Soi Lek’s impossible dream

 by
Thomas Lee Seng Hock

MCA president Datuk Seri Dr Chua Soi Lek has appealed to the Chinese to review their perception of the party and reevaluate its past and present contributions, especially on matters affecting the community.

In an apparent desperate endeavour to try to redeem whatever remains of the party’s credibility, integrity and authenticity among the Chinese, Chua claims indirectly that the community has never rejected the party, but just went uncontrollably overboard in voting for a strong opposition in the last general election.

In an interview with Malaysiakini on Wednesday 8 June 2011, Chua claims that the Chinese want some representatives in the government to articulate their frustrations, and also want a strong opposition to keep a check on the government, but “sometimes, when they do this balancing act, they go haywire.”

Chua claims that, deep down, the Chinese still want to be represented in the Barisan Nasional government, but since the community could not coordinate among themselves, they had ended up with more elected representatives in the opposition.

“In their heart, they said: ‘Oh, we want to have a stronger opposition’. But in the end, everybody voted for the opposition, resulting in nobody in the government,” he said.

In other words, Chua thinks that the results of the last general election, when the MCA was totally wiped out in Penang and sent packing in Selangor, Perak and elsewhere, are merely a freak electoral caprice and do not reflect the actual sentiment of the Chinese community.

During the last general election in March 2008, the MCA won only 15 of the 40 parliamentary seats it contested and succeeded in merely 31 of the 90 state seats, losing them mainly to the DAP. The MCA was totally wiped out in Penang, losing every seat it contested at both federal and state level.

Chua, apparently still in a reverie, thinks that the MCA still has a soft spot in the heart of the community, and that the party would bounce back into favour with the Chinese community at the next general election.

He cited various so-called achievements of the party, claiming credit for getting more federal funding for Chinese primary schools, getting better recognition for the United Examination Certificate of the Chinese independent schools, and helping to develop mutual recognition of university degrees between Malaysia and China.

Chua may think that the Chinese are fools for buying his so-called achievements. Any person with a bit of common sense knows that had not the alternative coalition of the DAP, PAS and PKR caused a massive electoral cataclysm at the last general election, the Umno-controlled Barisan Nasional government would not have granted such concessions to allow the MCA a safe-face reprieve to claim credit for them.

Anyway, the matters Chua claims that the MCA managed to “fight” for the Chinese are matters of essential rights which the community must be accorded without any need to ask or bargain for. To say to say that the community needs the MCA to negotiate for them is to admit the lack of power of the party within the ruling Barisan Nasional administration and its failure in being the true community representative in the government. Its position and relevance in the government are certainly suspect.

And in order to project the MCA in good light, Chua resorted to a smear campaign against the state administrations controlled by the alternative coalition Pakatan Rakyat, especially Penang and Selangor.

Chua cashed in on the current land disputes in Selangor involving the Sungai Buloh nursery and the Kampung Kerandang land, and alleged that the Pakatan Rakyat state government made a mess of the matters. He doesn’t seem to really understand the logistic and long-term practical implications involved, but just wants to score political points by exploiting the disputes.

Chua also claimed that the Pakatan Rakyat Selangor state government allowed “thousands” of reflexology and entertainment outlets to flourish in Klang, implying that the alternative coalition is causing moral decline in the royal town.

He also alleges that the Pakatan Rakyat state administrations in Kedah and Penang have allowed the water tariff to increase by 20%.

Chua has given a misrepresentation on the Penang water tariff, claiming that the tariff had increased by 20%.

The fact is that the Guan Eng administration has not increased the heavily-subsidized rates for domestic consumers, but only imposed a water conservation charge to reduce water wastage.

Actually, only water tariffs for business have been increased to meet the production cost. Penang, meanwhile, still has the lowest water tariffs in the country for both domestic and business users.

To make a sweeping claim that the Guan Eng administration had increased the water tariff by 20% is to tell a very despicable lie, unbecoming of a national political leader.

The most outrageous claim, however, is Chua’s statement that Penang under Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng of the DAP is now running on a deficit budget, which the MCA boss says would get worse next year.

Chua is either shockingly nescient and ignoramus, or a deliberate liar. The facts and figures are out in the open for all and sundry to see.

Since the Pakatan Rakyat took control of the Penang state government from the Barisan Nasional after the March 2008 general election, the state has recorded the biggest surpluses in the nation’s history with RM88 million in 2008, RM77 million in 2009 and RM33 million in 2010, as certified by the Auditor-General in his report.

The solid and sound financial management by the Guan Eng administration also resulted in the heavily deficit-ridden Seberang Perai Municipal Council (MPSP) being saved from bankruptcy within just a year of financial rejuvenation.

The Guan Eng administration, guided by the principles of competency, accountability and transparency (CAT), managed to lead the MPSP to post RM41 million in budget surpluses since 2008 compared to the big deficits it recorded from 2000 to 2007 under the Barisan Nasional administration, which amounted to a whopping RM230 million.

It should also be noted that the Guan Eng administration is the only government in Malaysia, whether state or federal, to be highly commended by

sTransparency International for its anti-corruption efforts.e

Chua Soi Lek’s current attempt to woo the Chinese to support the MCA by attacking the Pakatan Rakyat, especially the DAP, is obviously and action in futility. The community in general has lost complete faith in the MCA, especially when its present set of leaders are found wanting.

In a commentary on the MCA I wrote in March 2011 when I was still chief editor of mysinchew.com, I made several observations of the party which I believe are still relevant. I am repeating them here::

Although Chua and the MCA are attempting to regain the middle ground lost en masse by the party in 2008, the party faces two big obstacles – one internal, and the other external.

The internal obstacle is surely its current leadership, which is composed of out-dated and spent political players, some with very weird and bizarre ideas like the one who proposed setting up a “Chinese Perkasa” to challenge the Malay rights group Perkasa, and some whose public comments of vital issues show their height of folly.

I think almost none of the current leaders will be able to do well if they are to contest in the next general election. The ground zero perception of them is generally negative. According to a Merdeka Center survey in 2010, only 9% of the Chinese voters have any respect for Chua, which is actually much better than that of Gerakan president Tan Sri Dr Koh Tsu Koon who received only 1%. The survey only listed these two Chinese leaders, but I believe it is a general reflection of the Chinese support for the MCA and Gerakan leaders.

The external obstacle in their way is the rejuvenated, regenerated, and reformed DAP.

Since the March 2008 general election, there has been a taxonomic group of very educated, progressive, professional and youthful politicians in the DAP, led by the relatively young but veteran political maverick Lim Guan Eng. The highly intellectual and articulate young elected representatives of the DAP are making waves in Parliament and at the various state assemblies, as well as in the public arena, where the battle for the hearts and minds of the people is taking place.

The DAP can boast of an army of very bright, well-educated, well-trained, and morally upright young politicians to spearhead the thrust for the transformation of the nation into a new and better Malaysia. Among the young leaders are the likes of Teresa Kok, Chow Koon Yeow, Anthony Loke, Fong Po Kuan, Lim Lip Eng, Teo Nie Ching, Tony Pua, Jenice Lee, Gobind Singh, Boo Cheng Hua, Hannah Yeoh, Violent Yong, Liew Chin Tong, Jeff Ooi, Thomas Su, and many more.

Can the MCA beat off such an impressive formidable challenge from its diehard political opponent DAP?

To regain the trust and confidence of the Chinese community and to remain relevant, the MCA must undergo a total revamp of its leadership, getting rid of those who had overstayed their usefulness, and those who intelligence are found wanting. The practice of cronyism and nepotism must be eliminated.

Otherwise, what Chua claims about regaining the confidence and support of the Chinese community is merely an illusion – an impossible dream.

I rest my case.

[Note: Thomas Lee has been a newspaper editor and socio-economic and political analyst for over 35 years. He is currently a media consultant.]

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 12 June 2011, 9:47 am and is filed under
DAP
,
MCA
,
Thomas Lee
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Utusan says Bersih dirty, calls for boycott

By
Shannon Teoh

The Malaysian Insider

Jun 12, 2011

KUALA LUMPUR, June 12 — Umno-owned Utusan Malaysia has called on Malaysians not just to boycott next month’s Bersih rally, but also to gather against the movement that calls for free and fair elections.

The paper’s Mingguan Malaysia weekend edition also told Malaysians “who love peace and reject hypocrisy” to gather on the streets of Kuala Lumpur on July 9 “with banners of the opposition leader’s scandals” in reference to sodomy and sex video allegations against Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim.

“Display also newspaper cuttings of the sodomy victims. They are the ones that should be defended if we support a clean culture. Awang believes the gathering will be a senjata makan tuan (backfiring weapon) for the opposition.

“This gathering is dirty,” it said in its Awang Selamat — the nom de plume of the newspaper’s editors — column today.

Pakatan Rakyat (PR) parties and activists are gearing up to march next month in the second such rally by Bersih, the first being in 2007 where up to 50,000 were reported to have gathered in the capital, with many being dispersed by water cannons and tear gas launched by the police.

PAS has promised to bring 300,000 protestors this year in hopes that it will galvanise support for the opposition in a general election expected within the year.

The 2007 rally was said to play a big role in bringing record gains for the opposition electoral pact in Election 2008, where it swept five state governments and won 82 parliamentary seats.

In today’s edition, Mingguan Malaysia, where it front-paged calls to “prevent the Bersih rally,” also said that the protest was organised by anti-Islamic NGOs and the opposition would use the protest to “incite tension to profit politically. With the opposition’s failing image, it needs Bersih to revive itself.”

“The gathering is masterminded by NGOs who are anti-Islam in their thinking and actions. PAS’s involvement is only as pak turut (yes-men) as the pro-Anwar faction now controls the party.

“Meanwhile, DAP leaders like Lim Kit Siang will be smiling because most of those joining Bersih will be Malays. That is how shallow Malay politics is, those that benefit are other races,” it wrote.

On its front page, the newspaper also ran a warning by Home Minister Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Hussein that “it will be chaotic when those for and against the street demonstration clash.”

