divided Many Malaysia!

I was struck by this schizophrenic Najib premiership when I read the Malaysiakini news report  just now that ”Najib will respond to ‘good suggestions’ in Facebook”.

Speaking to some 500 civil servants and community leaders at a briefing organized by the Kelantan Federal Development Department, the Prime Minister’s political secretary Shahlan Ismail said the Prime Minister would respond to all constructive opinions submitted by the people in the country via the Facebook.

He said  between 100 and 200 messages were received each day with various suggestions and opinions and some of them were used as a guide by the Prime Minister.

He added: “On certain days, up to 600 messages are received a day and these would be attended to by the Prime Minister personally.”

I find this most remarkable, as Najib will have no time for affairs of state as Prime Minister if he spends 10 hours a day on Facebook –  given one minute for a Facebook message, which will consume 600 minutes (or 10 hours) for 600 messages.

Where is the schizophrenia about  Najib and the  Facebook?

The answer is of course Datuk Seri Rais Yatim, Najib’s Minister for Information, Communications and Culture, who recently lambasted twitter and Facebook as “tools of the West” which could erode Malaysian culture.

Should Najib be looking for a new Minister for Information, Communications and Culture to end the schizophrenia in his administration?

[
Speech (2) at the Negri Sembilan Pakatan Rakyat “March 8 political tsunami” second anniversary ceramah perdana at Oakland Commerce Square, Seremban on Tuesday, 9th March 2010 at 10 pm
]

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 10 March 2010, 9:16 am and is filed under
Najib Razak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Perkasa – rebirth of a demon

By
AB Sulaiman

Malaysiakini

The birth of Malay NGO Perkasa is obviously causing a stir in the Malaysian social, intellectual and political landscape.

It has declared intention of acting as a “shield against those who question Malay rights, the royalty and Islam”, according to its founding head and Independent MP Ibrahim Ali.

The target and philosophy is thereby made clear – to protect and promote the sanctity of Islam, the martabat (dignity and honour) of the Malay people, and the spirit of nationalism. This falls under the ideology and banner of untuk agama, bangsa dan negara (for religion, race and nation).

But hasn’t the same philosophy and ideology been used by the Malay leadership in governing the country ever since Independence in 1957? Wasn’t it adopted in the interests of ketuanan Melayu (KM) after the launch of the New Economic Policy (NEP) in 1970?

To be sure it is the same. Yet, over the last 52 years, it has not seen much success.

So what’s the idea of creating Perkasa now and making the defence and propagation of religion and race sound like a newfound revelation that must be pursued with such immediacy and enthusiasm? Against what threat is the shield designed to protect? From where does this come from anyway? It is indeed a puzzle.

The truth of the matter is that people today are tired of KM leadership. It is so blatantly racist and theological that even Malays are embarrassed by it. Today’s citizens think, listen, read, travel and demand more – they are better informed and knowledgeable, and reject racism and religious extremism.

They are also more aware of the situation around them. They are aware of the abuse of power, abuse of the NEP, corruption and the breakdown of institutions of governance. Civil society movements are agitating and demanding liberty and respect for universal human rights.

All this does not bode well for KM leadership, considering the realisation that KM has not really fought for Malay dignity and honour. It has been fighting more to fill the pockets of a few and to protect a small number of politically-connected individuals.

The disenchantment was amply demonstrated by the results of the 2008 election, leading to BN and Umno – the latter being the most active front for KM – losing the two-thirds majority in Parliament, and the Opposition gaining control of five states.

The influence of Umno is waning. Malays are running away from Umno, as are Chinese from MCA and Indians from MIC.

In other words, BN is in tatters. This is why Perkasa was hastily created – to stem this erosion of support.

Inherent illusions

This quick analysis and conclusion may or may not be right but, to me, it is entirely consistent with the facts and situations surrounding the formation of Perkasa.

I question why it is re-using the religion, race and nationalism card when this has been proven to be obsolete and irrelevant in bringing progress and change to Malay social and economic development. My scepticism is based on the following observations on KM-based thinking and its inherent prejudices and illusions:

It claims to hold the monopoly on truth. Such thinking holds the view that Islam is the only religion approved by god and that other religions are false. This perception of exclusivity is, of course absurd, for religion is a matter of faith between an individual and his or her god.

