Religion disrupting families — two more cases

The Cabinet tomorrow must give top priority to end the series of  man-made tragedies of religion disrupting families and announce after its meeting a proactive strategy to put an end to such instances which have cast a dark shadow over the nation’s 50th Merdeka anniversary celebrations.

For over forty years, such instances of family disruptions because of religion were virtually unheard of but its increasing incidence is giving Malaysia not only a bad name internationally but stand as an indictment of the failure of nation-building and national integration in plural Malaysia on half-a-century of nationhood.

The two latest instances:

1.
 A hair saloon operator, Benedict Gopal, 32,   married  his wife Audrey Christina Samuel, 29,  six years ago and have two children Melissa, 5 and Jason  17 months.  Both are  born Christians.

In April, she left the house after differences with her husband, converted to Islam and took the name Nur Adryana Questina binti Abdullah.  The two children remained with the father.

On May 3, 2007, she secured  an ex-parte  order from the Negri Sembilan Syariah Court directing the Negri Sembilan Islamic Affairs Department (MAINS) and the Police to co-operate to  get Benedict Gopal to hand over Melissa and Jason to the mother.

Benedict Gopal was given 14 days to appear before the Negri Sembilan syariah court to set aside its order.

There have been two unsuccessful attempts involving the police to take Melissa and Jason from Benedict Gopal to hand them over to the custody of Nur Adryana Questina.

2.
 Magendran, 25, lorry-driver,  from Klang, Selangor, married Najeera Farvinli binti Mohamed Jalali, 25, through a traditional Hindu ceremony on 15th July 2006 at Kuil Maha Mariamman, Klang and they led a happy married life.

On 28th April 2007, seven Jabatan Agama Islam Selangor (JAIS) male officers raided his house in Klang and detained his wife and forcibly took her away without the presence of any female officer, on the ground that she was a Muslim according to her identity card.

Magendran lodged a police report at the Klang police station on the very same day.  The JAIS officers did not serve any detention order when they took Najeera away  from their home.

Both Benedict Gopal and Magendran accompanied DAP National Chairman and MP for Bukit Glugor, Karpal Singh to Parliament this afternoon for a media conference.

Karpal will be applying for a declaration from the civil court to assert Benedict Gopal’s constitutional rights  while in the latter case, a habeas corpus application by Magendran to free Najeera from illegal detention by JAIS authorities has been filed.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 8 May 2007, 5:38 pm and is filed under
Constitution
,
Religion
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Indians can change their destiny

Indians Can Change Their Destiny

by Richard Teo

I fail to agree with Samy Vellu’s assertion that the 3% equity for the Indians had been on the national agenda for a long time and that nothing had been planned and implemented for the community. The failure to reach that equity level lies not wholly with the govt but with the MIC leader which Samy leads.

The dilemma facing the marginalised Indian community will continue as long as they are led by the current MIC leaders. For 25 years the Indian community have been led by these leaders and in many ways the trust bestowed on  them have been repeatedly betrayed.

The pitiful and marginalised position the Indian community are enduring would not have occurred had their leaders placed community above self, service and sacrifice above greed.

Partly to blame for this current dilemma are the Indian community generally and the MIC members specifically. Like the proverbial sheep been led to the slaughter house, they had faithfully placed their trust to these same leaders who had deemed fit to plunder the wealth meant for the poor and destitute in the Indian community.

During Dr. Mahathir’s reign, a man not known for his generosity, a few million Tenaga Nasional Bhd newly public-listed shares were allocated to Maika, the investment arm of MIC. The shares ostensibly for Maika would indirectly benefit the many rural Indians in estates and other low category jobs if equity in the form of unit trust shares were taken up by the community.

MIC members went on a frantic campaign to encourage the poor Indians from the rural areas to invest in Maika for a slice of the economic cake. It was like manna from heaven and the poor uneducated Indians got the bait together with the hook line and sinker.

They ploughed their hard-earned savings meant for their children’s education in Maika shares with a promise of a return many-fold their original investment.

The TNB shares never reached Maika. Somewhere along the way to Maika the TNB shares were hijacked to another entity.

Subsequently, Maika shares went into a tail-spin and wiped off millions from its value. The hard-earned savings of thousand of poor Indian investors were left clinging to the valueless Maika shares.

The extent and untold hardship and misery this episode had on the Indian community can never be measured in monetary terms. In many poor Indian households, the dreams and aspirations of young ambitious children were destroyed forever.

Today, we see jobless, uneducated Indians whose only option is to turn to a life of crime in order to survive.    The govt. has not opened its door in the civil service for them and the private sector will continue to remain elusive for the unqualified.

The plight and fate of the Indian community will continue to remain bleak and diminish if it places its faith in the same MIC leaders which had hoodwinked them for the last 20 years.

They have no one else to blame but themselves if they persists in choosing the same faces in the MIC leadership which have brought them nothing but despair and despondency.

Through the present MIC leadership, the Indians are now a marginalised community. Only the Indian community can make a change for the better, failing which they will have to endure another 20 years of destitution.

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 9 May 2007, 6:58 am and is filed under
Indians
,
nation building
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Maybanks’ legal panel – what is the truth?

by I Bernadette

First, my ethnicity is irrelevant — and I am not defending MayBank or/and its policies.

The fact that racial discrimination has been ‘cast in stone’ so to speak, into  policies of organizations like MayBank,  is nothing new. In Malaysia,  corporations linked to the Government and not just MayBank have fine-tuned the art of racial discrimination to  a heart beat.

What is new in the case of MayBank  in its latest ruling is that it would appear to be encroaching on the  principle of free speech as protected by our Federal Constitution of 1957 — asking that law firms hoping to deal with it be first  majority-owned by a certain class of Malaysians based on race. What right has MayBank got to go around telling private individuals  who go into business as partners, how profits on their earnings are supposed to be distributed among them, what equity participation they should have in their private ventures and what internal policies they should or should not follow? Isn’t this the responsibility of private individuals as free citizens?

But at least MayBank has been forthright on the issue by making public  its policy. Others are less so if they ever do.  Apparently it arises  out of MayBank’s genuine desire to comply with what after all is government policy.

Since the issue is one basically of racial discrimination against certain categories of lawyers based on race, in favor of one class of Malaysians  vis-à-vis  the others, one cannot be faulted for asking whether the proper forum ought not to  be the country’s  legislative body responsible for such laws i.e. Parliament and not MayBank.

Consider this. For a law firm looking to do work for a bank even on an ad hoc basis, the partners would have to work hard — ‘working hard’  means in most cases many hours on the golf fields at prestigious clubs scattered not only all over the country  but overseas with its team of ‘enablers’ if you will where business deals are made.  This acts to automatically exclude most of the small to medium law firms with their limited resources, limited experience (on the golf fields rather than in any field) and limited track record as a firm because they are new and the partners are young.

Consider also  the ‘process’ it  involves.

Contrary to what is popularly believed, the bank’s manager in charge of legal affairs has minimum input into the selection of lawyers and law firms seeking to  be of service to the Bank. The Legal Manager only represents the face of Management when deciding  the matter of who gets on to the bank’s panel.  Nevertheless, it is true that in many of the cases where the law firms do not meet the bank’s criteria, the Legal Manager actually decide at his level, and without more — unless the application has been submitted nearer to the primary source of decision making.

If the issue is  simply one of whether the law firm meets the bank’s criteria, where is the need to have such simple and routine matter referred to  the bank’s CEO and his committee for the exercise of his or her discretion?  Does this not smack of favoritism, nepotism and other isms all of which are irrelevant to the  issue of what or which best protects the bank’s and, therefore, the public’s  interest?

Here is where the matter enters a more controversial stage of the process.  Here is where the Bank through its CEO gets to handle the  ‘sensitive matters’ like  political connection to individuals serving on important sounding committees of some important political party (it need not always be UMNO or UMNO related – meaning the MCA in many cases) or a connection to the Royals but never the Mohammads and the Ah Wongs and the Moorthys who choose to do business the right way together, the Malaysian way, who are left to beg for business to make ends meet, collect the crumbs thrown at them and support their families. Sure, nobody owes these poor hardworking souls, irrespective of ethnicity or political affiliations, a living.

Consider this too. Property developers come to the banks with their list of solicitors on their panels who have handled the work of sale and purchase of properties they sold. It would be misleading to suggest that banks have full control over who among their lawyers get to do the work of protecting their security interest. Their clients the property developers would at this point have already struck a deal with their lawyers about the bank work that is coming. It does not take a rocket scientist to figure out the ethnicity of these lawyers.

So to suggest or imply that a bank like MayBank has full control over which law firms get to do the work, is to ignore the facts. To apportion blame based on this alone is wrong.

‘Conveyancing’  work is seen by the lawyers as the most lucrative area of their practice, routine and  less risky to themselves and the banks because of the practice of boilerplate drafting — in fact in almost all cases it represents the bank’s own security documentation internally generated but printed on the firm’s stationery. Relating the risk exposure of banks, under those circumstances, to the ethnicity of the lawyers assigned to protect their  security interest is not only irrelevant but wrong.

If the public is genuinely interested to get at the truth, ask for the disclosure by  MayBank  of the names of  law firms doing their work based not only on ethnicity of lawyer-partners, their equity participation,  and ethnicity of lawyer-employees but also  the amount of work, the number of cases  they actually do, its relative size to the total work available for distribution and work including those not available for distribution  — and their value in money terms.

What you  discover would pale in comparison with such narrow issues like preferential treatment or discriminatory practices based on race as a factor.

What of the collusion between government and big business — irrespective of race?

Where and how do ordinary working class Malaysians many of whom are in support of the DAP’s objective of helping working class Malaysians of any race, struggling to support their families, fit in?