It quoted Perkasa president Datuk Ibrahim Ali, who warned that there is a possibility the Malay rights NGO would “also hold a gathering on that day and I am ready for any eventuality.”

The Malay daily also ran reports saying some 21,000 taxi drivers will lose RM3.2 million on that day and that 13 police reports have already been lodged against the Bersih rally.

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 12 June 2011, 5:20 pm and is filed under
1Malaysia
,
Election
,
Media
,
UMNO
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


We were soldiers

by
drrafick

June 11, 2011

1.I read with interest the statement by Zahid Hamidi on Malaysian Mirror where he refuted claims that former members of the Armed Forces (AF) are opposing the government. Apparently he made the comments in view of claims by some that many ex-servicemen opposed the government by expressing their views on the Internet. I am not sure whether me and Arshad Raji can be considered in the same category with other since we are ex-serviceman. I know many ex-servicemen do not blog but express their frustration with BN over my blog and at coffee shops.

2.Are we really frustrated with the government or with the politicians that governs the machinery? Personally on occasion I am frustrated with both. I am fed up with the hypocrite politicians. I am sick and tired with politicians that divide the nation. I am fed up with the politicians who make decisions that bring misery to the people. I am fed up with this “legal robbers” that drain the nation’s wealth and who makes lousy decisions that burden the people. The list about the politicians does not end there.

3.Am I fed up with the government machinery? To some I would like to say a resounding YES especially that the ones that I dealt with on a regular basis. For example certain department of MPAJ and the YDP earns my displeasure. It took me 2 years (and in the last 4 months weekly written complains) to get them to do regular maintenance a 9 tier man made slope (Lot 541) near my house.

4.Only after the aftermath of Ulu Langat landslide and assistance of my friends in the media (Star,TV3, Free Malaysia Today and Malaysiakini) that they actually begins to clean up the slope in the last few days. Why does it have to resort to this level to do something simple like cleaning drains and cutting grass? Why can’t I get a reply that says thank you for the information and the following are the steps we are going to take & when they want to do it and when it can be completed? IWK did it with ease without any issue. It is not difficult to communicate plainly but government agencies don’t want to do so. To some extent I can say the same about Ministry of Housing where I see plenty of lip service and no affirmative action when addressing abandon housing issues.

5.Between the government machinery and the politicians that govern, I must say that the politicians earned my greatest displeasure. Over the years our government machinery has degraded. Good people left and the leftovers are holding top positions and call the shots. The only reason why many of this leftover succeeded is because of their polishing skills and their network with politicians and very rarely because they have the productivity and management skills.

6.The politicians must understand why ex-serviceman like me
opposed the government today
when I did not even oppose them before (even when Mahathir sacked Anwar in 1998). If the minister thinks the numbers are small; I suggest that he think again. Hundreds of thousands of veterans lives in hardship with fixed pensions which are not adjusted to annual inflation rates. They are the victims of the nation plunderers and poor decision makers

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 12 June 2011, 5:58 am and is filed under
Defence
,
Good Governance
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


What is the rationale and status of Bank Negara’s proposed merger between RHB Capital with Maybank or CIMB Group to create Southeast Asia’s biggest bank?

As Finance Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak should present a ministerial statement in Parliament tomorrow on the rationale and status of Bank Negara’s proposed merger between RHB Capital with Maybank or CIMB Group to create Southeast Asia’s biggest bank.

The top regional banks in Asean include three Singapore banks DBS Group Holdings Ltd, Oversea-Chinese Banking Corp Ltd (OCBC) and United Overseas Bank Ltd (UOB) with market capitalisation of US$27.7bil, US$25.7bil and US$24.5bil respectively.

While in terms of asset size, the Singapore banks remain at the top, a Maybank-RHB Cap merger could overtake DBS Group in terms of combined market capitalisation with US$28.8bil.

The potential merger of CIMB-RHB, on the other hand, would see a combined market capitalisation of US$27.3bil, just marginally below DBS but would overtake both OCBC and UOB. In terms of asset size, DBS, OCBC and UOB stand at US$238bil, US$198.4bil and US$178.8bil respectively.

However, basic principles and questions about Bank Negara’s push for the country’s largest corporate merger need to asked and clarified.

.

In the present exercise, all parties concerned must be mindful of the most important principle: The people are the real owner of the three banks concerned and the Government must uphold the people’s interest in the merger proposal of RHB Capital

This is why the proposal that one of the two largest banks, Maybank and CIMB, merge with RHB capital has been under close watch of the market players.

Bank Negara Malaysia is behind the proposed bank merger, as part of its effort to consolidate the domestic financial sector. Both Bank Negara and the Finance Ministry have to address the many questions raised.

For instance  the comment on TheSun on Friday (11/6) ‘Let’s all be wise and sensible’, which criticised the merger for not having any incremental value to the domestic market as the three parties involved are domestic players that serve a similar clientele.

No regional expansions are involved in the exercise but merely a consolidation of what that has already exist. On the one hand, Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank, which is selling its 25% share in RHB capital, will came out as the biggest winner by making a huge profit, and when a foreign bank like ADCB exits the country, the cash will be an outflow to another country and a loss of  foreign exchange.

The competition between the two bidders only help to push the market share of RHB capital higher to a 14 year record high of RM10.40 per share on June 1, as compared to its book value of RM4.79 per share. Who actually benefit from the process? What good would that do to the people of Malaysia?

The parties involved have the obligation to place the people’s interests first as they are held mainly by government-back institutions. EPF is currently holding 44.5% of RHB share, 11.6% of CIMB and 10.9% of MayBank. Besides, Permodalan Nasional Berhad owns 52% of Maybank while Khazanah Nasional Berhad owns 28.6% of CIMB.

We should also question the wisdom of creating big corporation which will lead to a bigger monopoly of the financial sector. Historical lessons should be drawn from the recent financial crisis, in which Big does not equate to Better. Big corporation has found to have more difficulty sustaining in time of crisis, as can be seen in the case of  the Lehman Brothers, Citigroup and the American Insurance Group to name a few. Whose money will be used to save these ‘too big to fail’ corporations at the end of the day? We all know that it’ll be none other than of the taxpayers’.

Besides, EPF is set to earn a good profit by releasing a portion of its share in RHB capital which has benefitted from the wide speculation.  As the trustee of the hard-earned money of the working class, Malaysians want EPF to be held accountable with the management of the money. Would they invest elsewhere? Or would they translate it into a bigger interest return to the employees?

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 12 June 2011, 2:29 pm and is filed under
Finance
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Five promising ideas from PAS’ new line-up

By
Bridget Welsh

June 13, 2011

MalaysiaKini

ANALYSIS The victory of the progressives in Malaysia’s Islamic party has indeed served to inject greater dynamism into Pakatan Rakyat and strengthen PAS’ engagement in national politics.

The party nevertheless faces deep-seated suspicion by many non-Muslims and more secular Malays who see the election of the non-ulama team as a move to gain power than to genuinely move PAS towards the centre and towards the mantra that has guided the party for the last few years ‘PAS for All’.

The fact of the matter is that PAS will never appeal to all Malaysians as many reject religious parties and others remain apprehensive about the intolerant messages of PAS leaders in the past on issues of morality especially. Many will remain loyal to the BN and Umno no matter what.

Yet, PAS, like all parties in Malaysia, evolves along with its ideology and strategies. What distinguishes PAS from Umno today is that those willing to engage in reform have taken the party’s helm, while in contrast the dialogue and direction from Umno and its Perkasa allies appears to remain locked in a time warp of the racial ideas of the 70s whose time has long past.

The voices of reformers in Umno like Youth chief Khairy Jamaluddin have been noticeably silenced. As such, PAS has generated excitement, as it has taken the lead in shaping the direction of discourse among Malay-dominated parties.

Given the buzz surrounding PAS’ new line-up, it is important to delve further into what are the currents shaping its direction. Where exactly is PAS evolving to? What are the new ideas that are emerging among the new leaders and PAS? Are there stumbling blocks that will limit the progressive orientation of the party? Finally, how will these ideas reshape Malaysian politics?

PAS’ progressive ideas have the potential to transform Malaysian politics, but they will require much more than the usual talk that has associated with new leaders, and be tied to concrete actions that engender confidence and break down the underlying suspicions about the party’s ability to govern tolerantly across communities.

While many of the ideas are in the early articulation, and most lack clear policy implementation mechanisms, the 57th PAS Muktamar does point to five promising ideas that suggest that the party is indeed moving in a genuinely more progressive and inclusive direction.

It is noteworthy that PAS delegates avoided the shallow discussion of race and focused the debate on targeting Umno and strengthening the party, showing an unprecedented discipline and coherence, despite the divisions in the party elections.

In the midst of this focus were snippets of five progressive thinking:

1. Building a welfare state

The party elections buried the main theme of the muktamar, which was building the welfare state – ‘negara berkajikan’. At the core of this concept is the idea of welfare, namely that health, education, shelter and food are basic needs.

Prime Minister Najib Razak is right in that the focus on basic needs has been shared by Umno, at least the Umno of the past. Yet, he misses three important differences in the PAS articulation of this idea. The first is the active voice, the ‘berkajikan’.

Instead of a top-down model in which the state gives benefits, the PAS concept involves the rakyat, giving them a place in shaping the welfare outcomes. This participatory element is quite distinctive in that it moves the policy discussion toward one of inclusion and engagement, rather than of selective recipients and stationary acceptance.

This moves the realm of policy discussion towards one in which the role and inputs of ordinary people in shaping outcomes has increased, and in the process explicitly acknowledges the important role that ordinary Malaysians play in shaping their own welfare and evoking change.

PAS leaders point to the critical role of philanthropy and volunteerism, as they articulate this more active approach to welfare, and highlight the need to empower initiatives and embrace a more active civil society and citizenry.

The move away from a policy of selectively giving handouts and benefits toward one based on engagement and greater synergy between leaders and people is tied to the second difference in this concept – a broader idea of welfare.