It caries the illusion that the Malay culture is the world’s foremost culture, with its pristine budi bahasa and sopan santun coupled with a high sense of morality. Again this is an absurd, unilateral claim, for any culture has its etiquette and morality, no better nor worse than any other. It can be seen therefore that the KM norm is decked with hyperbolism – that being Malay and Muslim is the luckiest draw in the lottery of life.

It can also be arrogant and has little or no tolerance for alternatives. Indeed its parameters have no avenue to realise its own mistakes. In short, it is black-and-white thinking: ‘I am right therefore you are wrong. If you are not for me then you are against me.’

It is a world of collective delusion of the superiority of the Malay culture and the uniqueness of Islam.

Well, the record of Malay governance has shown fairly conclusively that the religion- and race- based philosophy of governance has not worked. This is hardly surprising for any economics textbook will explain that the factors of economic production (or the creation of national wealth) are land, labour, capital and entrepreneurship. Of late, knowledge has been included. Further factors favouring the development of a civilisation are secularism, materialism and intellectualism.

Of these eight factors, none refer to race or religion. In concept and reality therefore, the KM formula for social and economic success is way off the mark. Indeed it has been a colossal mistake. The failure of the NEP is proof enough of this sobering contention.

I do not share the euphoria surround the formation of Perkasa. I do not see how its claim to protect race and religion can promote Malay socio-economic progress. Ibrahim’s declared intentions show all the promise of repeating the mistake and are an exercise in futility.

Given that this philosophy is no longer viable, it is still a wonder why Ibrahim still resorts to it. Can there be any reason for this? I have a hypothesis explaining his loyalty to a failed philosophy and ideology.

There is a denial syndrome inherent in KM thinking, particularly since it lacks an avenue for self-realisation of mistakes. It will go on thinking that it has been right all along, and that other alternatives are figments of the imagination of anti-Malay elements.

KM brooks no dissent. Liberal and liberated Malays are quickly branded as ungrateful and ‘mudah lupa’ (forgetful). Non-Malays are also branded as ungrateful for not appreciating the hospitality of the Malays in giving them citizenship.

KM then states that non-Malays wish to deprive Malays of their rights, hence the birth of Perkasa.

Hidden agenda

Perkasa has claimed an immediate membership of 5,000, with another 50,000 ahead. It has the direct support of former premier Dr Mahathir Mohamad and incumbent deputy premier Muhyiddin Yassin. And barely a week ago, the Home Ministry issued a permit for its newsletter.

Based on all this, the suspicion is growing that Ibrahim may have a hidden agenda. As to what this is, only he can say for sure.

In any event, Perkasa’s future terms of reference are to recapture and nurture yesterday’s status quo:

Develop a herd mentality among Malays.

Delay or deny the sense of individual from developing in Malay psychology.

Promote the prevailing dependence mentality among Malays.

Nurture the sense of insecurity normally felt by the KM polity, namely political leaders, the ulama, civil servants and officials in government agencies such as the police, military, customs, immigration, and even the police and AG’s chambers.

Make all of them feel that the Malay ethnic group is still not ready to compete against the non-Malays and the rest of the world on a level plain.

With all this revitalised, Ibrahim can put his secret agenda into action.

All said and done, Perkasa’s birth reflects the real or perceived sense of desperation and paranoia of conservative and orthodox Malay thinking. Or, it is the rebirth of the spirit of ‘Malayness’ that has apparently dwindled over the past few decades due to the process of change.

It is the rebirth of the religion and race-based KM demon that does not know its game is up. And sad to note, in the name of religion and race, the KM does not want to learn from its own mistakes.

It claims to hold the monopoly on truth. Such thinking holds the view that Islam is the only religion approved by god and that other religions are false. This perception of exclusivity is, of course absurd, for religion is a matter of faith between an individual and his or her god.

It caries the illusion that the Malay culture is the world’s foremost culture, with its pristine budi bahasa and sopan santun coupled with a high sense of morality. Again this is an absurd, unilateral claim, for any culture has its etiquette and morality, no better nor worse than any other. It can be seen therefore that the KM norm is decked with hyperbolism – that being Malay and Muslim is the luckiest draw in the lottery of life.