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 9 May 2007, 7:25 am and is filed under
NEP
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Merdeka! But are we totally free?

Merdeka! But are we totally free?

by Azly Rahman

Let me share my thoughts on independence and social contract by first quoting excerpts from a poem by the American poet Emma Lazarus, and next from the Enlightenment thinker Jean Jacques Rousseau.

“Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!” (The New Colossus by Lazarus, inscribed on the Statue of Liberty in the New York).

“Nations, like men, are teachable only in their youth, with age they become incorrigible. Once customs have been established and prejudices rooted, reform is a dangerous and fruitless enterprise, a people cannot bear to see its evils touched, even if only to be eradicated, it is like a stupid, pusillanimous invalid who trembles at the sight of a physician” (Rousseau in The Social Contract).

The excerpts above inspire my essay on the meaning of social contract.

Let us go back to our history and listen attentively to the idea of the formation of Malaysia. We must revise our understanding of social contract that we derive from state-authored textbooks, written by the intelligentsia; knowledge that has since formed the perception of policy makers.

What revisions do we need to make to our social contract, if we are to be independent?

Our ideology

The validity of an argument has its birth and death. It’s life-line is determined by the historical moment and essentially by the historical-materialistic condition of existence. Ideas become bankrupt, designed to collapse under their own internal weight of contradiction. Ideas that once ‘moved nations’ may also mark their end of history.

The post-independence argument that formed the New Economic Policy (NEP) is one such collapsing argument.

Human beings with ideological and constitutive interests craft arguments in favour of this or that political-economic advantage. Those arguments become a basis for this and that contract/compact/covenant or even law enforced with iron hands.

In our history, the British-colonialist produced argument on the issue of ‘social contract’ that has become an emerging issue as Malaysia is planning to celebrate her 50th birthday soon. Let us revisit this argument.

What did the British Empire still want when it granted Malaya independence on a silver platter? What ideological paradigm was transplanted into the consciousness of the people and the political-economic landscape of Malaya when the Reid Commission laid out its arguments for the protection of the rights of this or that person and how did this benefit the British in the overall scheme of neo-colonialism?

What character of neo-colonialism was about to take shape as the ‘newly-Independent’ Malaysia struggled with an identity crisis of deciding who owned the land and who should be considered second-class citizens?

These are difficult questions that are surfacing in a newer light. These are haunting us – the new generations of ‘hyphenated’ Malaysians. But I think there are answers to these questions and they must be crafted differently and require a re-interpretation of history.

Let us reconstruct our understanding of social contract so that it may become real to the lived experience of the working class multi-cultural poor and those marginalised and yearning to be free.

I am inspired by Rousseau’s notion of social contract: ‘How to find a form of association which will defend the person and the goods of each member with the collective force of all, and under which each individual, while uniting himself with others, obeys no one but himself, and remains as free as before. This is the fundamental problem to which the social contract holds the solution.”

Newly-branded arguments

History, said Hannah Arendt, does not necessarily mean progress. Malaysia’s history cannot be equated with the progress of arguments that are taught by her imperialist masters and race theoreticians. If this is the notion of progress we are embracing, we are actually accentuating the haze of totalitarianism. To package and market these argument anew is failure to analyse it historically using the tools of what I call, ‘post-structuralist dialogical materialism’.

To let the story of this nation called Malaysia continue, let us abandon the race-based definition of citizenship and ownership of national wealth, definitions derived from race theorist produced by the process of ‘othering’, or ‘we versus them’.

We must not be afraid to even reinterpret the spirit of the constitution and call upon constitutional conventions to amend parts of it that no longer suit our generation that continues to evolve as Malaysians. This is the essence of creativity and problem-solving in a nation that is complex and in constant cultural flux. This will make our nation stronger and its citizens wiser. We will no longer need a
keris-based argument
.

The history of the American Constitution, saw amendments to make it relevant to the changing times and fundamentally to make it closer to the meaning of America as a land of immigrants. In spite of its shortcomings, America has constantly renewed the spirit of multi-culturalism.

If we are to also renew our understanding of multi-culturalism, think of the following proposition.

In Malaysia, are we not all immigrants and time travelers that are being tested based on how we treat each other in non-discriminatory terms irrespective of race, colour, creed, and national origin? Is this not what all religions profess too?

The gradual migration of the Malays, Chinese, Indians and other peoples of varied linguistic stock (yet with similar DNA make-up) to
Tanah Melayu
, illustrate phases of historical moments in the epic of British colonialism.

The great epic of
Pax Brittanica
is one which tells the story of a world dominated by an empire that controlled the means of production, and thereby controlled the means of mental production and hence, the production of the ideology called ‘colonialism’.

It is a story of the economic drafting of ‘indentured servants’ forced to enrich the British Empire and how the ideology of imperialism bred class antagonism cleverly masked in the name of race and ethnic politics. One needs to read the history of slavery and civil rights movement in America in order to understand how we are evolving and how race is not a specific and isolated moment in Malaysian history, but a global and historical phenomena in the development of the cultural logic of late, middle, and early capitalism.

Economic interest

It has been almost 50 years since this experiment called ‘Malaysia’ was designed by the long-dead and gone British imperialists. The children and grand-children of those rubber tappers, padi planters, fishermen, petty traders, and tin-miners have all grown up and become classes of people ideologised, hegemonised and subjugated by a modern version of British colonialist divide-and-rule policy — the ideology of the NEP.

The earlier crafters of the neo-colonialist ideology of Malaysian communalism believed that a just social contract is one that protected and promoted the economic interest of each major race separately. It has worked to a certain extent as, for instance, in the creation of a professional bumiputera class and a few millionaires.

But a neo-colonialist ideology creates a neo-colonialist system of production of human beings, materials, and culture based on a pseudo-sophisticated strands of arguments of race theory that is founded upon the structure of hyper-modernity.

Are we seeing a bankruptcy of race-based ideology of a post-Reid Commission, post-NEP confusion agenda of neo-colonialist based developmentalism that squeezes the blood, sweat and tears out of the cheap human labour of different colour and national origins?

In this Malaysia in the year 2007, how must we construct a more accurate definition of a native, an immigrant, a first/second/third generation of this or that?

-Why must we not question history if we are to become new makers of it?

-Why must we still treat the grandchildren of immigrants as ‘second-class’ citizens?

-Why must we not accord them with opportunities that resemble equitable/regulative justice?

-Have not their parents laboured for the prosperity of this nation, a nation that has trumpeted itself the world over as a modern developing state?

-Have not the children of these serfs and labourers think, act, and feel Malaysian enough to be treated as equals?

-Why must we not declare, as the principles of social redistributive justice requires, that we must design a new social contract that will abolish all interpretations of human beings based on racial origin and use the abundant resources we have for the benefit of all – all the children and grandchildren of tine miners, rubber tappers, and padi planters, fishermen who were cleverly divided, conquered, and exploited by the British imperialists?

Or even better, I propose we not only think ourselves no longer, constitutionally as ‘hyphenated-this-or-that-Malaysian’, but reject any form of ethnic-chauvinistic-based politics that are only interested in advancing neo-colonialist ideology we wish to expunge from our consciousness.

That will be a good beginning to our new resolution for Merdeka.

Lived democracy

What is independence then? I have some thoughts on this.

Independence is not a slogan but an existential state of mind and a condition of ‘lived democracy’, one in which citizens are aware of how oppressive systems are cultivated. We cannot be independent until we arrive at these historical junctures, and until we do the following:

1. Free the human mind from all forms of dogmas, superstitions, mental chains, hegemonic formations, and transitional levels of totalitarianism. Our educational system at all levels must strengthen the scientific and philosophical foundation of its curriculum and practices to effect changes in the higher-order thinking skills of the next generation. We should not tolerate any forms of bigotry, racial chauvinism, and retarded form of democracy in our educational system.

2. Understand the relationship between the ‘self and the system of social relations of production’ and how the self becomes alienated and reduced to labour and appendages and cogs in the wheels of industrial system of production, a system that hides under the name of the corporatist nation and any other term that masks the real exploitation of the human self.

3. Make ourselves aware that our social systems, through the rapid development of technology and its synthesis with local and international predatory culture, have helped create classes of human beings that transforms their bodies into different classes of labour (manual, secretarial, managerial, militarial, intellectual, and capital-owning) that is now shaping the nature of class antagonism locally and globally.

4. Understand how our political, economic, cultural institutions have evolved and are created out of the vestiges of newer forms of colonialism, institutions that are built upon the ideology of race-based interpretations of human and material development that benefit the few who own the means of cultural, material, and intellectual production.

5. Understand how ideologies that oppress humanity works, how prevailing political, economic, cultural ideologies help craft false consciousness and create psychological barriers to the creation of a society that puts the principles of social contract into practice.

6. Be aware of how our physical landscape creates spaces of power and knowledge and alienates us and how huge structural transformations such as the Multimedia Super Corridor and other clones and replicas of it that are creating a new form of technological city-scape (technopoles) that benefits local and international real estate profiteers more that they provide more humane living spaces for the poor and the marginalised in an increasingly cybernated society.

7. Be fully aware of the relationship between science, culture, and society and how these interplay with contemporary global challenges and how we clearly or blindly adopt these rapid changes and transform them into our newer shibboleths of developmentalism — one such policy being the National BioTechnology Programme.

8. Put a halt to the systematic stupefication of academicians and students in our public universities by first incorporating Academic Freedom Clauses in their mission statements and next enculturalising intellectualism in these learning environments.

I am not keen on thinking about celebrating Merdeka. I feel that the indicators of our psychological, economical, political and technological well being, are telling us that there is a rupture in progress – one that is signifying the collapse of an argument taught to us by the British imperialists.