PAS leaders are careful to distinguish this idea from the use of the term in the West – where the government picks up all costs of healthcare, provides unemployment benefits and more – recognising that financial limitations in Malaysia inherently limit the scope of welfare benefits.

Yet, they bring in the importance of spiritual well-being in their conception, believing strongly that welfare cannot be secured without an appreciation that welfare is not just about the material benefits of life, but should include an appreciation of psychological factors of dignity, common humanity and shared community and idealism tied to religious faith.

This non-materialistic conception implicitly criticises the focus on consumerism and ‘hard’ development that has guided much of Malaysian development policy since the 80s and serves to bridge the discussion between a welfare state and an Islamic state. How exactly it does this is unclear, but the spiritual element and implicitly an appreciation of ‘softer’ and ‘non-tangibles’ elements are there.

Finally, PAS continues to point to a focus on the excluded, those left out of the current policy direction of BN, namely the non-elites.

In this articulation of the welfare state, PAS is criticising Umno for continuing to serve only the elite, the handful of contractors who were lucky to win deals. They point to initiatives in Kelantan and Kedah at the state government levels that target the hardcore poor, single mothers and elderly, highlighting the need to expand the social safety net for the vulnerable communities. The idea as articulated is that the state needs to help those who cannot have a fair shake in helping themselves.

What stands out from this discussion is that the focus is on specific groups; it is not a race-based policy that continues to narrowly conceive poverty and development in racial terms.

While PAS leaders do acknowledge that in the states they govern – with perhaps their involvement in Selangor as an exception – the majority who benefit from these policies are Malays, they point out that they are governing in Malay dominant states and emphasise that the focus is on vulnerability, not the colour of the recipients’ skin or their religious affiliation.

PAS leaders appear to aim to illustrate that a focus on those in need better targets state resources and promotes welfare broadly; it moves the allocation of state resources from those with access and playing money politics to ordinary people in need and not from the privileged classes.

2. Entrepreneurship and anti-monopolism

Party president Abdul Hadi Awang’s speech and the subsequent delegate discussions also pointed to the evolution of a new economic policy, one in which the market place and competition play a greater role.

The ideas here are less formulated, but there are two core elements that emerged. Foremost is the focus on removing the monopolies in the supply-chain in the economy. This idea builds on the discussion of IPPs (independent power producers) that has been in the public realm in the last few months over questions of subsidies.

Opposition politicians from all parties are driving home the point that favouritism in the allocation of contracts to supply goods, from sugar and chicken to water and electricity, underscore the costs of basic goods and contribute to inflation. These often hidden overheads benefit the elite and transfer the burden of their wealth gains to ordinary citizens.

Many of these have been in place for decades, and the lack of transparency and competition in their allocation continues to increase overheads in the provisions of services and affordability of basic supplies.

These comparatively higher costs from monopolistic allocation places Malaysia’s economy at a disadvantage when compared to Thailand and Indonesia, and this disadvantage is borne by ordinary Malaysian businesses and consumers.

It is thus that Hadi Awang called for greater competition, for a fairer marketplace where monopolies of the past do not continue to haunt the present and the country’s future.

At first, it may seem strange that PAS is calling for greater market forces. Like all the opposition parties in Malaysia, there is a tension among those who advocate for a checked marketplace and others who call for more market drivers.

Yet, it speaks to the fact that many PAS members and supporters are involved in small businesses that they face the financial constraints from an unfair supply chain daily. It is indeed affecting their bottom line, and squeezing those who are working hard to generate a decent income in a system that is at best skewed.

More and more small and medium businesses are forced to face the reality of a more competitive market, with greater pressures from China and other international markets, and do so without a fair shake.

PAS – as it has evolved to include more urban members and had to promote economic development in states without the same level of credit allocation and support such as in Kelantan – are appreciating the need to make the marketplace fairer through more openness and competition.

The discussions among some PAS leaders suggest that the aim is to instill a different trajectory for entrepreneurship. Rather than have entrepreneurs be ‘the chosen ones’, those who are assisted are those that prove themselves through competition.

Across communities those engaging in small businesses are facing similar problems such as a lack of access to credit and inadequate supports in marketing, beyond the comparatively higher costs of many inputs.

Among some PAS leaders at least there suggests that there has indeed been a dialogue that points to a different trajectory in moving Malaysia’s economy forward, a trajectory not based on transforming the economy through the hiring of expensive consultants closely connected to the large corporations, but one that listens to the everyday struggles of navigating the basic goal of assuring enough rice in the rice bowl.

3. Efficient and fairer governance

While the first two ideas were buried in speeches and the debate at the muktamar, the main theme highlighted was about changing the style of governance. This came most focused from the new deputy president of the party who focused his target on the election machinery.

Mohamed Sabu pointed to the need for more professionalism in the Election Commission over postal voting and the registration of new voters. He also called into question the actions of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC), particularly over the Ahmad Sarbani case.

While his focus was on the immediate issues involving elections and serious questions about potential violations of professional ethics, the broader theme was there – the civil service needs to be fairer – across races, across religions, across communities. The focus was not on the civil service per se, but the broader political environment in which actions are seen to be politically motivated for one side in the political equation.

The zero-sum nature of politics – where the civil service has been seen to work for one side or the other has hurt everyone, especially the civil servants. Political loyalty is prized over professionalism.

Gone – at least in the rhetoric – is the professionalisms and statesmanlike quality of civil servants in the past who were concerned with governing the country for the people in the country, not the politicians. The discussions point to the difficulties in strengthening the institutions that underscore improved governance – too much politicisation on the civil service and the promotions based on loyalty rather than merit.

The discussions in the muktamar floor called for better performance and called bias in performance to task. Yet PAS was unclear on how to build ownership with the civil service in promoting a more inclusive and more capable way of governing. The civil service will always play an important role in the country, and strengthening a system that rewards genuinely national service rather than loyalty is crucial.

The only other governance point that got attention – reminiscent of the early days of Abdullah Ahmad Badawi and his promised reform agenda – was to promote efficiency, to further reduce red tape and streamline decisions and the implementation of benefits. This was highlighted by leaders in PAS-led states who pointed to improved allocation of scholarships and distribution of elderly benefits.

While there remain considerable areas to improve in policy implementation, what is important to note is that PAS leaders are extremely conscious of the need to strengthen the capacity of the civil service and to work together in policy implementation, while simultaneously not ignoring the challenges of institutional reform.

At least so far, the focus remains on highlighting governance problems, given the charged political contestation between Umno and all other parties, including some in the BN itself, and the perception portrayed by former senior civil servants in groups like Perkasa that the civil service is to serve Umno and only Malays rather than the people at large across the political spectrum and communities.

4. Pluralism

In avoiding the narrowness of the disturbing racialised discourse that has dominated political debates since March 2008 – with many BN national leaders continuing to identify themselves with one community rather than the country as a whole and important concepts such as 1Malaysia being used as a campaign vehicle for one political side rather than as a integrative national framework, PAS leaders both explicitly and implicitly acknowledged one of Malaysia’s greatest strengths – its pluralism.

For the PAS delegates, this pluralistic cord was centered around efforts at reaching out to non-Muslims. While the party still has a long way to go in its outreach efforts, the strengthening of the non-Muslim wing has deepened engagement.

It is not a coincidence that the leader who has been arguably the strongest advocate for non-Muslim engagement Mujahid Yusof (right) was re-elected to the Central Committee despite strong opposition to his call for non-ulama leadership.

The urban cosmopolitanism in contemporary PAS has had an impact, changing its institutional structure and outreach.

The discussion of pluralism extended to the Malay community. Of late, in an effort to win over the Malay community, Umno has harped back to its emphasis on the Malay community as a unified group. Its aim appears clear, to win more Malay support to gain seats, while recognising that its efforts towards other groups have not yielded results.

At the PAS muktamar, there was clearly more appreciation of the diversity within the Malay community, across class, geography and sectors. This engagement with pluralism within the Malay community reflects the reality of Malaysia. From Sarawak and Sabah to Johor and Kelantan, to the Umnoputras and ordinary taxi drivers, diversity is the norm. Assuming that all of these groups have a shared outlook and experience does a disservice to their needs.

Where PAS however faces its most serious challenge is to appreciate the diversity in religious outlooks among Malays. Many are more secular and would prefer to stay that way. In its outreach effort – to capture the middle ground – it is essential to both acknowledge and respect the right of others to think differently within the Muslim faith.

In many ways, Mat Sabu, who has promoted diversity of theological views in his speeches, provides leadership in this regard. The big issue is changing the rank and file within PAS who continue to adopt a mindset that you must belong to group think to be accepted. Engagement has to come with genuine acceptance of difference. There is clearly more appreciation of pluralism in the evolving PAS, although with limits.

It is also important to note that the ethnic pluralism among the progressives coincides with a greater appreciation of the role of women within the party and Malaysia generally. The voices of progressives are being articulated with the new Muslimat leadership, where the ideas of the welfare state and concerns over fairer governance have dominated the discourse of those recently elected.

5. Nationalism

The final theme that resonated among PAS’ new leadership is nationalism. There is clearly a harping back to the past when the party was driven by the nationalistic spirit that underscored Malaysia’s independence movement. This element of nation-building, of ethnic integration, of collaboration and spirit of hope is a fundamentally new message.

Media reports – and many personal laments – highlight the negativity and sense of disappointment among Malaysians, whether it involves religion harmony or personal attacks. No question, the discourse of negativity has not served Malaysia well.

PAS’ new leaders aim to instill hope and to build a stronger country, not just their own party. Ironically, many of these leaders who grew up in the Mahathir era are taking on the Mahathir nationalist mantel.

What distinguishes PAS’ nationalist message is its focus on strengthening the community within Malaysia. Rather than identify a foreign ‘enemy’ – such as Singapore – PAS leaders point to forging links globally with a stronger collective at home – after all, a unified Malaysia stands tall.