It can also be arrogant and has little or no tolerance for alternatives. Indeed its parameters have no avenue to realise its own mistakes. In short, it is black-and-white thinking: ‘I am right therefore you are wrong. If you are not for me then you are against me.’

It is a world of collective delusion of the superiority of the Malay culture and the uniqueness of Islam.

Well, the record of Malay governance has shown fairly conclusively that the religion- and race- based philosophy of governance has not worked. This is hardly surprising for any economics textbook will explain that the factors of economic production (or the creation of national wealth) are land, labour, capital and entrepreneurship. Of late, knowledge has been included. Further factors favouring the development of a civilisation are secularism, materialism and intellectualism.

Of these eight factors, none refer to race or religion. In concept and reality therefore, the KM formula for social and economic success is way off the mark. Indeed it has been a colossal mistake. The failure of the NEP is proof enough of this sobering contention.

I do not share the euphoria surround the formation of Perkasa. I do not see how its claim to protect race and religion can promote Malay socio-economic progress. Ibrahim’s declared intentions show all the promise of repeating the mistake and are an exercise in futility.

Given that this philosophy is no longer viable, it is still a wonder why Ibrahim still resorts to it. Can there be any reason for this? I have a hypothesis explaining his loyalty to a failed philosophy and ideology.

There is a denial syndrome inherent in KM thinking, particularly since it lacks an avenue for self-realisation of mistakes. It will go on thinking that it has been right all along, and that other alternatives are figments of the imagination of anti-Malay elements.

KM brooks no dissent. Liberal and liberated Malays are quickly branded as ungrateful and ‘mudah lupa’ (forgetful). Non-Malays are also branded as ungrateful for not appreciating the hospitality of the Malays in giving them citizenship.

KM then states that non-Malays wish to deprive Malays of their rights, hence the birth of Perkasa.

written by AB SULAIMAN, who is an observer of human traits and foibles, especially within the context of religion and culture. As a liberal, he marvels at the way orthodoxy fights to maintain its credibility in a devilishly fast-changing world. He hopes to provide some understanding to the issues at hand and wherever possible, suggest some solutions. He holds a Bachelor in Social Sciences (Leicester, UK) and a Diploma in Public Administration, Universiti Malaya.

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 10 March 2010, 9:03 pm and is filed under
UMNO
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Sabah DAP’s KDM chief minister promise questioned

By
Joe Fernandez | Malaysiakini

A Sabah DAP ‘carrot’ that a non-Muslim KadazanDusunMurut (KDM) will be the chief minister in Kota Kinabalu – should Pakatan Rakyat form the state government – has revealed the division in the opposition alliance on the issue.

Sabah DAP vice-chairperson Edward Ewol Mujie had given the assurance, in urging Sahahans to vote for Pakatan in the next election.

However, former Sabah PKR deputy chief Daniel John Jambun pointed out that Pakatan component parties are currently led by non-KDM.

“So, how is a KDM, whether Muslim or non-Muslim, going to be chief minister if Pakatan wins the elections?” he asked.

jeffrey kitingan sabah 310508Daniel also reminded Edward that PKR de facto leader Anwar Ibrahim had been adamantly against Jeffrey Gapari Kitingan (left) becoming the Sabah PKR chief.

Instead, he had installed a Bajau – Ahmad Thamrin – as the state chief even though Jeffrey had been endorsed by a majority of the 25 divisions.

Even the much-touted PKR ‘peace plan’ had only resulted in Kota Kinabalu PKR division chief Christina Liew being appointed the deputy state chief. The rest of the Sabah line-up has yet to be announced.

Sabah PKR’s powerful KDM task force, co-chaired by Daniel, has deep reservations about the issue. It sees the idea of a non-Muslim KDM chief minister as a form of divisive politics a la Peninsular Malaysia.

Daniel says he personally does not care whether the next chief minister is Muslim or non-Muslim, Chinese or non-Chinese.

“What we want is a candidate who will head a transparent and accountable state administration,” he said.