The powerful amongst us are now the new imperialists, new mandarins with their own
daulat
 (sovereignty), creating a more sophisticated caste system, and keeping this matrix functioning.

I am more keen on exploring the possibilities of Rousseau’s ideas of ‘social contract’ and crafting a new definition of Malaysian multi-culturalism.

And borrowing the words of Lazarus, let us lift our lamps ‘beside our golden door’.

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 9 May 2007, 6:32 am and is filed under
Azly Rahman
,
nation building
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


RM1.9 billion SMART Tunnel safety – DAP MPs wants on-the-spot assurance/demo by Samy Vellu before opening

I have sent an urgent fax to the Works Minister, Datuk Seri S. Samy Vellu for on-the-spot safety assurance and demonstration that the RM1.9 billion SMART Tunnel is safe for use by the public not only on Monday, when it will start operation, but for the next few decades.

This has become even more urgent with more instances of government building and construction defects, with Parliament again leaking in some six places in the foyer outside the media centre this morning after heavy rain — a repeat of the disgraceful incident in April 2005 when Parliament had to be adjourned summarily because rainwater was pouring into the Dewan Rakyat Chamber as a result a ceiling collapse in a RM100 million Parliament renovaton contract.

With the recent unending series of mishaps in public buildings and construction projects, like the landslide in Putrajaya in March which should not have happened, the defects at the Immigration Headquarters and Entrepreneur and Co-operative Development Ministry buildings both in Putrajaya, the unfolding mishaps with every other day at the RM290 million largest court complex in Jalan Duta, and now the return of leaks in Parliament building, Malaysian confidence in the safety of public buildings and construction projects have reached a new low.

In this connection, was a certificate for fitness for occupation  (CF) issued for the largest court complex in the world, and if so when.  If no CF was issued, why was the court complex allowed to be used; and if there was CF, whether actions would be taken against those who had been so negligent as to issue the CF when there are still so many defects, including structural ones, which had to be rectified?

In the case of the RM1.9 billion SMART Tunnel, no margin of mishap could be allowed to happen,as life and limb would be at stake — unlike  falling ceilings,  leaking buildings and burst pipes which have so far  luckily avoided fatalities or human injuries.

For these reasons, DAP MPs would want clear assurances from Samy Vellu that the SMART Tunnel would be absolutely safe when it is open for operation on Monday. Bearing in mind the unbelievable MRR2 flyover breakdown, Samy Vellu should tell Malaysians for how many decades is the SMART Tunnel safe for use by the public.

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 9 May 2007, 3:56 pm and is filed under
Good Governance
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


50th Merdeka Anniversary National Mission – restore Malaysia’s position as No. 2 in Asia in economic development

The  ING Insurance Agency Force Association Malaysia (INGIAFAM) must be commended for its success in hosting the biggest-ever insurance convention in its history on the occasion of its 25th anniversary with some 2,500 participants.

I am very impressed by  the vim, verve, vitality and vigour exuded by the organizers and participants of this Conference and I have no doubt that if these qualities could be extended  to the national stage, Malaysia can hold her proper place in the forefront of nations in this challenging era of globalization.

The theme of the ING Insurance National Convention 2007, “Honour — Gratitude — Appreciation”, cannot be more appropriate as the nation is celebrating half-a-century of nationhood on its 50th Merdeka Anniversary.  The Conference theme, “Honour — Gratitude — Appreciation”, is  not confined just  to your family, relatives, your work colleagues and customers, but also to the nation, for we are all Malaysian patriots who love this land and  want the best for our country.

Applying your conference theme “Honour — Gratitutde — Appreciation” to the nation, it is worth pondering how to make the 50th Merdeka Anniversary most meaningful for Malaysia.

When we achieved Merdeka 50 years ago in 1957, the nation was second in Asia after Japan in terms of economic development. Today, we have lost out to Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan and Hong Kong and risks being overtaken by Thailand, Vietnam and even Indonesia.

The 50th Merdeka Anniversary will be the suitable occasion for the private and public sectors and all Malaysians  to commit themselves to a National Mission — to restore the nation’s position when we achieved Merdeka in 1957 when we were second in Asia after Japan in terms of economic development.  If we cannot beat Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan and Hong Kong, at least we must be in the  same league with these countries as well as  ensure that we can never be overtaken by Thailand, Vietnam and Indonesia.

I am deeply honoured and appreciate tremendously the invitation by INGIAFAM to officiate at the opening ceremony of this Convention, as it gives me an educational opportunity to learn about the problems and prospects facing the life insurance industry.

INGIAFAM and other organizations in the life  insurance industry should have a systematic programme to raise awareness among  Members of Parliament from both the government and the opposition about the problems and prospects of the industry in view of its  growing importance to the national economy as well as its role in ensuring the best  welfare of Malaysians in the long term for  retirement and healthcare, as well as providing protection  for individuals  and their dependents from financial vulnerabilities arising from death, disability or  unemployment and  providing for children’s education.

The government had earlier announced the target in 2005 of 50% of the population having a life insurance policy but the country is still far from the goal as the score is around 38%, which may fall to some 27% if we take into account multiple policies by individual policy holders.  Malaysia is very behind other developed countries in this aspect,  with Singapore at 96%, Hong Kong 107% and Japan 136%.

As the 2008 Budget is being finalized, it should incorporate proposals for the life insurance industry which have been canvassed by life insurance agents and professionals  including:

1.	Allowing the use of EPF to buy insurance as is being practiced in Singapore. Although the recent EPF Amendment Bill passed by Dewan Rakyat provides for the use of EPF monies to buy insurance for critical illnesses, the scope should be expanded for health and education.

2.	Tax relief for EPF and Insurance which at present is listed under the same category and capped at RM6,000 should be separated to allow for RM6,000 relief each  for both EPF and Insurance.  Furthermore, the present tax relief of  RM3,000 for education and health insurance should be increased to RM6,000.  In other words, tax relief of RM6,000 for EPF, RM6,000 for  life insurance, RM6,000 education/health insurance.

3.	Waiver of tax for the 8% par fund profit to provide better benefits to policy-holders.

4.	Government should facilitate the establishment of private pension funds by providing more incentives  and slashing red-tape and bureaucratic obstacles  so that private pension funds can play an increasing role to provide sustainable  long-term retirement benefits to Malaysians.

(Speech  at the  opening of the ING  Insurance National Convention 2007 at Genting International Convention Centre, Genting Highlands on Wednesday, May 9, 2007)

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 10 May 2007, 7:31 am and is filed under
globalisation
,
Insurance
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Another RM22 million scandal to inspect new Putrajaya buildings – Malaysians made suckers!

Malaysians today feel angry and outraged when they read that the Works Minister Datuk Seri S. Samy Vellu is asking for
RM22 million
to inspect new government buildings in Putrajaya for defects, on top of an unending list of government building mishaps.

The spanking new RM290 million court complex in Jalan Duta, Kuala Lumpur has undoubtedly earned instant international notoriety with the daily defects since its opening last week.

Yesterday, the court complex was shut down by a
power failure
. This morning I receive complaints from a lawyer of leaks in the criminal courts.  This is on top of the ceiling collapse, cracks on the wall, faulty toilets  and air-conditioning breakdowns.

Had a certificate for fitness for occupation (CF) been  issued for the largest court complex in the world, and if so when. If no CF was issued, why was the court complex allowed to be used; and if there was CF, whether actions would be taken against those who had been so negligent as to issue the CF when there are still so many defects, including structural ones, which had to be rectified?

But what has shocked and befuddled Malaysians is the RM22 million claim by Samy Vellu to inspect brand new buildings in Putrajaya for defects.  How much would Samy need to inspect buildings outside Putrajaya, for instance the RM290 million court complex or the RM1.9 billion SMART Tunnel, for defects?  What has happened to the trouble-prone MATRADE Building? Will it be again in tens or hundreds of millions of ringgit?

Malaysians feel that they are treated as “suckers” and fools, where even when mistakes are made whether because of negligence, irresponsibility, corruption or abuses of power, it is finally the taxpayers who have to pay the new bill while the culture of impunity holds sway for those responsible for defects in government buildings and public construction projects.

This is clearly unacceptable.  Malaysians want to know who is responsible for the additional RM22 million public expenditure needed to inspect the new government buildings in Putrajaya for defects and why those responsible for the defects should not be made to pay for 100% of the unnecessary outlay

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 10 May 2007, 12:41 pm and is filed under
Court
,
Good Governance
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


MCPs in the House — censure or not? Vote at 2.30 pm

Parliament will vote at 2.30 pm  today to decide whether to  refer two Barisan Nasional (MP) Members of Parliament,  Datuk Mohd Said Yusuf (Jasin) and Datuk Bung Mokhtar Radin (Kinabatangan) to the  Committee of Privileges for making offensive and sexist remarks directed at the DAP MP for Batu Gajah, Fong Po Kuan in Parliament yesterday.

When Parliament began this morning, Po Kuan stood up on a point of order under Standing Order 26(1)(p) to move a privilege motion to  refer the two BN MPs to the Committee of Privileges for breach of parliamentary privilege. No notice is required under S.O. 26(1)(p) when the privilege matter had to raised at the first available opportunity.

Subject of complaint –   Mohd Said and Bung Mohktar had made  vulgar, sexist and offensive remarks at Po Kuan when she and other DAP MPs had raised in Parliament yesterday afternoon the issue  about
the ceiling leaks near the media centre
during heavy downpour in the morning  despite a RM100 million renovation bill.

Utusan Malaysia in its report
“Enam kebocoran siling dikesan di Parlimen”
, recounted:

M. Kulasegaran (DAP-Ipoh Barat) dan Fong Po Kuan (DAP-Batu Gajah) yang turut mencelah kemudian berkata, kebocoran itu membazirkan wang rakyat.