Beyond vision

The ideas among PAS’ new leaders are indeed progressive. PAS’ new leadership draws its inspiration not just from Turkey – where Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan is poised to win a third term in yesterday’s national polls – but from the broader transformations taking place across the Muslim world, be in neighbouring Indonesia or Egypt.

But ideas alone are sadly not enough. They need to be translated into concrete initiatives and policies. Malaysians have had many promises, and now expect their leaders not just to provide fancy powerpoints and snazzy concepts, but to walk the talk. The burden on PAS to move in a progressive direction, one that is genuinely nationalist and inclusive, is heavy.

They will not be able to carry forward their vision without greater support and cooperation with their Pakatan partners. In particular, PAS needs a stronger PKR that moves toward re-engaging the electorate. Pakatan as a whole faces the challenge of offering a different vision than just the mantra of change.

PAS new leaders also continue to face an internal battle within their own party. The conservatives may have suffered a loss at in the party polls, but are fighting hard inside the party to hold onto their positions.

There are two sources of conservatism – one continued to be tied to the narrow approach of the Islamic state – an approach that resulted in the party suffering its worst electoral defeat since independence – losing one state government and over half its seats in 2004 – and the other tied to a non-pluralist vision of the country involving race, the Unity Group, reminiscent of the 70s that led to the other significant historic loss of support for the party.

Both visions – tied to old guards in PAS – are outdated, but they remain powerful ideas within PAS, and still permeate parts of the elected party leadership. PAS’ progressives thus face a difficult path ahead. They will not be able to handle it alone, and will needed broader engagement from Pakatan and civil society.

Without cooperation, these ideas will not take shape. Yet, at least for now, the Erdogans victory within PAS suggests a move towards a different direction, one that offers a different vision for the country that challenges the Umno model of governance in fundamental ways.

 DR BRIDGET WELSH is associate professor of political science at Singapore Management University. She attended the 57th PAS muktamar as an observer. Welsh can be reached at
[email protected]
.

                This entry was posted on Monday, 13 June 2011, 3:33 pm and is filed under
Bridget Welsh
,
PAS
,
Politics
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


A re-branded PAS?

By
Tan Siok Choo

Sun

13 Jun 2011

TAKEN collectively, three developments at PAS’s recent muktamar or general assembly have the potential to re-define Malaysian politics.

For the first time since 1983, an ulama (or religious leader) wasn’t retained or elected as deputy president, the second highest-ranked party official. The ulama also lost all three vice-presidential contests and reportedly won only six out of 18 central committee positions, which underscored the extent of the party’s makeover.

Equally notable, in his keynote speech at the muktamar, PAS president Datuk Seri Abdul Hadi Awang Hadi announced that the party now aspired to create a welfare state while maintaining it wasn’t abandoning its quest for an Islamic state.

Additionally in the same speech, Hadi rejected in the strongest terms the prospect of unity talks with Umno – a call which he described as “narrow communalism” – while reaffirming the party’s commitment to the opposition coalition, Pakatan Rakyat (PR). This suggests PAS is positioning itself for the possibility PR adviser Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim may be found guilty of sodomy and his political activity curtailed.

That PAS’s newly-elected deputy president Mohamad Sabu forged a close relationship with DAP secretary-general Lim Guan Eng while both were detained under the Internal Security Act in 1987 will enable both parties to work together without the need for Anwar as an intermediary.

All three developments are part of PAS’s

on-going efforts to broaden its electoral appeal. To date, its charm offensive includes its view the word “Allah” can be used by Christians and that Christians shouldn’t be denied their right to use bibles printed in Bahasa Malaysia – a stance at variance with some militant Muslim groups.

One indicator that reflects PAS’s attempts to woo Malaysian Chinese voters is former Perak mentri besar Datuk Nizar Jamaluddin singing Teresa Teng’s iconic song The moon represents my heart at ceramah. Although his singing may be off-key, Nizar’s brilliant gesture makes it easier for Malaysian Chinese to connect with PAS while reminding listeners the moon is also the party’s symbol.

Furthermore, in soliciting Malaysian Chinese support, PAS enjoys a singular advantage, because it has no business interests to protect or promote. PAS could be especially appealing to a significant segment of the Malaysian Chinese community.

Moreover, religion rather than language is PAS’s preferred priority. This gives it the option of adopting a more relaxed stand on Chinese schools and the use of Mandarin – yet another heartland issue for the Malaysian Chinese.

To be sure, PAS’s attempts to solicit greater support from non-Muslims could backfire. The opposition party could alienate Muslims who are a bigger voting bloc and are the majority in a majority of parliamentary constituencies.

Cynics may claim PAS’s charm offensive is a public relations exercise and that it could revert to its restrictive Islam-centric persona after the next general election. Even if PAS’s attempt to re-brand itself as a moderate Muslim party is opportunistic, its shift to the middle ground has been facilitated by Umno’s apparent willingness to cede this space.

One example – last month, Utusan Malaysia published a blogger’s claim that DAP together with Christian leaders were plotting to make Christianity this country’s official religion. This in turn prompted Perkasa chief Datuk Ibrahim Ali to announce a crusade against Christians if they continued to challenge Islam’s position in Malaysia.

PAS leader Datuk Husam Musa immediately rebuked Perkasa, pointing out that using racial and religious issues for political interest showed the pressure group wasn’t upholding the true teachings of Islam. By taking up cudgels against Perkasa, Husam prevented the issue from degenerating into a religious conflict while burnishing PAS’s credentials as a moderate Islamic party.

Another example – a pressure group, Gaps, recently suggested only Malays and bumiputra have the right to receive Public Services Department (PSD) scholarships, a right it asserts is enshrined in the Malaysian constitution. While Prof Abdul Aziz Bari challenged this claim, no one from Umno appeared to do so.

Some Umno politicians suggest responding to Gaps and Perkasa will give them undue publicity and boost their stature. Nevertheless, allowing these groups to speak with impunity and without being sanctioned reinforces the perception, possibly mistaken, that their views are shared by Umno.

PAS’s strategic shift at the muktamar could alter the political contest between the party and Umno. In the past, Umno responded to PAS’s call for an Islamic state by successfully establishing Islamic banks and insurance companies within the country while achieving dominance in the global sukuk (or Islamic bond) market.

How will Umno respond to PAS’s strategic shift? Will it try to outbid PAS for the non-Malay, non-Muslim vote? Or will Umno persist in believing that to retain its hold on Putrajaya, securing the Malay-Muslim vote must be an overriding priority?

                This entry was posted on Monday, 13 June 2011, 8:16 am and is filed under
DAP
,
Pakatan Rakyat
,
PAS
,
UMNO
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Ambiga asks politicians to join Bersih rally

By
Boo Su-Lyn

June 12, 2011 | The Malaysian Insider

KUALA LUMPUR, June 12 — Bersih 2.0 chairman Datuk Ambiga Sreenevasan today urged leaders from both sides of the political divide to attend next month’s rally seeking for free and fair elections

“We need them to hear our grievances,” said Ambiga at a ceramah in Brickfields here today.

“It is the Sarawak election that has caused Bersih to call this rally on July 9. We’ve been engaging with the Election Commission (EC), but we’re not going anywhere… there is no real meaningful change,” added the former Bar Council president.

Home Minister Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Hussein has warned against the rally, saying it will turn chaotic should opposing supporters clash.

Pakatan Rakyat (PR) parties and activists are gearing up to march next month in the second such rally by Bersih, the first being in 2007 where up to 50,000 were reported to have gathered in the capital, with many being dispersed by water cannons and tear gas launched by the police.

The 2007 rally was said to play a big role in bringing record gains for the opposition electoral pact in Election 2008, where it swept five state governments and won 82 parliamentary seats.

Ambiga said election malpractices had marred the recent Sarawak state election, citing vote-buying and abuse of government machinery.

“There was a video on Malaysiakini that showed blatant vote-buying. It showed a longhouse with piles of money,” she said.

“(But) the MACC (Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission) says we can’t investigate because video evidence is not reliable,” added the prominent lawyer.

The winning Barisan Nasional (BN) candidate, Joseph Mauh Ikeh, in the Tamin state seat, reportedly said the cash payments were “travel allowances” for voters.

Ambiga also slammed BN for barring her from entering Sarawak prior to the state election last April.

“They’re not afraid of me at all. It’s a show of arrogance of power,” she said.

She added, however, that the EC had assured her that it would persuade government-controlled media to be fair in their coverage of election candidates.

Ambiga listed Bersih 2.0’s demands in its upcoming rally: clean up the electoral roll, reform postal voting, use indelible ink, introduce a minimum 21-day campaign period, allow free access to media, strengthen institutions, and end dirty politics.

“Putrajaya doesn’t belong to anyone else except the rakyat. We will decide who goes there,” she said to rousing applause.

                This entry was posted on Monday, 13 June 2011, 4:41 pm and is filed under
Election
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Ambiga unfazed by Perkasa belligerence

By
Hafiz Yatim

Jun 13, 11 | MalaysiaKini

Despite chances of a head-on collision on July 9 with Malay rights group Perkasa planning a counter-protest to stop the Bersih 2.0 rally, its chairperson Ambiga Sreenevasan is unfazed over this possibility and reiterated that the Bersih rally to back free and fair elections will go on.

Contacted by Malaysiakini this afternoon, Ambiga said she respected the views aired by Perkasa chairperson Ibrahim Ali, who declared Perkasa was ready to “fight to the end” (lawan habis-habisan) to stop the rally if the organisers insisted on taking to the streets of Kuala Lumpur on July 9.

“(If they proceed), there will be a clash (pertembungan). If that happens, it is for the better,” Ibrahim told a press conference in the Parliament lobby today.

Ambiga (right) said the Bersih rally would be a responsible, peaceful rally fighting noble ideals of seeking a free and fair elections in the country.

“Many people share this feeling, they have strongly voiced the need for this and are supporting us. I have no quarrel with those (Perkasa) opposing the rally as it is in line with democratic process of freedom of association,” she said.