The state administration must be based on merit and democracy, he added, and it should be free of nepotism, corruption and the politics of patronage.

Pledge is ‘discriminatory’

Former Sabah PKR state secretary Kanul Gindol said the DAP’s promise smacks of discrimination against Muslims.

Kanul also alleged Anwar had insisted that the next Sabah chief minister has to be a Muslim, as Muslims are now a clear majority in the state.

identity card sabah fiasco“Obviously Anwar is including the illegal immigrants who have acquired a MyKad and entered the electoral rolls.”

The idea of a non-Muslim KDM chief minister is a poor joke by the opposition alliance, said PBS vice-president Herbert Timbon Lagadan, since “there’s nothing to bar a non-Muslim KDM in BN from becoming chief minister”.

“If Anwar is unwilling to allow a non-Muslim KDM, Jeffrey, to be Sabah PKR chief, how is he going to allow one from the community to be chief minister?” he asked.

“First of all, Edward should ask Lim Kit Siang to allow him to be Sabah DAP chief before he talks about a non-Muslim KDM chief minister.”

Herbert alleged that the KDM have been sidelined in DAP as well, and that “(DAP is) in no position to preach to others”.

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 10 March 2010, 5:30 pm and is filed under
Sabah
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


The indomitable spirit of several thousands who stood under heavy rain to hear Pakatan Rakyat leaders in Semboyan Halilintar ke Putrajaya ceramah perdana potent sign that the goal of Putrajaya is within reach

I thought the crowd of thousands for this Semboyan Halilintar ke Putrajaya ceramah perdana in Seremban to commemorate the second anniversary of March 8, 2008 political tsunami would dissolve away when the full blasts of the rain came, but the indomitable spirit of several thousands who stood their ground despite heavy rain is a potent sign that the Pakatan Rakyat goal of Putrajaya in the next general election is within reach.

In recent weeks, Umno/Barisan especially through their owned and controlled mainstream media (msm) had tried to paint a picture of Pakatan Rakyat in disarray if not in disintegration, focusing particularly on Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR) which has been reduced to 26 from 30 MPs two years ago.

Firstly, Umno/BN tried to foment trouble in Pakatan Rakyat saying that I should be Parliamentary Opposition Leader as the DAP with 28 MPs has now more MPs than PKR. Thanks but no, as DAP has decided that Anwar Ibrahim is the Parliamentary Opposition Leader heading the Pakatan Rakyat in Parliament until he becomes the new Prime Minister when Pakatan Rakyat captures Putrajaya in the next general elections.

Secondly, the Umno/BN launched a psychological warfare against PKR and Pakatan Rakyat because of the PKR cleansing process resulting in the reduction, whether by defection or expulsion, of its parliamentary strength.

In the first general elections contested by the DAP in 1969, DAP won 13 Parliamentary and 31 State Assembly seats. However, we suffered a high rate of attrition through inconstancy of political purpose and integrity, when our first-batch MPs and State Assemblymen could not withstand the two-pincer BN attack of intimidation, pressure and even blackmail on the one hand and a campaign of seduction with monetary and other material temptations and offers on the other.

In 1972, the then Prime Minister announced that the DAP “
telah masuk kubur
” while the Deputy Prime Minister predicted that the DAP was “moving towards the final phase of its existence”.

But for over four decades, the DAP had stood the test of time and today, it is the Umno/BN who are afraid of the DAP and Pakatan Rakyat and not the other way round.

PKR and Pakatan Rakyat can only come out stronger with greater credibility and mustering greater public confidence from a self-cleansing process resulting in a more united, cohesive and disciplined political movement to spearhead political change in Malaysia.

[Note: The massive crowd of several thousands stood their ground despite on-off downpour and Anwar Ibrahim, who spoke after me, mesmerized the people from all races, religion and ages in a speech lasting for over an hour.