Datuk Bung Mokhtar Radin (BN-Kinabatangan) yang bangun mengambil bahagian secara sinis berkata:”Mana ada bocor, Batu Gajah pun tiap-tiap bulan pun bocor juga.”

This was also reported by Sin Chew Daily and China Press. Sin Chew reported that Mohd Said made the derogatory remark that “MP for Batu Gajah tiap-tiap bulan pun bocor juga” while China Press reported that Mohd Said was the first to make the sexist and offensive  remark which was followed by  Bung Mohtar.

Both Sin Chew and China Press observed that probably because there was so much din and pandemonium in the House at the time that DAP MPs did not hear the vulgar, sexist and offensive remarks made by the two BN MPs at Po Kuan — which was why there had been no protest by DAP MPs in the House at the time.

This was exactly what happened, as no DAP MP had heard these BN duo making the vulgar, sexist and offensive remarks because of the din at the time, caused by BN MPs refusing to allow DAP MPs to draw the attention of the House to the disgraceful spectacle in Parliament returning to the lengthening list of government building and public construction mishaps.

However, when the vulgar, sexist and offensive remarks were reported not by one but by three separate newspapers, there could be no doubt about its occurrence.

In proposing that the two BN MPs be referred to the Committee of Privileges, which was seconded by the DAP MP for Seputeh Teresa Kok, Po Kuan said the two BN MPs had insulted all Malaysian women and their actions must be condemned in no uncertain terms. She urged all MPs, particularly women MPs from Barisan Nasional, to support the censure motion of the two BN MPs.

One woman Barisan Nasional MP conspicuously left the Chamber at this stage.

I also gave my support, stressing that the two BN MPs have brought shame to Parliament, making it a laughing stock in the nation and the world with such vulgar, sexist and offensive remarks. I said Parliament cannot permit to have a MCP (male chauvinist pig) as an MP, but there are now two MCPs in Parliament.

M. Kulasegeran (DAP — Ipoh Barat) also stood up to call for the most serious view and action to be taken.

In view of the seriousness of the matter, the Speaker, Tan Sri Ramli Ngah announced that a vote on the motion will be held at 2.30 pm.

At this, I called on the Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz, who was in the House at the time, to allow for  a free vote by BN MPs, based on the merits of the case and not only party lines. I specifically suggested that the party whip should be withdrawn to allow for all MPs to vote according to their conscience to demonstrate that the BN government is  serious about its commitment about defending and upholding  the dignity of women and that it is not just empty talk.

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 10 May 2007, 11:14 am and is filed under
Gender
,
Parliament
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Most Shameful Mother’s Day in nation’s history

Sunday will be the most shameful Mother’s Day in the nation’s history.

This is because the dignity of women had been dishonoured  in Parliament with Barisan Nasional MPs thumping the table in glee and joy when DAP MP for Batu Gajah
Fong Po Kuan
failed in her effort to redeem the dignity of Malaysian women and salvage the good name of Parliament.

Today is a day of shame for Parliament, when Barisan Nasional MPs  abused their 91% parliamentary majority to gang up,  support and defend  two of their number, Datuk Mohd Said Yusuf (Jasin) and Datuk Bung Mokhtar Radin (Kinabatangan), who had made vulgar, sexist and offensive remarks against Po Kuan yesterday when DAP MPs raised the subject of Parliament ceiling leaks after a RM100 million renovation works — saying “Batu Gajah pun bocor tiap-tiap bulan pun bocor juga”.

The Speaker, Tan Sri Ramli Ngah Talib returned to the Dewan Rakyat Chamber after lunch recess at 2.30 p.m. to reject
Po Kuan’s application
to move a privilege motion to refer Mohd Said and Bung Mokhtar to the Committee of Privileges on the ground that Po Kuan had not invoked Standing Order 26(1)(p) with regard to the alleged breach “when it occurred” as required — i.e. yesterday itself.

I asked Ramli whether before making his decision to reject Po Kuan’s application on a technicality, he had referred to Erskine May’s Parliamentary Practice, the authoritative work on parliamentary practices and procedures, where it is stated very clearly that “when it occurred” in  S.O. 26(1)(p) had been interpreted in most Commonwealth Parliaments  to mean “at the first available opportunity”.

In the case in point, when Mohd Said and Bung Mokhtar made the vulgar, sexist and offensive remarks, DAP MPs could not hear them both because of the din and pandemonium at the time and being seated far away from the duo.  However, they were heard distinctly by reporters and other BN MPs who sat near the duo.

For Po Kuan, raising the privilege motion this morning was her “first available opportunity” after reading press reports.

My objection and those from other DAP MPs were of  no avail, and it was most sickening to see  BN MPs cheering as if they had won some great victory — when what they had done was the despicable and disgraceful  act of giving solidarity to Mohd Said and Bung Mokhtar for their vulgar, sexist and offensive remarks against women.

It is most deplorable that BN MPs, including women MPs, who had heard the duo making vulgar, sexist and offensive remarks yesterday,  had not stood up to defend women’s dignity and Parliament’s honour.

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 10 May 2007, 4:58 pm and is filed under
Gender
,
Parliament
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Summit on religious harmony is thrown into discord by Malaysia

From The Times, London

May 10, 2007

Summit on religious harmony is thrown into discord by Malaysia

Ruth Gledhill, Religion Correspondent

The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, has suffered a serious setback in his attempts to foster Muslim-Christian dialogue after the Malaysian Government banned an interfaith conference he was due to be chairing this week.

Christian and Muslim scholars from around the world had bought air tickets, written papers and begun to pack their bags for the Building Bridges conference, the sixth in a series intended to foster dialogue between the two religions. It was cancelled with just two weeks notice.

The three-day conference was set up in the wake of September 11 and meant to be an annual get-together of Christian and Muslim academics in an attempt to find theological understandings that might help prevent future terrorist attacks.

At the first conference, at Lambeth Palace in London six years ago, Lord Carey, the former Archbishop of Canterbury, fêted Tony Blair. In return, the Prime Minister invited the Muslim and Christian scholars to a high-profile reception at Downing Street.

Since then the scholars have met in New York, Qatar and Sarajevo. This year’s seminar in Malaysia was to signal a breakthrough in Muslim-Christian relations in a region where they are particularly delicate.

However, it is understood that some influential Muslims believe that Christianity is “not a heavenly religion” and therefore they frown on interreligious dialogue.

Although the Malaysian Government allowed Dr Williams into the country to preach at the consecration of a new Anglican bishop, it said that it would not permit the interfaith dialogue to take place.

Instead Dr Williams is taking part in a hastily convened visit to Sri Lanka. Preaching a sermon there yesterday, he outlined the “terrible consequences” of fear caused by division. He said: “We must keep our bridges in good repair, the bridges for listening and sympathy, hearing the truth from one another, learning what the other’s experience is like.”

Earlier this week it emerged that there are plans for Mr Blair to head a global interfaith initiative when he leaves office.

Canon Guy Wilkinson, the Archbishop’s secretary for interfaith relations, who has spent nine months organising the Malaysia conference, said that he hoped that it would still take place, albeit in another country.

“All the papers will be used in other ways,” he said. “The situation [in Malaysia] is delicate. A whole series of interreligious cases are in front of the constitutional court and awaiting judgment. The view was that it would be better not to have an international gathering of Muslims and Christians at the moment in that context.”

The cases include that of Lina Joy, whose birth name is Azlina Jailani, who has filed an appeal to have the word “Islam” removed from her identity card. She wants a declaration that Article 11 of the Federal Constitution gives her the right to convert to another religion. She is understood to have become a Christian.

Islam is the official state religion in Malaysia and Muslims are subject to sharia. Alongside this is a system of civil law that protects Christians and people of other faiths, and the constitution technically allows some freedom of religion. But there are internal tensions over conversions to other religions and over whether Malaysia is an Islamic state or a secular one. NonMuslims represent about 40 per cent of the 26-million strong population.

Angry protesters shut down one human rights event in May last year organised by Article 11, a coalition of 13 religious and human rights groups named after the constitutional article that guarantees the right of every Malaysian citizen to “profess and practise his religion”.

Professor Mona Siddiqui, director of the Centre for the Study of Islam at Glasgow University, who had been due to attend, said the conference was formally cancelled with just two weeks notice.

“Many of us were rather distressed about it,” she said. “These conferences are important on many levels. Malaysia would have been a litmus test to see how the mix of different religions and different ethnicities worked. I do not know exactly what happened, except there was contention at the highest level in Malaysia.”

She said that past conferences had been “invaluable” in enabling Christian and Muslim scholars to explore their different understandings of texts in the Bible and the Koran.

Canon David Marshall, former chaplain to Dr Williams, said it was hoped that the conference would still take place, possibly at Canterbury. “It has a very specific contribution to make and it is important that it continues,” he said.

The British participants

Michael Ipgrave
 Archdeacon of Southwark and an interfaith adviser to the Archbishop of Canterbury. Edited a collection of papers from at least one previous Building Bridges seminar.

Hugh Goddard
Professor of Christian-Muslim Relations at Nottingham University. Fluent in Arabic, he wrote his thesis on modern Egyptian Muslim perceptions of Christianity.

David Mar
shall Former chaplain to Dr Rowan Williams and his predecessor, he is an expert on Christian-Muslim dialogue. He organised the first four Building Bridges seminars and was due to attend this one as a consultant.

Michael Northcott
Reader in theology and Christian ethics at the University of Edinburgh’s divinity school, he taught practical theology at the Seminari Theologi Malaysia in Kuala Lumpur before going to Scotland in 1989. He is also Associate Rector at St James, Leith, and Canon Theologian of Liverpool Cathedral.