“The Bersih rally will go on despite whatever people want to say or the police reports lodged. We will not be intimidated,” the former Bar Council chairperson said.

What was important was that Bersih 2.0 wanted a peaceful assembly and at the same time, it hoped that the view of the authorities (police) about peaceful assemblies would change as well.

Ambiga said she respected the people’s right to their own opinions, whether they were opposed to the rally or supported, as this was a democratic country.

Earlier today, Ibrahim, who is the Independent MP for Pasir Mas, said Perkasa would march against the Bersih 2.0 demonstrators to show that not all Malaysians agree with its claim about ‘dirty’ elections.

His NGO, he claimed, was acting in the interests of democracy.

“I cannot imagine, when they bring a big crowd and start throwing stones, burning cars… Perkasa will go down to make sure we stop (the Bersih rally),” Ibrahim had said.

Police reports have also piled up nationwide against the Bersih rally.

June 19 to air grouses

Referring to the police reports, Ambiga said individuals have the right to make police reports against Bersih or any other organisation.

“As I have stressed, people have their own opinions and we respect them. At the same time, there are many who have come up to support us and are willing to join the rally,” she said.

Ambiga, who was earlier this year bestowed the International Women of Courage award, said Bersih would hold a gathering at the Kuala Lumpur and Selangor Chinese Assembly Hall on Sunday, where the rally would be discussed and all political parties were invited to attend.

Those who turn up would be allowed to speak freely, whether in support of or against the rally and Bersih would respect whatever views they held.

Ambiga has also invited BN party members to participate in the rally.

Penang Gerakan human rights and legal bureau chief Baljit Singh said last week that about 10 lawyers from the state would join the Bar Council in monitoring the July 9 rally in Kuala Lumpur.

Asked about the claim of Kulim Baru MP Zulkifli Noordin that she is anti-Islamic, Ambiga again reiterated this is a democratic opinion and her view as is with the Bar Council, that everybody is entitled to his or her own religion as protected under the Federal Constitution.

“I have never gone against any religion but have advocated freedom of religion,” she said.

Asked to estimate as to how many would turn up for the July 9 rally, she said it would be difficult to do so.

“There has been a lot of support for the rally, as you can see. Even opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim is prepared to join,” she said.

The first Bersih rally on Nov 10, 2007, saw some 40,000 people on the streets, clad in yellow T-shirts.

                This entry was posted on Monday, 13 June 2011, 5:50 pm and is filed under
Election
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Birds of a feather flock together in Langkawi

MalaysiaKini

‘There was a time when the rhetoric against the evils of colonial rule was justified and relevant. Now it is usually to divert the corruption of present leaders.’

Mugabe, Bashir to visit

David Dass
: Two of the worst leaders in the world being welcomed to Malaysia. Zimbabwe’s Robert Mugabe has bankrupted his nation and impoverished his people. Sudan’s Omar al-Bashir is wanted for genocide. These are international pariahs.

There was a time when the rhetoric against the evils of colonial rule was justified and relevant. Now it is tedious and boring, and operates usually to divert and camouflage the corruption of present leaders.

Conferences such as the Langkawi International Dialogue could serve a useful purpose. But not with leaders like this. They are beyond redemption and deserve an early exit from leadership.

What do we hope to achieve by inviting them here? We have seen from our experience with Burma that constructive engagement does not work. We have given Mugabe timber for his palatial house in Zimbabwe. That was more than necessary.

Now we should give both of them the boot. Politely, of course, as is the way of our people.

Docs
: I guess when the Home Minister Hishammuddin Hussein said that Malaysia is not a terrorist haven, he may have been right. Malaysia is a dictator haven. That’s why Najib Razak and Dr Mahathir Mohamad are hosting these dictators.

Also, this may be a new strategy by Umno to bring in foreign investments. I’m sure Mugabe and Omar al-Bashir will invest million or billions of their ill-gotten gains or blood money in Malaysia.

I’m sure Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, Muammar Gadaffi from Libya, Ali Abdullah Saleh from Yemen and Hosni Mubarak from Egypt would have loved to attend the Langkawi International Dialogue too, but they are all caught up with the Arab Spring rebellion and have their hands full.

I’m sure they would all love to learn from Mugabe and Bashir on how they rigged their country’s elections, brutally put down rebellions, and yes, how they mass murdered their citizens.

Cinaputra:
 This is the pits. A couple of dictators who are shunned worldwide are being hosted by this country (read: BN). What is the message here? That we should one day be like Zimbabwe?

Ridhwan Malek:
 While there were great protests by Umno when Al Gore and Tony Blair were invited to give speeches in Malaysia, there’s only complete silence when it comes to rogues and thieves who looted the nation’s coffers and killed the poor coming here to participate in dialogues.

What is your moral stand on this, Umno? Very inconsistent, indeed.

Opposition crafty at toying with perception, says Najib

Jiminy Qrikert:
 PM Najib Razak is truly at his wit’s end at how to kill off DSAI (Anwar Ibrahim) with futile attempts in Sodomy II and the botched sex video episode.

With each passing day, he sees DSAI consolidating his position as the rakyat’s PM-in-waiting. Meanwhile, Najib’s own position erodes as he loses credibility with the rakyat. He can’t shake off his Scorpene submarines or Mongolian baggage.

Even his own Umno team B marshalled by TDM (Dr Mahathir Mohamad) and Muhyiddin Yassin is sabotaging him by dismantling his 1Malaysia attempt at rallying Malaysians. He can’t even rally all of Umno behind him. Najib has lost Chinese support. Najib is losing Malay support. MCA is totally lost. MIC is impotent. The other mosquito Indian parties he engineered have turned out to be boils on his butt.

‘Save Selangor’ campaign was dismal failure. His One Million Youth rally was no more than a gathering of schoolkids. Nothing he does is achieving traction nor giving him the momentum he needs to call for GE13 soon.

Long:
 It’s embarrassing to read the PM’s comments about moral issues, calling people “jambu” and lament on how “communication is no longer controlled”. It really shows the lack of depth of his character, a man without dignity or intelligence.

I would respect a man much more if he will ignore such childish comments and touch on serious issues that actually matter to the rakyat, but he insists on empty rhetoric. How utterly embarrassing that we have such a PM.

Wira:
 Najib, unless you are transparent and open about those IPP (independent power producer) contracts, you are not going to remove the doubts and perceptions that the government is protecting those IPPs.

Years after this issue has been raised by the opposition, the arrogant government still wants to buy time to study all aspects of power supply. Hear this and get this right, Mr Prime Minister. The rakyat are the victims of the corrupt deals. Not you.

Gerard Samuel Vijayan:
 What has the BN implemented except for corruption and abuse of power. The IPP contracts are a clear example. Why so one-sided in favour of the crony capitalists?

If the government is incapable of even negotiating a fair contract that protects the rights of the rakyat, just like in the case of the toll concessions and now the water guarantees in Selangor, then it has forfeited its right to govern. The national interest is not served by enriching cronies and children of politicians so that they can reach the rank of the super-rich at such a short span.

All the while the people suffer through rising prices, lower wages and a declining standard of living. Najib should be the last to talk about morality when he and his wife are still implicated in the Altantuya Shaariibuu murder and other instances of immoral relationships.

Before you talk about Anwar’s DNA and Omega watch, first set up an RCI (royal commission of inquiry) to investigate the Altantuya murder and its connection to the DCN French submarine purchase scandal.

Loyal Malaysian:
 You do not see the dust in your own eye, Mr PM. You do not have the integrity to stay and answer the queries about your private cum business trip to Kazakhstan. No, the perception that you had misused your position as head of state has not be answered. Your officers can’t answer why an entourage of 200 was roped in.

StevenForMalaysia:
 Najib, look at the situation of the country first before you think others could not run the country better than BN-Umnoputras. Considering the wealth of the country, I could easily deliver three times better standard of living than what we have now.

                This entry was posted on Monday, 13 June 2011, 3:26 pm and is filed under
Politics
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Facts about PAS and the Islamic state issue

By
Pak Sako

June 13, 2011 | The Malaysian Insider

JUNE 13 — The “professionals” have been elected to PAS’s central working committee. PAS has trotted out a “welfare state” slogan. The party’s deputy president-elect, Mohamad Sabu, has been hailed in Malaysiakini as a “cosmopolitan democrat”. A moderate image of PAS is being actively advertised.

Yet the question that worries many non-Muslims and moderate Muslims remains: Has PAS abandoned its Islamic state ambition or hasn’t it?

For the answer, we need to go beyond slogans, media spin and the opinions of the politicians and examine the bare facts.

The bare facts are found in Clauses 3 to 8 of PAS’s constitution. They outline matters pertaining to party goals, laws and authority. Their key points, translated, are as follows:

1. The foundation of PAS: Islam.

2. The aims of PAS: To create a society and governance in which the values of Islamic life is implemented; to defend the sanctity of Islam.

3. The undertakings of PAS: Among others, to preach or proselytise Islam to all of mankind; to make Islam the guide to politics and statehood; to introduce Islamic values in efforts to uphold justice and bring about improvements in all fields including governance and administration, economics, society, learning and education.

4. The laws and powers of PAS: The supreme laws are al-Quran and the Sunnah; the annual general assembly and all other committees in PAS such as the central working committee are subject to it.

5. The roles of the Syura Council (the top committee in PAS’s organisational hierarchy): Among others, to guarantee that authority in PAS does not depart from adhering to the highest laws, i.e., the Al-Quran and the Sunnah; to order that all parties and committees in PAS obey and implement the foundation and other provisions in PAS’s constitution; to monitor all activities, movements and administrative matters within PAS to ensure that these obey the foundation, provisions and requirements of the constitution.

Interpretation and comments about the constitution outlined above:

1. Points 1 to 4 would be a part of the framework and action plan necessary for setting up an Islamic state. Points 1 to 4 are the embodiment of PAS’s Islamic state goal.