These were my tweets during Anwar’s speech:

Massive crowd in Seremban 4ceramah perdana PR 2commemorate 2nd anniversary March B political tsunami Whole crowds stayed despite heavy rain

03/09/2010 10:01 PM

Spirit 4reform of ppl of Sban n NS historic as many thousands stand their ground 2listen 2speeches by Anwar MustapaAli n me

03/09/2010 10:35 PM

Programme in Sban Semboyan Halilintar ka Putrajaya is clearly on course

03/09/2010 10:37 PM

Heavy rain cannot quench fires in bosoms of thousands now listening 2Anwar 4change n a  new Malaysia Historic night

03/09/2010 10:41 PM

Finally rain stopped Anwar still speaking on stage with attentive n supportive crowd of several thousands of all races

03/09/2010 10:59 PM

Anwar speaking abt world ulama authority Yusof Qardawi supporting Anwar on Sodomy2 charge

03/09/2010 11:03 PM

Anwar ends hr+ long speech Semboyan Halilintar kaPutrajaya unforgettable event pave way 13PRU

03/09/2010 11:29 PM

[
Speech at the Negri Sembilan Pakatan Rakyat “March 8 political tsunami” second anniversary ceramah perdana at Oakland Commerce Square, Seremban on Tuesday, 9th March 2010 at 10 pm
]

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 10 March 2010, 8:50 am and is filed under
Anwar Ibrahim
,
Pakatan Rakyat
,
Post-2008 general election
,
Twitter
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Is Hishammuddin involving  police in greater political harassment of PR  leaders when he should be asking the police to single-mindedly fight crime to make Malaysia a safe country?

When DAP Penang State Assemblyman for Komtar, Ng Wei Aik, lodged a police report against the Second Finance Minister Datuk Husni Hanadzlah for uttering racially inflammatory remarks on Tuesday, there was an immediate response from the Federal CID director Datuk Seri Mohd Bakri Mohd Zinin who was in Penang at the time.

Bakri asked at a news conference: “Do you want the police to fight crime or investigate political matters?”

The answer is clear and unequivocal, the first task of the police is to fight crime and to ensure that Malaysians, investors and tourists feel safe from crime and are liberated from the fear of crime – two major failures of the Malaysian police in the past decade.

Despite the establishment of a Royal Police Commission and its recommendations in 2005 to create an efficient, incorruptible, professional world-class police service in Malaysia, crime index in the country has continued to mount until the sixth Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak had to admit that it is one of the six priority challenges of his administration.

Despite all the publicity of KPI (key performance index) and NKRAs (National Key Result Areas) in fighting crime in the past year, the police has yet to break the back of the problem of high crime rate and prevalent fear of crime among Malaysians, tourists and investors  –  the very definition of an unsafe country!

Nobody will agree more with Bakri that the first task of the police is to fight crime and not to get involved in political matters – but this is something that the Inspector-General of Police, Tan Sri Musa Hassan and the Home Minister, Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Hussein do not seem to grasp.

Otherwise, why is the Police harassing the Penang Chief Minister, Lim Guan Eng, two Penang Deputy Chief Ministers Mansor Othman and Professor P. Ramasamy, Penang Exco members including Abdul Malik Kassim and Chow Kon Yeow and Pakatan Rakyat national leaders like Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim – with the police lodging 11 of the 12 police reports  against the PK leaders themselves?

Although the Inspector-General of Police has denied bias and claimed that the police have lodged reports against politicians from both sides of the political divide, Musa has not been able to cite the instances when the Police had lodged reports against the Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Minister, Cabinet Ministers, Barisan Nasional Chief Ministers and Mentris Besar or taken action against them!

Can Musa provide the answers? Of course not, because this has never been done!

It is precisely because key national institutions, like the police and the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission, have allowed themselves to be used as catspaws in the  Umno/Barisan Nasional political agenda and chessboards and  failed in their primary duties (to fight crime for police and to combat corruption for MACC) that  they have not been able to regain national and international confidence about their efficiency, competence, professionalism and integrity.

With the police recently lodging 11 reports against Pakatan Rakyat leaders, the Malaysian police must have set a record in the most number of “political” reports it had lodged in such a short span of time.

Why is this taking place under Hishammuddin as Home Minister?

Is Hishammuddin going to involve police in greater political harassment of Pakatan Rakyat leaders when he should be asking  the police to single-mindedly fight crime to make Malaysia a safe country again  for Malaysians, foreign investors and tourists?