Mona Siddiqui
, left Professor of Islamic studies and public understanding and director of the Centre for the Study of Islam at Glasgow University. She attended the previous seminars and writes regularly for the specialist and national press, including The Times and is an expert on classical Islam

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 10 May 2007, 6:04 pm and is filed under
Religion
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Withdrawal of Maybank 50% bumi rule – first Ijok effect but tactical retreat or strategic decision?

I am not surprised by the Cabinet decision yesterday directing Maybank to withdraw its discriminatory ruling that law firms must have a bumiputra partner with at least 50% stake before they could qualify to be on its legal panel as this is the outcome of the first  “Ijok effect”.

Although the Barisan Nasional  (BN) had won the recent Ijok by-election in Selangor with BN trumpeting it as a great victory, BN leaders know that it is a pyrrhic victory  won at too great a cost in money, manpower and machinery and which is not sustainable in a general election.

This is why the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi had asked MCA and Gerakan to explain the reason for the swing of Chinese voters to the Opposition in Ijok, although he and other top Umno leaders have equal reason to worry about Umno  failure to make a significant dent in the Malay ground despite humongous expenditures of money, manpower and machinery which made  a total mockery of laws to prevent money politics in elections and Abdullah’s pledge to uphold integrity and fight corruption.

However, many questions await answer, including:

1. If the Maybank rule is clearly a “misinterpretation” by certain quarters of the government policy that government-linked companies (GLCs), such as Maybank, should give work to both bumiputeras and non-bumiputeras — which is the explanation of the Deputy Prime Minister Najib Razak in Boston –  who are the errant Maybank officers responsible for such “misinterpretation” 37 years after the New Economic Policy (NEP), and what disciplinary action Maybank would take against them for causing such grave damage to national unity and international confidence on the occasion of the 50th Merdeka anniversary of the country?

2. Why did the MCA Deputy Finance Minister, Datuk Dr. Ng Yen Yen state on Tuesday that neither the Finance Ministry nor the Bank Negara can intervene over Maybank’s “misinterpretation” of government policy — proof of the failure of the MCA Deputy Finance Minister to stand up against NEP injustices and discriminatory measures.

3. Would MCA Ministers have raised the issue and the Cabinet intervened if not for (i) the Ijok by-election result; and (ii) DAP’s staunch opposition to the Maybank ruling and all forms of NEP injustices and discriminatory measures;

4. Will MCA Ministers as well as the MCA Deputy Finance Minister make amends by:

(i)	exposing all other discriminatory measures by Maybank, other banks and all GLCs which violate government policy akin to the 50% bumiputra ruling for legal firms to qualify to be appointed to the Maybank panel which has been struck down by the Cabinet;

(ii)	asking  the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister   to honour their undertaking given six months ago to make public the Economic Planning Unit (EPU)’s methodology and data on ethnic breakdowns of NEP equity ownership; and

(iii)	urging the Cabinet  to dismantle the NEP structures and institutions as they were meant to last for 20 years from 1970-1990.

5. Is the Cabinet decision on the Maybank 50% bumi ruling a tactical retreat, awaiting for a new mandate in the next general election to make further unjust NEP extensions, or a policy and strategic  decision to halt all unjust NEP extensions?

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 10 May 2007, 9:38 am and is filed under
Ipoh Timor
,
NEP
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Grim and bleak Mother’s Day

Mother’s Day  on Sunday in Malaysia this year has become very grim and bleak because of
gender-insensitivities of Barisan Nasional (BN) MPs
as well as increasing incidence in the country of family break-ups because of religion.

I will not go into the disgraceful episode in the last two days of two BN MPs dishonouring women and Parliament with their crude, sexist and gender-offensive remarks.

There is also the other heart-rending development of increasing incidence of families being broken up because of religion, whether Subashini, Marimuthu, Revathi, Benedict Gopal or Magendran  – all very cases.

Take the case of rubber-tapper Marimuthu who was happily married to Raimah Bibi a/p Noordin  for  21 years with seven children but  who was forcibly separated from them on the ground that his wife was a Muslim. Although Marimuthu has got back all his children, the family is broken up as the children do not have a mother with them  in the house and Raimah Bibi is separated from the husband and children — although there can be no doubt that they would want to be reunited as one family again but religion is standing in the way.

All religions inculcate good values of family love, compassion  and unity and no religion would work to disrupt happy families.

This trend is most unhealthy and disruptive of  family unity and development, national integration and inter-religious understanding and harmony and warrants the most urgent attention for a solution to be found to stop more and more  break-up of families because of religion.

In this connection, I notice a conspicuous omission in the interim report of the Parliamentary Select Committee on Unity and  National Service — as there is no reference whatsoever to  the controversy over Article 121(1A) of the Malaysian Constitution.

The 1988 amendment of Article 121(1A) of the Federal Constitution was to provide to Muslims the constitutional protection for their rights to be adjudicated in syariah courts without detracting any rights from non-Muslims.

I have no doubt that if during the parliamentary debate in March 1988 on the Constitution Amendment Bill 1988 which enacted Article 121(1A), an MP had the foresight to ask whether the intention was to create injustices and family griefs like the Subashini, Moorthy, Rayappan, Marimuthu, Revathi, Benedict Gopal  and Magendran  cases, or to erode and  undermine the constitutional rights of non-Muslim Malaysians to seek legal redress in civil court rather than  in syariah court, the answer would have been a clear “No” in both instances.

By enacting Article 121(1A), Parliament never intended to take away even one iota of the constitutional rights of non-Muslims to be fully adjudicated under civil law and not under syariah law.

Why then has the implementation of Article 121(1A) been allowed to create grave strain and stress to Malaysia’s plural society of diverse races and religions?

If there is uncertainty in the interpretation and implementation of Article 121(1A) as to create a situation never intended by Parliament, it is the duty of Parliament  to rectify it.   While Article 121(1A) remains  in the Constitution, there should be  a new Article 121(1B) to make it clear that Article 121(1A) does not derogate from non-Muslim Malaysians any rights which they had enjoyed without challenge before the 1988 Constitution amendment.

When the Parliamentary Select Committee prepares its final report, it should take a clear stand to support  Article 121(1B) amendment of the Constitution  to clearly restore to non-Muslim Malaysians the Merdeka “social contract” and their constitutional right not to be adversely affected by Syariah law and courts.

(Speech 2 in the debate on the Interim Report of the Parliamentary Select Committee on Unity and National Service in the Dewan Rakyat on Thursday, 10th May 2007 at 9.15 pm)

                This entry was posted on Friday, 11 May 2007, 12:27 pm and is filed under
Gender
,
Religion
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Is there not a single woman BN MP who will stand up for Po Kuan and women dignity and condemn the sexist BN MP duo?

Click PLAY to watch for Video of sexist BN MPs in action

FLASH
–
video of sexist BN MPs in action (1)
youTube
 –
google

Click PLAY to watch for Video of sexist BN MPs let off the hook (2)

video of sexist BN MPs let off the hook (2)
youTube
(Part 1)
&
(Part 2)
  –
google

The  Speaker, Tan Sri Ramli Talib did not instantly reject the privilege motion under Standing Order 26(1)(p) when it was tabled by DAP MP for Batu Gajah Fong Po Kuan who had stood up  in the Dewan Rakyat when it started its meeting yesterday  at 10 am to refer the two sexist  Barisan Nasional (BN) MPs for making crude, derogatory, sexist and offensive remarks directed at  Po Kuan in particular and women in general.

Instead, Ramli asked for time for him to announce his decision at 2.30 pm.

This could only mean that Ramli was convinced of the strength and merit  of Po Kuan’s complaint — which was indeed very serious with sexist MPs abusing their parliamentary privilege to denigrate a woman MP, which is also a slur to all Malaysian women — that he did not immediately dismiss Po Kuan’s application.

It is both wrong and unfortunate that in the end, Ramli decided to “knock out” Po Kuan’s privilege motion on a ground of technicality, ignoring the substantive complaint and leaving  unresolved two issues:

	The public dishonouring and humiliation of Po Kuan because she is a woman MP by two sexist BN MPs;

	The misuse and abuse of their parliamentary privilege to besmirch and dishonour Parliament in demeaning and degrading  the highest political and legislative chamber in the land to make crude, vulgar, sexist and offensive remarks.

	The insult not only to Po Kuan but to all Malaysian women, making this year’s Mother’s Day the most meaningless one,  when Parliament could be exploited  to make vulgar, derogatory  and sexist remarks.

I am particularly disappointed that no woman BN MP had stood up in solidarity with Po Kuan and all Malaysian women who were insulted by the two sexist BN MPs.

Is there not a single woman  BN  MPs who will stand up to speak up for women dignity and condemn the two sexist BN MPs for their derogatory, crude, sexist and offensive remarks about Fong Po Kuan?

I have received information that international women groups are horrified by the disgraceful episode in Parliament yesterday and they will be making public their condemnation of the sexist misconduct of the two BN MPs.

With 91% parliamentary majority of BN, there is no access to justice and fair play in Parliament. It is now left to ordinary Malaysians all over the country to redeem the honour of Parliament and dignity of women in Malaysia by speaking up to demonstrate support and solidarity with Po Kuan and condemnation of  the two sexist BN MPs for their derogatory and sexists remarks which insult all Malaysian women.

Po Kuan announced in Parliament yesterday that she will be heading a DAP protest campaign  to make Malaysians aware of the injustices faced by women not only in the country but even in Parliament, and to mobilize national support both women and men to demand that the two sexist BN MPs should not be allowed to get away with their despicable conduct with impunity.

The protest campaign will start in Po Kuan’s constituency in Batu Gajah on Sunday night.  However, even before the start of the formal campaign on Sunday, DAP in Ipoh Timur will extend full pre-campaign support and solidarity to Po Kuan  at the ceramah at the DAP Pasir Pinji Branch, Ipoh  tomorrow (Saturday) night.