2. Point 5 empowers the unelected Syura Council to ensure that the actions of all committees in PAS do not deviate from Points 1 to 4. The implication is that the central working committee, whether completely filled by professionals or religious scholars, cannot avoid working towards establishing what shall eventually be an Islamic state.

3. The very same applies for the Islamic state of Iran (refer to the country’s constitution): The supreme law of the land being the Al-Quran and Sunnah; the application of Islam to all spheres of statehood; and the position of the religious guardian council that ensures that Islam is the bedrock of the constitution.

4. Dr Mahathir Mohamad and Ibrahim Ali’s allegations that PAS has abandoned its ambition to establish an Islamic state are baseless.

Additional observations:

1. No PAS leader — Nik Aziz Nik Mat, Hadi Awang and Mat Sabu included — has ever gone on record to repudiate PAS’s goal of establishing an Islamic state.

2. PAS’s “welfare state” policy is most likely a socio-economic policy that should not contradict or cancel out the larger goal of putting in place an Islamic state.

3. The “welfare state” slogan and the selection of the professionals are strategies for attracting the non-Muslims and moderate Malays, an electorate that are wary of PAS’s Islamic state intentions.

4. PAS is very aware of the fact that if it is to expand its Islamic state agenda, it must do it in a gradual and piecemeal way to thwart the opposition of Malaysians who resist the further Islamisation of Malaysia.

5. The political vision of PAS’s professionals is in perfect harmony with the party’s “ulama leadership” ideology; the difference between the ulama and professionals factions is mainly a matter of political approach: The former is inclined to co-operate with Umno for power whereas the latter faction prefers to defeat Umno to gain power.

Umno probably fears that PAS’s moderate image would erode Umno’s voter base in favour of PAS and Pakatan Rakyat in general.

* This is a translated summary based on the author’s original Malay-language article entitled “PAS Tolak Negara Islam Atau Tidak?” sent by the Centre of Policy Initiatives (CPI). The original was published on cpiasia.net.

                This entry was posted on Monday, 13 June 2011, 7:04 pm and is filed under
Islam
,
PAS
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Guan Eng wants bipartisan review of IPPs

By
Yow Hong Chieh

June 13, 2011

The Malaysian Insider

KUALA LUMPUR, June 13 — The government must convene a panel comprising both Barisan Nasional (BN) and opposition lawmakers to ensure there is no cover-up of “lopsided” independent power producers (IPPs) deals, Lim Guan Eng has said.

The DAP secretary-general said only a bipartisan committee or royal commission of inquiry (RCI) into the hot-button purchasing power agreements (PPAs) would assure the public they will not lose out if the deals are eventually renegotiated.

He said the people were sceptical of the current Cabinet committee review into the PPAs as no action had been taken against politically-connected Umno and BN leaders who allegedly profited from the RM52 billion Bumiputera shares scandal.

“For this reason Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak’s assurances that his government will not look after the interests of IPPs but will side with the people sounds hollow and unconvincing,” Lim (picture) said in a statement today.

The Najib administration announced yesterday that it has formed a special Cabinet committee to evaluate PPAs in light of growing resentment on the ground following a seven per cent power rate hike two weeks ago.

Datuk Seri Ahmad Husni Hanadzlah said the committee will not only study the IPP “problem” but production costs and requirements for the future in light of IPPs whose concession will end in 2014 and 2015.

The second finance minister also stressed that the Cabinet panel will take a bird’s-eye view of subsidies and not be focussed primarily on the power deals or producers.

“We have not been given any deadline for submitting the report, but what must be stressed here is that it will give priority to the interests of the people,” he said.

The Cabinet raised power tariffs by an average of 7.12 per cent effective June 1 in a bid to trim a growing subsidy bill and widening fiscal deficit but the move has also thrown the spotlight on the PPAs TNB inked with IPPs.

Opposition lawmakers have rounded on the Najib administration for wielding the knife on consumer aid while leaving gas subsidies to power producers — to the tune of RM19 billion this year — largely untouched.

The PPAs between TNB and the various IPPs are classified under the Official Secrets Act (OSA).

                This entry was posted on Monday, 13 June 2011, 2:42 pm and is filed under
Financial Scandals
,
Lim Guan Eng
,
OSA
,
Prices
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Hisham: No action against Ibrahim Ali for ‘jihad’ call

By
Shazwan Mustafa Kamal

June 13, 2011 | The Malaysian Insider

KUALA LUMPUR, June 13 — The government will not take any action against Datuk Ibrahim Ali for threatening Christians nationwide with a holy war against any move to usurp Islam with a Christian state.

“Action will only be taken if investigations find that the said act really contravened the country’s laws,” Home Minister Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Hussein said in a written reply to Lim Lip Eng (Segambut-DAP) in the Dewan Rakyat today.

Lim had asked the Home Ministry to state whether it was a punishable offence for a person to declare “jihad” in the name of race and religion.

“I would advise that all parties be careful in making an accusation when its validity has yet to be verified,” said Hishammuddin.

The Perkasa president’s threat to Christians was based on Utusan Malaysia’s recent allegation that church leaders were in a plot with the DAP to turn Malaysia into a Christian state and install a Christian prime minister.

Christian leaders and DAP members have denied the reports which have sparked protests but the Home Ministry has only slapped Utusan Malaysia with a warning letter for publishing the unsubstantiated report.

Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak was forced to meet with church leaders to clear the air but Umno vice president and Home Minister Hishammuddin later said that there was “some basis” to the reports.

The police in Penang have completed an investigation into Utusan Malaysia’s claims and have handed over the case to the Attorney-General’s Chambers.

Utusan Malaysia had published a report entitled “Kristian Agama Rasmi?” (Christianity the official religion?) where it was alleged that DAP leaders and Christian clergymen were conspiring to take over Putrajaya, abolish Islam as the religion of the federation and install a Christian prime minister.

                This entry was posted on Monday, 13 June 2011, 6:35 pm and is filed under
1Malaysia
,
Hishammuddin
,
Perkasa
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


IPPs, where’s your social responsibility?

MalaysiaKini

June 13, 2011

‘Why are IPPs hiding behind the non-disclosure clauses? Their position however is comprehensible – they are only protecting their own self-interests.’

IPPs do not benefit from gas subsidy

DannyLoH: What the Association of Independent Power Producers (Penjanabebas) need to explain is why, despite the gas subsidies, our electricity tariff is higher than Thailand, whose producers are purchasing gas at market price?

Paul Warren
 Penjanabebas, by this letter, you surely have succeeded in ensuring that people only look at the subsidies on the fuel consumed by you. But you did say that your compensation is in two components – fuel and capacity.

And just in case you wish to feign ignorance or lack of understanding, let me put it this way – if one of your members’ capacity is 1,200 megawatts, he gets paid for that 1,200 megawatts.

However, it is maybe that, on average, the take-off may only be 60 percent of that capacity for which you incur the cost of the fuel used. Can you detail for us the total capacity of each of your members for which you are paid this component?

And then against that, tell us the average weekly capacity utilised. I would reckon 60 percent utilisation would be about average. Or am I being a little generous here? If that is true, then really, we should close down at least two of your members and save all that money.

Anonymous_3f15:
 Penjanabebas doesn’t explain how TNB (Tenaga Nasional Berhad) has to mop up all supply of electricity generated. By the way, electricity cannot be stored. TNB has to pay the excess capacity even if there is no demand for extra electricity.

I wish I had such a contract where I don’t have to worry about demand.

El Nino:
 If you feel so strongly about this, Penjanabebas, it would be your corporate social responsibility to open the contracts you signed to public scrutiny.

IPPs deny benefitting from gas subsidy

Cala:
 The more the IPPs (independent power producers) explained, the more we see their greediness. Three issues need answers.

First, they are two types of contracts. One which is drawn up through arms-length open tender – the way Malaysians are taught by the British about procurements many years ago. The other, made ‘famous’ by Dr Mahathir Mohamad, who preferred that contracts be drawn up based on direct negotiation, all done in darkness and very much detrimental to the interests of people.

The IPP contracts belong to the second category. If such is the case, why talk about fairness to people? At any rate, the Umno-led BN regime is known to have put the people’s interest last.

Second, now that the IPPs concede that the gas prices and coal prices have also been pre-fixed by the government and TNB respectively, clearly there are elements of unfair practices. Is that the way business is done? Is it not a case of rent-seeking by the IPPs?

Third, why are IPPs hiding behind non-disclosure clauses for their unwillingness to bare all? Their position however is comprehensible – they are only protecting their own self-interests. If IPPs are not exploiting the situation, how can you explain their mind-boggling profits in the region of RM400 to RM800 million per IPP per year?

In sum hence, instead of given counter arguments, IPPs can only defend their position when comparisons are made between them and those IPPs in America. Anything less is not worth listening to.

This topic, I am sure, is high in the agenda list of Pakatan Rakyat coalition for action within the first 100 days of their victory in the 13th GE. Guess what, it shall be the people who get to dictate the new terms of contracts for the IPPs.

Joker:
 I think it is the truth when the IPPs say they do not benefit from any gas subsidies. However, they are surely playing with words when they say that they are contractually to sell all their output to TNB rather than the other way round, i.e. TNB is forced to buy the IPPs’ output regardless of whether TNB needs the power or not.

They are also silent on their billing rates to TNB. It is rich for them to call Malaysians to be rational and objective and to engage them through dialogue while at the same time avoiding disclosing the PPAs to the public.

Francis Yeoh, if you are sincere in your Christian faith, announce that YTL is willing to disclose its PPA with TNB if the government/TNB has no objection to it.

Quigonbond:
 I thank the IPPs for wanting engagement with the people. Certainly, engagement can only start with full and frank disclosure. It would appear thus that the IPPs must prepared to open their contracts for public scrutiny to know whether Penjanabebas is telling the whole truth.

SusahKes:
 Simple. Make public the contract and let the public determine whether the deals are lopsided or otherwise. Since Penjanabebas wishes to engage the public, isn’t that the least that their members could do?