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 11 March 2010, 1:36 pm and is filed under
Police
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Judges Can Fly – in the face of Rule 137 of the Federal Court Rules! (Part 1)

By
NH Chan

A thorough and critical consideration of the Federal Court’s inconsistent and dishonest approach to Rule 137 of the Rules of the Federal Court 1995 in 2 parts. This part considers the recent Federal Court decision dismissing Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim’s application to review a previous Federal Court decision dismissing his application for disclosure of documents for his second sodomy trial.

Devastating and shocking news.

The headline of the online news portal Malaysiakini declared:

Anwar fails to get Federal Court to review its decision

Feb 25, 2010

The Federal Court has today decided not to review its Jan 29 decision barring Anwar Ibrahim from gaining more key evidence such as CCTV footage, medical reports, and witness statements from the prosecutors.

The three-member panel led by justice Zulkefli Ahmad Makinuddin made the unanimous decision that it has dismissed Anwar’s application for review.

“This is not a suitable case for review by another panel of the court. We should not relitigate[sic] the matter of one that has been decided,” said Zulkefli.

The other two Federal Court judges are Mohd Ghazali Mohd Yusoff and Heliliah Mohd Yusof. A review at the Federal Court is not an automatic right as an applicant has to satisfy that “there was an error in law” for the court to agree to a review, which is extremely rare.

Today’s decision may effectively deny the Federal Court the powers to review its own decision.

“Rule 137 (of the Rules of the Federal Court) does not confer jurisdiction on the Federal Court to review its own decision,” said the judges of the Federal Court.

The Star, Friday 26 February 2010 carried this headline:

Anwar’s bid for more evidence ends

Federal Court rules it has no power to review earlier decision

By Lisa Goh

KUALA LUMPUR: The Federal Court has ruled that it does not have the jurisdiction to review its Jan 29 decision denying Opposition Leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim access to documents he is seeking for his defence in his sodomy trial.

In a unanimous decision, Federal Court judges Justices Zulkefli Ahmad Makinudin, Mohd Ghazali Mohd Yusoff and Heliliah Mohd Yusof said: “Rule 137 (of the Rules of the Federal Court) does not confer jurisdiction on the Federal Court to review its own decision.”

“Even assuming that there is a limited inherent power, the applicant has failed to come within the limited exceptions that have been distilled from earlier decisions of the Federal Court,” said Justice Zulkefli in delivering the oral judgment yesterday.

Justice Zulkefli added that the issues raised by Anwar in the motion for review had been “duly considered and dealt with in the judgment of the Federal Court in this instant case.”

…

There must be finality. To re-litigate a case which has been heard and finally disposed of is not one of the circumstances as envisaged by Rule 137 of the Federal court,” he said.

The judges of the Federal Court fly in the face of Rule 137

Why not? Why can’t the earlier decision of the same Federal Court be reviewed?

Rule 137 of the Rules allows it. This is what it says:

137. Nothing in these rules shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the Court to hear any application or to make any order as may be necessary to prevent injustice or to prevent an abuse of the process of the Court.

Aren’t the words, “Nothing in these rules shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the Court … to prevent injustice or to prevent an abuse of the process of the Court” in Rule 137 clear enough? Those words clearly allow the Federal Court to review its own decision so as “to prevent injustice or to prevent an abuse of the process of the Court.”

We, the ordinary citizens of this country, are stunned by the ignorance of our judges of the highest court in the land for saying “Rule 137 (of the Rules of the Federal Court) does not confer jurisdiction on the Federal Court to review its own decisions.”

What utter nonsense are those ignoramuses talking about? These inane judges cannot even understand plain English when even a child can understand the plain meaning of these ordinary words. Now you can appreciate what I have been saying all the time that the ordinary people are better qualified than most of our judges when it comes to understanding the law. Since the common people are smarter than those judges, they can judge them. They would not be wrong if they think the judges are incompetent.