                This entry was posted on Friday, 11 May 2007, 2:23 pm and is filed under
Parliament
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Ketuanan Melayu – are students taught that this is mere history which contradicts Bangsa Malaysia and Vision 2020?

History students must be taught that “Ketuanan Melayu”is a concept pertaining  to a past historical era  but not pertinent to Malaysia of  today as it contradicts the Bangsa Malaysia concept of Vision 2020

Parliament has set up the Select Committee on unity and national service to grapple with difficult and hard issues pertaining to  national unity and nation-building.

The task and challenge of the Select Committee is to wrestle with these  great issues and give its considered  recommendations “and not just transmit the government’s stand or views.

I find that on many issues raised by those who attended the public hearings of the Select Committee, the Select Committee took the easy way out by  responding either with “take note” (ambil maklum) or “acknowledges comment” (memperakui ulasan) based on  the relevant Ministries’ official replies.

This is utterly useless as this is not the role for which the Select Committee had been set up by Parliament and it should not shirk from its duty to take a stand on the issues pertaining to national unity and integration which had been brought to its attention.

Let me give  one illustration.

I refer to the submission by the DAP Secretary-General Lim Guan Eng to the Select Committee on 29th April 2005 on education .  The topic, as noted in page 88 of the report, is to “eliminate racist concepts” in Form 3 and Form 5 history textbooks which dwelt on the concept of “Ketuanan Melayu”.

The explanation from the Education Ministry is as follows:

Istilah  “Ketuanan Melayu”   perlu  dilihat dalam konteks perjuangan orang Melayu sebelum merdeka yang menganggap Semenenjung Tanah Melayu  sebagai tanah pusaka (sons of the soil) seperti yang diakui oleh pihak penjajah British ketika itu. Istilah ini juga merujuk kepada situasi sebelum merdeka yang menjelaskan reaksi orang Melayu terhadap penubuhan Malayan Union yang telah menghapuskan “Ketuanan Melayu” dari segi kedaulatan, kuasa politik dan isu kewarganegaraan yang longgar.  “Ketuanan Melayu” dilaungkan oleh pemimpin Melayu pada ketika itu bagi menyatupadukan orang Melayu menentang Malayan Union dan bukannya menuntut kemerdekaan.  Oleh itu, konsep ini ialah peristiwa dan reality sejarah pada ketika itu dan ia dimasukkan bukan bertujuan untuk menggugat perpaduan masyarakat Malaysia.

What is the Select Committee’s position? An insipid position of “”Jawatankuasa memperakui ulasan Kementerian”.  This is totally unsatisfactory.

The question is whether history students in schools are clearly told that the concept of “Ketuanan Melayu” is a concept pertaining  to a past historical era  but not pertinent to Malaysia of  today as  it contradicts with  the Bangsa Malaysia concept of Vision 2020, and if not, what is being done to give the new generation of Malaysia a correct picture and true perspective on nation-building.

This is what I look forward to in the final report of the Select Committee.

(Speech 3 by  in the debate on the interim report of the Parliamentary Select Committee on unity and national service in Dewan Rakyat on Thursday, 10th May 2007 at 9.15 pm)

                This entry was posted on Friday, 11 May 2007, 4:49 pm and is filed under
nation building
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Last-minute ban on international Muslim-Christian diagloue – big blow to Malaysia’s reputation as model multi-religious nation

When tabling the motion for the House to accept the interim report of the Parliamentary Select Committee on Unity and National Service, the Select Committee Chairman and Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, Datuk Dr. Maximus Ongkili said the government encouraged inter-religious dialogue to promote inter-religious understanding and national integration.

The latest development in this field questions the seriousness of the government’s commitment to inter-religious dialogue.

I have here the
London  Times
report today headlined
“Summit on religious harmony is thrown into discord by Malaysia”
 which reads:

The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, has suffered a serious setback in his attempts to foster Muslim-Christian dialogue after the Malaysian Government banned an interfaith conference he was due to be chairing this week.

Christian and Muslim scholars from around the world had bought air tickets, written papers and begun to pack their bags for the Building Bridges conference, the sixth in a series intended to foster dialogue between the two religions. It was cancelled with just two weeks notice.

The three-day conference was set up in the wake of September 11 and meant to be an annual get-together of Christian and Muslim academics in an attempt to find theological understandings that might help prevent future terrorist attacks.

At the first conference, at Lambeth Palace in London six years ago, Lord Carey, the former Archbishop of Canterbury, fêted Tony Blair. In return, the Prime Minister invited the Muslim and Christian scholars to a high-profile reception at Downing Street.

Since then the scholars have met in New York, Qatar and Sarajevo. This year’s seminar in Malaysia was to signal a breakthrough in Muslim-Christian relations in a region where they are particularly delicate.

However, it is understood that some influential Muslims believe that Christianity is ‘not a heavenly religion’ and therefore they frown on interreligious dialogue.

There have been critical comments on my blog in the past few hours since the posting of the London Times report, for instance:

1.
Malaysia has lost her authority to speak for other religions. Do i still hear other countries saying that they are eager to learn from Malaysia religious tolerance?

2.
 What better way to pronounce to the world that we are indeed not a nation that practices religious freedom than to ban such a peaceful gathering?

The last-minute cancellation of  the international Muslim-Christian dialogue in Malaysia is a big blow to our international image and reputation as a successful and model  multi-religious nation.

The Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi goes to international forums to preach the virtues of inter-religious dialogue but at home,  the government is not prepared to allow an international inter-religious conference to be held.

In the country, we also do not encourage the holding of inter-religious dialogue involving Muslim and non-Muslim religions, limiting inter-religious dialogue more and more only among the non-Muslim faiths themselves.

This will not contribute to inter-religious understanding and national integration.

Malaysia is a multi-religious nation but religion had never been a flashpoint of division, disunity and discord in our society until the recent years.

The interim report of the Parliamentary Select Committee has not squared up to this inter-religious  problem and challenge, in particular the holding of  inter-religious dialogues,  and I hope that when its final report is presented to Parliament, the Select Committee will address this problem courageously and come out with bold recommendations on this important facet of national unity.

(Speech in the debate on the Interim Report of the  Parliamentary Select Committee on Unity and National Service in the Dewan Rakyat on Thursday, 10th May 2007 at 9.15  pm)

                This entry was posted on Friday, 11 May 2007, 10:48 am and is filed under
nation building
,
Religion
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Let off despite ‘sexist’ remarks  – media reports

(1)
 Motion over ‘menstruation’ remarks rejected

Ooi Kelly and Bede Hong

May 10, 07 6:47pm

Malaysiakini

The Dewan Rakyat today rejected a motion by Opposition MP Fong Po Kuan who wanted two BN members of Parliament censured for making comments about her menstruation.

Amidst pandemonium that broke out during the afternoon’s debate over the leaks in Parliament yesterday, Bung Mokhtar Radin (BN — Kinabatangan) had stood and made off-mike comments over the Batu Gajah parliamentarian’s menstrual cycle.

His comments were carried today by Utusan Malaysia, China Press and Sin Chew Daily.

Mohd Said Yusof (BN — Jasin) was also named for censure making similar remarks.

This morning, Fong called for a motion under the Standing Order 26 (1P) to refer the two BN MPs to the Committee of Privileges.

However Speaker Ramli Ngah Talib shot down the motion, with reason that the issue was not raised at the time of incident.

Technical knock out

DAP MPs protested that they had not heard the comments made by the two BN MPs due to the commotion in the House.

“During the incident at 12:37 pm yesterday, the offending remarks were uttered. The YBs have a chance to voice their displeasure (then). However, this issue was put forth only this morning,” said Ramli.

“As the matter must be raised at the time of the incident, and the issue occurred yesterday, I must reject the motion for the Standing Order,” he added.

Opposition leader Lim Kit Siang protested: “…  the remarks were not heard yesterday. There was chaos and pandemonium. The earliest that we knew of the remarks was this morning when the comments were published [by several national dailies].”

“Do we allow this sexist, offensive remarks to pass. They are celebrating, that the motion is rejected,” said Lim, pointing at BN MPs who were thumping at their desks.

De-facto law minister Nazri Aziz, who read out the bills of the day, left the Dewan Rakyat at this juncture.

Insulting to all women

In a press conference later, Fong expressed her regret over the decision: “I feel sad that no woman MP in the Dewan just now voiced their objection to the comments that were insulting to all women.

DAP MP Teresa Kok said the matter was not new: “Each time a gender sensitive issue comes out …  each time derogatory remarks were made against women, there is no action taken by the speaker.”

Lim said, “The Kinabatangan MP (Mokhtar) behaved as though he has no mother, or daughters or sisters. And the BN can thump unashamedly at the rejection of the motion on technical ground.”

Lim called on the prime minister to “discipline the two BN MPs.”

Both MPs did not deny making the comments.

When reproached by M Kulasegaran (DAP — Ipoh Barat) at this morning’s debate session, Mohd Said replied, “She shouldn’t have shouted like that when I wanted to discuss important things.”

To censure a fellow MP, backbenchers and the opposition have the option of raising a substantive motion. The motion, however, requires a week’s notice and is not required for open debate.

(2)

Sexist MPs at work again

Pauline Puah

The Sun

KUALA LUMPUR (May 10, 2007): It was clearly a sexist remark made by an MP. But Dewan Rakyat Speaker Tan Sri Ramli Ngah Talib today needed an unprecedented four and a half hours to make a decision whether to refer the MP to the Parliamentary Rights and Privileges Committee for disciplinary action.

Ramli returned from lunch and said “No”.