In any event, can Penjanabebas deny what former TNB chairman Ani Arope had disclosed in his interview with the Star – that basically the IPPs are selling at a rate that is higher than that which TNB produces? Can the IPPs also deny that TNB was strong-armed into the deal by the EPU (Economic Planning Unit)?

Let me remind Penjanabebas that Energy Minister Peter Chin had already stated that Petronas sells gas a lower than market price to the IPPs, and that is how the RM19 billion figure comes into play. What Petronas forgoes, the IPPs end up pocketing.

So where is your corporate social responsibility when you keep selling excess capacity to TNB, and which is now a causal factor for the tariff increase?

Kgen:
 The PPAs are drawn up in such a way as to guarantee the IPPs hefty profits irrespective of gas prices. The gas subsidy does not benefit consumers because the IPPs charge TNB at rates of three or four times more than TNB’s generation cost, irrespective of the subsidised gas. The IPPs are protected from any fuel increase.

One would think that such no risk business would mean low returns but the IPPs enjoy a profit margin of 22 percent, which is astounding in the power generation industry worldwide.

Rakyat Malaysia
: Why the PPAs (power purchase agreements) could not be disclosed? What kind of terror will it unleash?

                This entry was posted on Monday, 13 June 2011, 3:06 pm and is filed under
Energy
,
Good Governance
,
Prices
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Koh trying to sabotage Greater Penang Plan?

By
Susan Loone

Jun 13, 11 | MalaysiaKini

A local think-tank has questioned former chief minister Koh Tsu Koon if he was planning to sabotage the Greater Penang Transformation Programme by calling for the release of the state’s blueprint.

Socio-Economic and Environmental Research Institute (Seri) executive director Liew Chin Tong asked today whether Koh, who is a minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, was not prepared for a joint federal-state plan to be produced.

In April last year, Seri was officially tasked by the state government to prepare a five-year blueprint for the period 2011 to 2015.

The committee is headed by former senator and pioneer general manager of the Penang Development Corporation, Chet Singh.

Liew said about 200 roundtable consultations were conducted between April and October last year, with a “draft final” version printed and circulated among policy makers and key state civil servants.

The discussions among policy makers and key state civil servants were held while the draft was sent to peers abroad for review.

Amendments were made and the blueprint was now ready to be made public for consultation and affirmation.

“We intend to have the widest possible acceptance within the government and by the community to smooth its final implementation,” Liew, who is also Bukit Bendera MP, told a press conference in Penang.

Yesterday, Koh challenged Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng to officially unveil his promised Penang blueprint for the sake of Penangites.

Until today, Koh said, Lim was unable to produce the master plan that he said was ready.

Lim responded to this by inviting members of the public to view the blueprint at his office in Komtar.

Liew also said that Performance Management and Delivery Unit (Pemandu) chief executive officer Idris Jala had called on Lim on Feb 19 and they had agreed that a Greater Penang Transformation Programme lab should be held, upon the final consent of the prime minister.

On April 1, Premier Najib Razak and Lim issued a joint statement confirming the arrangement.

“It was also decided that the Penang Blueprint will be deferred, in deference of a joint federal-state plan,” Liew said.

“I have always suspected that there are two drivers in Pemandu. I am shocked that, of all people, Koh Tsu Koon was the one questioning why the blueprint was not disclosed to the public.”

                This entry was posted on Monday, 13 June 2011, 5:59 pm and is filed under
Penang
,
Penang Government
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Malaysia in the Era of Globalization #69: Culture, Institutions, and Leadership

By Bakri Musa

Chapter 8: Culture, Institutions, and Leadership

Leadership

Leadership to a society is what wings are to planes. Without wings planes will not fly, and without leaders there will be no society. Wings also define the limits on the performances of the plane. Early planes had double stacked wings, the biplanes, which effectively doubled the lift at low speed. But with stronger engines and thus greater speed, that design became very limiting as the drag factor increases rapidly at higher speed. Thus new models are introduced with a single pair of wings but fitted with adjustable curved flaps at the leading and trailing edges that could be extended at low speed (as at takeoff and landing) to effect maximum lift, and then retracted at high speed to reduce drag. This flexibility in shape enables the wings to function efficiently at both low and high speed. With the development of jet engines and even faster planes, even this design has limitations, and soon gave way to the backswept wings (still with flaps) that gave even better lift/drag ratio. With supersonic jets, the design is further improved with the delta wings that could be retracted to further reduce drag at super mach cruising speed. With the extreme speeds of rockets and missiles, wings are essentially irrelevant, reduced to tiny flaps at the tail end.

            So it is with leadership. In the beginning when society is undeveloped and its citizenry unsophisticated and uneducated, you need a leader who is a strict disciplinarian and could command instant respect by his charisma. This type of leader is best exemplified by the drill sergeant major who could whip out a bunch of ragtag village bums into spick and span recruits within a few months. But as those recruits become officers or if one is training an officers’ corps, then one needs a different type of leader. The yelling drillmaster would definitely be out of place. Similarly if one is leading a group of intelligent people, one needs a different style of leader. If a university president starts barking orders like a military commander, he would not last long. His claim to leadership would be through his scholarly example and intellect, and by sharing his vision with the rest of the academic community. An orchestra conductor calls for another style of leadership. His claim to the podium is his own talent and contribution, and his ability to bring out the best out of his musicians. And if the orchestra fails, chances are it is the conductor who would be blamed, not the musicians. In an orchestra, there is no such thing as a leadership challenge to the conductor. The first violinist does not aspire to be the conductor, nor is she scheming to take over the job. She (or he) is satisfied with being a superb musician in her (or his) own right.

            South Korea’s General Park was the right man at the right time for his nation. His military bearing and no nonsense approach was what his unruly, ill-disciplined, and backward people needed. He ruthlessly and quickly whipped his ragged nation into a cohesive productive unit, using nationalism as his rallying cry. Unfortunately a decade later, as a result of the very success of his program, his style became a significant liability. After a decade of spectacular economic development, with his people increasingly becoming highly educated, Park still had the old biplane style of leadership, totally unsuitable for a nation that was now taking off at jet speed. His successors were no better; they were all military men stuck in the same biplane mode of leadership. Fortunately South Korea today is being led by a civilian with a flexible style, akin to wings with retractable flaps that could be adjusted accordingly.

            The track record of the leadership of many newly independent countries is a sorry one. One of the reasons is that these leaders overstay or do not recognize their limitations. Often a leader who is good at leading the nation at war is the worse kind for a nation at peace. The British knew something of this when they kicked out Churchill soon after he successfully prosecuted World War II. That may seem to be the height of ingratitude, but often that is the best course for the nation. Had Churchill stayed on he would have plunged Britain and the world into another war against the Soviets with his Cold War rhetoric.

            Unfortunately many Third World leaders who successfully led their countries in their war of independence hung on for too long even though they had proven themselves to be incompetent peacetime leaders. Sukarno may be brilliant at outsmarting the Dutch and using world opinion to his side in securing his nation’s independence, but those were very different skills needed in the day-to-day mundane details of running a new nation. As result Indonesia was driven to the ground under Sukarno, and never recovered.

            Similarly in the Indian subcontinent, Gandhi may have successfully shamed Britain into granting India its independence by his nonviolence movement, but that same strategy was impotent in dealing with the animal hatred Hindus and Muslims there have for one another. Newly-independent India needed a Park, not a Ghandi.

            When Malaysia became independent in 1957, expectations were necessarily low: just keep the status quo and not muck things up. Malaysians were satisfied with what the colonialists left them, just maintain that; do not rock the boat. Tunku Abdul Rahman, the country’s first prime minister, was ideally suited for this role. A committed anglophile, he was more than happy to oblige. With his happy-go-lucky attitude and less-than-gifted intellect, he need not come up with any innovative ideas or programs. Indeed none were expected. His good nature and affable ways were enough to smooth the differences that surfaced. In the immediate post-independent Malaysia, success was measured not by the number of brilliant innovations and imaginative policies, rather in maintaining the status quo.

            After a decade of independence however, Malaysians had become increasingly confident. Their horizon had expanded. The status quo, no matter how admirable it seemed in the beginning, did not solve the pressing problems facing the nation. Unfortunately, the Tunku did not notice the changes. The nation was like a plane that now had a more powerful engine, but its wings were still the biplane type. The inevitable result was a crash; the old wings were too much of a drag. Tunku became a liability, and he discovered that only too late to prevent the devastating May 1969 race riot.

            Tunku was replaced by his long-time deputy, Tun Razak, a man his polar opposite. Where Tunku was all smiles and affable, Razak had a constant dour demeanor and a perennial scowling look; where Tunku was intellectually shallow, his Cambridge degree notwithstanding, Tun Razak was brilliant and innovative, confident of his own considerable intellect, and unafraid to pursue his own policies without having to await the approval or adoration of his followers.

            Tun Razak’s first order of business following the devastating riot of 1969 was to suspend parliamentary democracy. That precipitated howling protests from within as well abroad. But Tun Razak was sure of his bearing and ignored those do-gooders. He had an important obligation to bring peace and restore order. He ran the country as a military dictator would; indeed he spoke admiringly of and modeled himself after the general who successfully prosecuted Malaysia’s campaign against the communist terrorists, General Templer. Where Templer was fighting the communists, Razak was fighting rural poverty and interracial inequities. He emulated Templer by establishing in each district a local “operations” room to monitor his war on poverty. He was no staff general; he frequented the frontlines and ground troops. To overcome the gross and increasingly dangerous interracial inequities, he promulgated a daring and innovative social engineering program in the form of the New Economic Policy (NEP). He was remarkably effective. Nothing attests to the enduring quality of his contributions better than that the NEP and its successor policies have essentially remained unchanged to this very day. The remarkable aspect of Razak’s leadership was that, having established law and order, he restored parliamentary democracy. Tun Razak was one of the few leaders who shined in leading his nation both in times of crisis as well as during peacetime.