These three judges also say, “There must be finality. To re-litigate a case which has been heard and finally disposed of is not one of the circumstances as envisaged by Rule 137.” No one is asking for the case to be re-litigated. All that the aggrieved party, in this case Anwar Ibrahim, was asking is for the earlier judgment of the Federal Court declared null and void because it was an unjust decision. Unequivocally, the Federal Court has the inherent power to prevent an injustice whenever it had been occasioned by an earlier decision of the same court. This is clearly defined in Rule 137 where it says “Nothing in these rules shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the Court … to prevent injustice.”

As if this atrocity is not enough, there is yet another horror to come out of those three judges. Only an incompetent lawyer or judge could say something as silly as this, “Even assuming that there is a limited inherent power, the applicant has failed to come within the limited exceptions that have been distilled from earlier decisions of the Federal Court,” said Federal Court Judge Zulkefli Ahmad Makinuddin.

But what “limited exceptions” can there be? The inherent powers of the court to prevent injustice or an abuse of the process of the court have no limitations nor are they affected by exceptions. The words in Rule 137 are so precise and clear that even a child could understand them. The Rule says that nothing is to limit or affect “the inherent powers of the [Federal] Court … to make any order as may be necessary to prevent injustice.”

Yet those three incompetent judges – perhaps they were clowns as their statements were laughable – still insist that the applicant, namely, Anwar Ibrahim, has failed to come within “the limited exceptions” when nowhere in Rule 137 are such preconditions imposed. The Rule allows for review by the Federal Court of its own decision if Anwar Ibrahim, the aggrieved party, can show that the earlier decision of the Federal Court was unjustly made against him.

The errant judges fail to understand that it is not the duty nor function of a judge to administer injustice.

A wrong decision based on an error of law is not the same as an unjust decision. Anwar Ibrahim is applying for a review because the decision of the Federal Court is unjust and not because it is wrong in law.

If you have been following the 5 Part LoyarBurok Interview of me, (it is also reproduced in the MalaysianInsider) you will find at the end of the interview, this statement where I said:

DOING JUSTICE is the only duty of a judge. INJUSTICE IS NEVER HIS DUTY. It is never the function of a judge to be unjust.

But then how do the judges know what is the right thing to do? This is how I answered the question in How to Judge the Judges, 2nd edition, pp 102, 103:

There are no two ways about this. When it comes to choosing between right and wrong; between justice and injustice, there is only one choice or nothing at all. To all right thinking people, lawyers and judges alike, right or wrong matters, justice or injustice does matter. … This is about doing justice according to law where there can be no place for injustice. Injustice is not an option here because the judges and the lawyers are all responsible to the community at large. They must seek to do their part “to see that the principles of the law are consonant with justice.” They must not fail in their endeavour to do justice for failure will forfeit the confidence of the people. As said by Lord Denning, “The law will fall into disrepute; and if that happens the stability of the country will be shaken.” To quote Professor Faruqi, we need “to advance justice and maintain its stability”. For “no one can calculate the aggregate amount of evil inflicted on the community” by a bad decision: John Lord Campbell, Lives of the Lord Chancellors (5th edn, 1868), Vol 2, p 381; Vol 4, p 254: Pannick’s Judges, p 63.

When it comes to truth and justice, there is never to be any choice at all because falsehood and injustice must never be the alternative. It has to be Hobson’s choice. So that for those who do not know right from wrong; who do not know justice from injustice, such lowly individuals should never be allowed to sit on the seat of Justice. They should never be allowed to be judges at all. And yet there are so many of them in the judiciary today ever since the rot begun.

I think I have said enough to prove my point.

If our judges say that there are “exceptions that have been distilled from earlier decisions of the Federal Court”, then they and those other judges of the Federal Court who have held that there are such exceptions are unfit to sit on the seat of Justice as judges. They are unfit to be judges because they do not know the difference between right and wrong; between justice and injustice and between truth and falsehood. Our country does not need impostors, who pose as judges, to deceive the common people any longer. The common citizenry can now uncover the impostors hiding beneath the mantle of the judicature.

The two misguided judgments on the “exceptions that have been distilled from earlier decisions of the Federal Court” on Rule 137

Having said that, I can now proceed to identify the errant “earlier decisions of the Federal Court” on Rule 137. There are two.

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 11 March 2010, 5:00 am and is filed under
Judiciary
,
NH Chan
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.