On Wednesday morning, the debate turned into a ruckus when the Parliament House roof sprang leaks in several parts during a downpour.

In the heat of the debate and shouts over the “leaky” Parliament House, which had undergone an RM80 million renovation about two years ago, one phrase went unnoticed.

Fong Po Kuan (DAP-Batu Gajah) then reviewed the video recording of the proceedings and felt humiliated. She then filed a motion this morning to refer the two BN MPs (one for making the sexist remarks and the other for supporting the remarks) – Datuk Bung Mokhtar Radin (BN-Kinabatangan) and Datuk Mohd Said Yusof (BN-Jasin) – to the committee.

The recording exposed Bung as saying: “Mana bocor, Batu Gajah pun tiap-tiap bulan pun bocor juga.” (“Where is the leak? Batu Gajah MP also leaks every month.”)

“I was humiliated. This should not happen in this august hall,” she told Ramli.

Opposition Leader Lim Kit Siang (DAP-Ipoh Timur) said: “Parliament will be a laughing stock of the world by allowing such male chauvinistic speeches. Yesterday, there was pandemonium in the House, otherwise we will be objecting it immediately … Saying sorry is not enough, they should be punished.”

M.Kulasegaran (DAP-Ipoh Barat) said as a man, he felt ashamed for such remarks made in the country’s highest legislation institution.

Mohd Said stood and retorted: “When I wanted to debate on the serious issue, there was this scuffle and shouting.”

Irked by his remark, Fong said: “I regret that he did not repent for what he had said. I urge the BN women MPs to support my motion as well.”

The motion, however, was rejected by Ramli after the sitting reconvened after lunch break.

Citing Standing Order 26 (1P), he said he could not allow the motion as it was not brought up when the incident occurred.

“It happened yesterday afternoon but the motion was only raised this morning. So I have to reject the motion,” he said, to cheers from some BN MPs.

Ramli’s decision immediately drew flak from DAP MPs.

“Your rejection allows them (BN MPs) to celebrate … We did not create the story. We checked the video and it happened,” Lim screamed.

Trying to restore peace, Ramli said: “I also regret what had happened. But I can’t enlarge the power given under 26 (1p).”

Chong Chieng Jen (BN-Bandar Kuching) rebutted that Karpal Singh (DAP-Bukit Gelugur) had been referred to the committee although the matter was only brought up a few days after the incident.

“YB Bukit Gelugur was not referred to the committee under the 26 (1p), so it’s a different matter,” said Ramli, to another round of table-thumping and laughter from BN MPs.

“Shameful! Shameful! They are celebrating there!” shouted Lim.

Seeing the appeal heading nowhere, DAP MPs then urged the Speaker to ask the duo to at least apologise.

Ramli then ordered all MPs to sit down and continue with the debate on Capital Markets and Services Bill 2007.

In a press conference called after the motion was rejected, Fong said she was disappointed that no BN women MPs had lent their support.

“I am sad and disappointed that no BN women MPs voiced their objection … it’s a phrase that humiliates women,” she added.

(3)
 Let off despite ‘sexist’ remarks

Friday May 11, 2007

The Star

TWO Government backbenchers were let off the hook despite making sexist remarks following Fong Po Kuan’s (DAP — Batu Gajah) observations of leaks in the Parliament building.

And an angry Fong proposed to refer Datuk Mohd Said Yusof (BN — Jasin) and Datuk Bung Mokhtar Radin (BN — Kinabatangan) to the Rights and Privileges Committee, saying that their remarks insulted and were derogatory to women.

On Wednesday, Bung Mokhtar was reported saying: “Mana ada bocor, Batu Gajah pun tiap-tiap bulan bocor juga (Where is the leak? Batu Gajah leaks every month too).”

Speaker Tan Sri Ramli Ngah Talib rejected Fong’s motion on grounds that she should have filed it when the remarks were made based on Standing Order 26(1)(p).

“The motion was only proposed a day later and, therefore, I have to reject it.

“My advice is that MPs should be careful with their words next time,” he said amidst cheers and the thumping of tables by the backbenchers.

At the Parliament lobby later, Fong said she was disappointed that the motion was rejected as the remarks referred to all women.

Opposition leader Lim Kit Siang said it was a day of shame for Parliament that such a disgraceful episode had been allowed to take place.

The general consensus among MPs was that it was all right to say “women leak every month.”

Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Datuk Seri Nazri Abdul Aziz said Fong should have taken the matter in her stride.

“It is normal to play with words,” he said, adding that it would be wrong if the statement had been made with malicious intent.

Mohd Said said the statement was made in the heat of the argument.

“I don’t see what the fuss is about,” he said.

Fadillah Yusof (BN — Petra Jaya) said the backbenchers were provoked at that time.

“However, everyone should be careful when making statements,” he said.

Meanwhile, Public Works Department staff showed up early yesterday to survey the damage to the leaky ceiling near the media centre.

(4)
DAP fails in move to refer MPs over sexist remarks

V.Vasudevan

NST Online

2007/05/11

KUALA LUMPUR: An opposition attempt to refer two backbenchers to the Privileges Committee for disciplinary action failed on a technicality yesterday.

Datuk Bung Moktar Radin (BN-Kinabatangan) and Da- tuk Mohd Said Yusuf (BN-Jasin) were accused of using unparliamentary language against Fong Poh Kuan (DAP-Batu Gajah) during an exchange on Wednesday.

At the start of the afternoon sitting, the DAP members had criticised the leaks at the entrance of the media centre.

Opposition leader Lim Kit Siang was leading the charge and had been complaining about the way the government was maintaining public facilities.

It was then that Bung Moktar and Mohd Said were reported to have each made a statement in quick succession that in effect said: “Where is the leak, the member for Batu Gajah also leaks once a month.”

In the commotion during the height of the debate, it appeared that none of the opposition members heard the remarks.

But after reading reports of the remarks in the Utusan Malaysia and two Chinese dailies, the DAP demanded that both men be referred to the Privileges Committee.

Speaker Tan Sri Ramli Ngah Talib said he needed time to mull over the matter and promised a decision in the afternoon.

In the afternoon, Ramli said both backbenchers should have been refered to the Privileges Committee immediately after the words were uttered.

“This is long after the incident. The Standing Orders are clear on that. It is not that I don’t want to take action but the Standing Orders are clear,” he told DAP members to loud table-thumping from backbenchers.

Lim said he would have raised the matter except that “in the noise and pandemonium, we did not hear what they had said”.

However, Ramli stood his ground and refused to change his position on the matter.

“I regret this incident happened. I hope members will be careful with the words they use,” he said while declaring the matter closed.

In the lobby, Fong said she felt sad about the way the issue had been handled.

Lim said it was not a DAP issue and backbenchers should not have viewed it along party lines.

“This is a question of dignity for women. Sunday is Mother’s Day. Is this the way we treat our women?” asked Lim while urging BN chief and Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi to take action against the two men.

Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz said he did not find the choice of words used by both to be offensive.

“Unless of course it was their intention to offend her. I don’t know what their thoughts were. If they want to apologise, it is up to them.”

Nazri said what was unparliamentary or not was up to the person who heard it.

On the chair’s decision, Nazri said it was the right decision and the opposition had used the same standing order against him in the past.

                This entry was posted on Friday, 11 May 2007, 9:36 am and is filed under
Gender
,
Parliament
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


“Bring On United”! “Bring On Building Bridges Conference”!

The
New Straits Times
front-page today screamed the message of the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi –
“BRING ON UNITED!”

Its Page 2 lead story
“I want Red Devils here”

reported:

KUALA LUMPUR: The prime minister wants Manchester United to play in Malaysia in July despite opposition from football officials.

“This is Visit Malaysia Year and we want Manchester United to come here. This will attract the team’s fans from all over the region, such as Singapore and Thailand, to come over to watch the match.

“We know how great the club is and they will be a big attraction to football fans here,” Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi said after the 61st Umno Day celebration at the Putra World Trade Centre yesterday.

This is great news. But Abdullah should also have said:
“Bring On the Building Bridges Conference”
 and overrule the
last-minute cancellation
of the international Muslim-Christian conference this week. This would be even greater news.

The last-minute cancellation of the international interfaith conference is very bad advertisement for Malaysia and Islam Hadhari promoted by Abdullah — as its sends out the message that Malaysia has become increasingly intolerant of inter-religious dialogues to promote inter-religious understanding, goodwill and harmony.

Has Malaysia, on the occasion of the 50th Merdeka anniversary, turned its back to the past of over four decades where Malaysia held itself out to the world as a successful model of  inter-religious understanding, goodwill and harmony?

The last-minute cancellation of the international Muslim-Christian dialogue in Malaysia is an open slap in the face of the
Parliamentary Select Committee on Unity and National Service
, which submitted its interim report to Parliament on Tuesday.

The  interim report of  the Select Committee chaired by the Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, Datuk Dr. Maximus Ongkili called on the Prime Minister’s Department to organize
inter-faith dialogues
 among religious leaders to promote harmony among the races.

The select committee report said: “We feel religious representatives should always be given the opportunity and space to hold dialogues among themselves in a harmonious environment.”

The last-minute cancellation of the international Muslim-Christian dialogue has made a total mockery of the work and report of the Select Committee on Unity and National Service.

The Building Bridges conference, chaired by the Archbishop of Canterbury Dr Rowan Williams, had previously  been held in London, New York, Qatar and Sarajevo.   What  is the objection to the holding of its latest international inter-faith dialogue in Kuala Lumpur when it could be held in Qatar and Sarajevo?

Let Abdullah declare
“Bring On the Building Bridges Conference”
apart from his call
“Bring On United”
!