            Sadly Tun Razak died in the prime of his life, just as the citizenry was beginning to feel the tangible benefits of his farsighted and brilliant initiatives. The nation rightly mourned a great loss.

            Tun Razak was replaced by his chosen successor, Hussein Onn. Hussein’s tenure was brief because of ill health. His leadership was a forgettable one; he was more administrator than leader. His greatest contribution was his selection of Mahathir as his deputy and later, prime minister. But even this sole credit was marred when a decade later during the UMNO leadership crisis, he declared that his greatest mistake was in appointing Mahathir! I am certain that had Tun Razak survived his cancer, Malaysia would have continued on its steep trajectory of success. The hypothetical question is, with Malaysians thus changed, would Tun Razak have been flexible enough to adjust to the new Malaysia? I believe he would.

            Mahathir took the country by a storm in 1981. The changes he brought were both symbolic and real. Symbolically he made a big deal of signing in and out of his office and to wearing a nametag. To status conscious Malaysia, for the prime minister to wear an identification tag is highly significant, symbolizing equality and humility. And to chronically tardy Malaysians, signing in every morning is a very visible manifestation of discipline.

            On a practical level he took the country on a path of economic development undreamed of at the time. He firmly committed the nation to foreign investments and trade, and confidently rode the recession of the mid 1980s to lead the nation to greater heights. The world spared no superlatives in describing his and the country’s economic progress. Had Mahathir resigned in the mid 1990s, his star would have forever remained undiminished.

            Alas all that changed quickly as he completed his second decade of leadership. In short, the country took off but Mahathir’s model of leadership could not adjust to the new realities. The fuselage (country) is now equipped with a faster jet engine and cruising at high speed, but it is still stuck with the old perpendicular wings which no longer give much lift but instead, are now a major drag. Mahathir failed to see the remarkable transformation of his people, a consequence of the dramatic success of his very policies. He was unable to adapt to those changes. His speech to the UMNO General Assembly in 2001 was a rehash of what he wrote in his first book The Malay Dilemma in 1970, where he lambasted Malays for our lackadaisical ways. With nauseating frequency he exhorted Malays to change, meanwhile failing to realize that it was he who needed to change the most. The rigid disciplinarian drill sergeant could not transform himself into a captain. Thus the sad spectacle of Mahathir humiliated in the twilight of his leadership by the very people, Malays, who benefited immensely from his policies.

            Sadly his legacy is destined to tarnish even more with his selection of an unimaginative and uninspiring successor, Abdullah Badawi, his fourth deputy.

            Why such a fate for a nation that has so much talent? The reasons are many and I will review some.

                This entry was posted on Monday, 13 June 2011, 3:14 pm and is filed under
Bakri Musa
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Malaysia trails in religious freedom and other rights, says new survey

By
Yow Hong Chieh

The Malaysian Insider

KUALA LUMPUR, June 13 — Malaysia lags behind the rest of the world in protecting freedom of religion, expression and other basic rights, managing only to place 59th out of 66 countries surveyed by the World Justice Project (WJP) for its Rule of Law Index 2011.

Low scores for freedom of religion, expression, assembly and privacy also meant that Malaysia placed second to last in its income group, which includes other upper-middle-income countries like Russia, Brazil, Mexico and Iran.

The report noted, however, that Malaysia ranked first among 19 income peers in terms of security, on par with countries such as France and Belgium, despite the prevalence of police abuse.

Malaysia scored higher for absence of crime, strong labour rights, and lack of civil conflict — which the survey said was “effectively limited” — almost matching or exceeding the average score for other East Asia and Pacific countries.

“As with many other countries in the region, Malaysia presents a contrasting view,” WJP said in a statement today.

“In comparison with upper-middle-income group standards, the government is reasonably accountable, although corruption, political interference, and impunity still exist.”

Other areas of concern highlighted by the report include corruption in the judicial branch and the low proportion of government officials cautioned for misconduct.

The efficiency and transparency of government agencies can also be improved upon, as well as access to justice due to weaknesses in the effectiveness of criminal investigation system, the correctional system and, to a lesser extent, due process of law.

The Rule of Law Index, created last year, measures how laws are implemented and enforced in practice and its effect on people’s lives.

Data for the index was collected via a poll of 66,000 members of the public as well as questionnaires administered to 2,000 local legal experts from around the world.

This is the first time Malaysia has been included in the survey.

                This entry was posted on Monday, 13 June 2011, 3:50 pm and is filed under
Human Rights
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Putrajaya’s double standards

The Malaysian Insider

Jun 13, 2011

JUNE 13 — Here’s a riddle. Why is the Home Ministry warning Bersih 2.0 from organising its July 9 rally but not taking action against Datuk Ibrahim Ali for threatening a “jihad” against Christians if they usurp Islam with a Christian state?

Right, because nothing violent happened after the Perkasa chief made his threat.

But will anything violent happen next month when the election watchdog marches for electoral reforms?

If one takes the example of the first Bersih rally, pandemonium only broke out when riot police took action and protesters went helter-skelter.

And not before that. So why this talk of national security or a threat to tourism?

Really, why the double standards?

It would appear Home Minister Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Hussein is not an honest broker or interested in justice.

“Action will only be taken if investigations find that the said act really contravened the country’s laws,” he said in a written reply to Lim Lip Eng (Segambut-DAP) in the Dewan Rakyat today.

Lim had asked the Home Ministry to state whether it was a punishable offence for a person to declare “jihad” in the name of race and religion.

“I would advise that all parties be careful in making an accusation when its validity has yet to be verified,” said Hishammuddin.

In effect, the minister’s indifference to what the Pasir Mas MP said is as bad as supporting what the cow head protestors did in Shah Alam nearly two years ago.

There is apparently no more pretence by this Umno vice-president as to what he feels about what is right or wrong.

Till today, the police have not charged the “Datuk T” trio for the public screening of a sex video, nor has action been taken against the bloggers or Utusan Malaysia over the unsubstantiated reports of a plot for a Christian state.

We can now add Ibrahim Ali to that list.

So, why should any non-Umno person vote or support him or his party? Not until he is fair to all Malaysians.

                This entry was posted on Monday, 13 June 2011, 11:26 pm and is filed under
Hishammuddin
,
Law & Order
,
Police
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


RM100 mil spent in one day: Cut Rais Yatim’s pay

MalaysiaKini

June 13, 2011

‘Why is there no action when a minister made a wrong decision and wasted taxpayers’ money? Cut Rais Yatim’s pay by RM10 for his decision.’

Artiste Day: ‘Rais blew half year’s budget in 1 day’

Just Me:
 Waste is the name of the game. Of the RM100 million, maybe only 20 percent goes to the real project.

Indeed, the petrol subsidy is not really subsidy. We have paid in advance for it in the form of car taxes, which is the highest in the region. So giving some back is not a subsidy. In Thailand, which has a smaller passenger car market, they have no local car producer, but their auto industry is much bigger than Malaysia and employ more people.

From the difference in the car prices and extra loan we have to pay and service the bank, we can have at least six to seven years of free petrol.

Flour is cheaper in Malaysia and subsidised, but instead the average instant noodles prices are at least 30 percent cheaper in Thailand. Diesel is not subsidised in Thailand and yet, their trawlers have been fishing every day and growing.

So let us sit back and think again. Have we done our economy injustice? Has our planning gone wrong. Isn’t it time we ask why?

Freemsia:
 With the amount of hard-earned taxpayers’ money being used for wasteful projects like these, no wonder subsidies are cut. We have a useless, incompetent, arrogant, blur and no hope of an information, communication and culture minister in Rais Yatim.

SusahKes:
 Pride goes before a fall. When you have a minister who thinks he’s God’s gift to Malaysia, then this is what you get.

In truth, Rais has got no clue as to what he is doing – he’s just warming the chair before he’s shown the door like former home minister Syed Hamid Albar. In the meantime, remember his face when you think of arrogance.

Dingy:
 An allocation of RM100 million for a one-day event is too much. In all BN expenses for any project, much had leaked out to their cronies’ pockets. In this case 99 percent was probably leaked out. This government is always generous with expenses, all in millions. What better ways of siphoning out taxpayers’ money than to organise events by inflating expenses.

How to inflate expenses? For example, one bungkus of nasi lemak biasa normally cost RM2.50 at complexes would cost RM250. You remember Auditor-General’s Report on the screw drivers? It’s difficult to finish RM100 million for a one-day event unless a dollar worth is inflated to RM1,000. Good money, earned without breaking a sweat.

AntiRacial:
 Why is there no action when a minister made a wrong decision and wasted taxpayers’ money? Cut Rais Yatim’s pay by RM10 for his decision. This will serve as a warning to other ministers before they decide on any spending.

Spending on any project or function should come from a ministry-level decision and not simply decided by the ministers themselves. I bet there will not be any explanation or action on this matter over the mistake made by Rais. We need to stop all this nonsense before Malaysia go bankrupt.

Lingam K:
 This is the ogre who condemned budding actress Sharifah Amani, who innocently said “I look stupid if I talk Malay”, meaning that her Malay is not immaculate.

This is the guy who teaches Malaysians to be patriotic during Merdeka by waving flags. This the bloke who arrogantly castigated and mocked a journalist who asked a question in English during a press conference.

This is the ignoramus who said that not a single word must be changed from ‘Interlok’ to maintain its plot and sub-plot, not knowing that it has already been edited even before the controversy. He is a blundering incompetent. God saves Malaysians from him.

Kgen:
 Isn’t this the same misguided fool who recently blocked 10 Internet sites on the pretext of piracy? Rais Yatim is a menace to the youth of Malaysia.

Justice Seeker:
 What to do? As long as there are fools who support the corrupt Umno/BN regime, there will be looting. They will use all kind of excuses to rob the rakyat’s money. In the name of country’s defence, they stole billions. Now in the name of artistes, they steal in the millions.

                This entry was posted on Monday, 13 June 2011, 2:53 pm and is filed under
Good Governance
,
Rais Yatim
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.