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 12 May 2007, 1:44 pm and is filed under
Religion
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Shahrir cannot distinguish between right and wrong – as to criticise Po Kuan and back the two sexist BN MPs

Public Accounts Committee Chairman and Barisan Nasional (BN)  MP for Johor Baru, Datuk Shahrir Samad is losing his critical faculty of distinguishing between right and wrong when he has the heart to criticize the DAP MP for Batu Gajah, Fong Po Kuan, the victim again  of parliamentary “male chauvinist” attacks,  but does not have the nerve to castigate the two sexist BN MPs, Datuk Mohd Said Yusof (Jasin) and Datuk Bung Moktar Radin (Kinabatangan), for their abominable conduct.

I do not know what Shahrir meant when he  said yesterday that the opposition
“went overboard”
  when it tried to refer the two errant MPs to the Parliamentary Privileges Committee for their breach of privilege bringing  shame and dishonour to Parliament and Malaysian women, just a few days before Mother’s Day.

Shahrir said the matter could have been settled within the confines of the Dewan Rakyat if Po Kuan had declared her hurt and asked for an apology.

For Shahrir’s information, Po Kuan was acting completely “within the confines of the Dewan Rakyat” when she  invoked  Standing Order 26(1)(p) to table  a privilege motion to refer the two sexist BN MPs to the committee of privileges.

Also for Shahrir’s information, Po Kuan did declare her hurt and she and other DAP MPs had asked for apology from both Mohd Said and Bung Moktar, but both were defiant and recalcitrant, not only refusing to acknowledge their transgressions, but sought to defend and justify their “male chauvinist” behaviour and thereby compounding their offensive conduct towards Po Kuan and Malaysian women.

What is even more deplorable, all the BN MPs in the Chambers thumped their table in glee and celebration when Po Kuan’s motion was rejected by the Speaker — demonstrating that they were in full support and solidarity with the actions of the two sexist BN MPs!

Unlike Shahrir, several women leaders  like All-Women’s Action Society president Judith Koh-Loh, Women’s Aid Organisation executive director Ivy Josiah, Sisters-in-Islam programme manager Zaitun Kasim and Bar Council chairman Ambiga Sreenivasan spoke sense, truth and justice when they
slammed
Mohd Said and Bung Moktar for their “male chauvinist” behaviour in the Star report today.

But it is not only the two sexist BN MPs who need re-education about gender sensitivity, Shahrir and the Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, Datuk Nazri Aziz, must also undergo a period of “rehabilitation” which a commentator on my blog had proposed would be proper treatment for the two errant BN MPs.

I am shocked that Nazri had tried to minimize and even trivialize the issue by explaining it away as  a
“play with words”
 and
“part and parcel of parliamentary debate”
.

Let Nazri be reminded that “play with words” and “part and parcel of parliamentary debate” are no  good defence whatsoever for defamation or gratuitous insult of an individual, organization or community, or sedition in Parliament, and MPs must be prepared to face the full consequences for such parliamentary breach of privilege  whether before the Parliamentary Privileges Committee or the court of law in the case of sedition with regard to entrenched sensitive issues in the Constitution.

I cannot but wonder whether  Shahir and Nazri really understand what the women leaders are saying in their condemnation of the crude, vulgar, sexist and offensive conduct of the two BN MPs, for instance:

Judith Koh-Loh’s
 statement that “The fact that the  august body allowed a ‘joke’ to be made about the function of the female body, without any sanction, marks another low point in the history of parliamentary debates”;

Ivy Josiah’s
comment: “There is a difference between a joke and a demeaning remark. Because of the poor understanding of sexual harassment, the remarks are dismissed”;

Zaitun Kasim’s
statement that the remarks by the two sexist BN MPs were “completely offensive”; and

Ambiga Sreenevasan’s
call that parliamentarians should lead the way in being gender sensitive.

Shahrir and Nazri have shown that apart from Mohd Said and Bung Mohtar, they are also both gender-insensitive and they should apologise for such gender-insensitivity within the next 24 hours, so that the meaning of Mother’s Day tomorrow will not be further desecrated with Shahrir and Nazri’s support and solidarity with Mohd Said and Bung Mohtar in their unacceptable exhibition of “male chauvinism”.

The
press
have played an exemplary role in exposing the “male chauvinism” and unparliamentary conduct of the two sexist BN MPs in Parliament on Wednesday. This was because none of the DAP MPs had heard their crude, vulgar, sexist and offensive remarks in the  din and pandemonium in the Chamber when DAP MPs were highlighting  the issue of Parliament leaking after a RM100 million renovation work.

Sin Chew Daily
,
China Press
and
Utusan Malaysia
deserve commendation for reporting what these two sexist BN MPs had said, as it concerned not only the honour and dignity of Po Kuan, but all Malaysian women.

It is pathetic that BN MPs, especially BN women MPs, do not have a similar  sense of justice and righteousness to stand up in Parliament to denounce the two sexist BN MPs and dissociate themselves from their “male chauvinism”.

Instead, one woman BN MP quickly scurried out of the Chambers when Po Kuan stood up on Thursday to demand that the two sexist BN MPs should be referred to the Committee of Privileges.

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 12 May 2007, 10:14 am and is filed under
Gender
,
Parliament
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Why Samy Vellu  is “untouchable” and “unsackable” as Minister

Malaysians are deeply offended by the Works Minister, Datuk Seri S. Samy Vellu’s complacency and indifference to first-world standards and mindset when he said
leaks in Parliament
after RM100 million renovation is “common”.

He said:
“It not only happens in our country, Parliament houses in other countries could be facing the same problem.  It’s just that we don’t know about it because it is not reported.”

The nerve of the man, justifying the leaks in Parliament after a RM100 million renovation by talking about mythical leaks in other Parliaments which he knows absolutely nothing about.

And his contempt for the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi who had spoken until his “throat is dry” about first-world mentality and maintenance culture when his Works Minister is utterly contemptuous of such a “silly notion”!

Public opinion had already been gravely upset by Samy Vellu’s brazen demand for
RM22 million
 to inspect new government buildings in Putrajaya for defects, treating the Malaysian public as suckers and fools who must finally bear the astronomical bill for professional and government negligence resulting in the long list of mishaps of government buildings and public construction projects — while no one else whether contractor, government department such as Public Works Department, or the Works Minister or the relevant Minister concerned,  have to bear any responsibility or accountability!

And now Samy Vellu is virtually saying that Malaysians must  get used to defects like leaks in Parliament after RM100 million renovation even after the RM22 million inspection and further tens or hundreds of millions of ringgit of consequent repairs!

With such an outrageous and irresponsible  attitude, the Prime Minister has more than enough cause to sack Samy Vellu as Works Minister.

However, Samy Vellu is “untouchable” and cannot be sacked, whatever his faults and failings.

This is how  former Prime Minister,  Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad explained why Samy Vellu, who first became a Cabinet Minister more than 27 years ago on Oct. 21, 1979, and  who served in his Cabinet  in his entire 22-year administration, cannot be sacked in a recent
exclusive Malaysiakini interview
:

Q. We still have people like (works minister and MIC president) S Samy Vellu there. We know of the complaints against him.

A. You ask MIC what they would do if I removed Samy Vellu. MIC is scared stiff of Samy Vellu.

Q. So it’s political repercussion factor then? It’s got nothing to do with…

A. When it comes to the head of a component (Barisan Nasional) party, I don’t have that much liberty to pick who the head should be or to remove the head from being in the cabinet. You can see that all the heads of all the component parties are in the cabinet, not because I chose them, but because they were chosen by their party.

Q. What you’re saying is that you have to appoint them (the leaders of BN component parties) to the cabinet. There’s very little choice. So what does that reflect about our political system today?

A. There is a saying – a country gets the government that it deserves. If you are a member of a party and you are unwilling to say that your leader is wrong, to choose a better leader, then you deserve a bad leader. Whether it is fear of the bad leader, or whatever…

Even if it is a dictator, if they (people in other countries) really want to remove their dictator, they are prepared to stick their necks out. Here, it is not even a case of sticking your neck out. You won’t even stick your little finger out. Everybody is playing safe. If I go against the chief, he’s going to hammer me. Then I won’t get contracts, I won’t be ‘ketua bahagian’ (party division chief).

No wonder Mahathir had called the Abdullah Cabinet a “half-past six” Cabinet.  This is what the former premier said in the second part of his recent  interview with
Malaysiakini
:

Q. On the same topic, what do you think of the cabinet today. Are they as vibrant as they were under you?

A. Most of them were appointed by me. Now, it is ‘safety first.’ You have to save yourself. ‘Never mind what happens to the country, never mind what happens to the Malays, never mind what happens to anybody, I must remain a minister. I must remain deputy minister. I must be the ‘ketua bahagian’ (party division chief). I must be the ‘calon’ (candidate) for the next election. What happens to others doesn’t matter. What happens to the country doesn’t matter.’

They argue, ‘If I am not elected, I will not be able to contribute.’ What are you contributing? You are not contributing anything.

Q. Wouldn’t that be the same during your time?

A. No. During my time, if they don’t contribute, they don’t get it (the position). They know me, and they contribute.

If the prime minister wants you to contribute, you will contribute. But if the prime minister doesn’t care, and each one is for himself, and if each one doesn’t please me I’m going to get rid of (him), not because he is not contributing but because he doesn’t please me, then you are going to spend time trying to protect your pants.

When Parliament reconvenes on June 18 for a four-week meeting till 10th July, DAP MPs will insist on two things, viz:

	That the RM22 million bill for the inspection of new government buildings in Putrajaya for defects should not be borne by the ordinary taxpayers but must come from the contractors who built the Putrajaya buildings in such an unsatisfactory condition as to require an  unheard-off RM22 million inspection expenditure; and

	That it is completely unacceptable and against the “first-world mentality” objective of the Abdullah premiership for the Works Minister or any Cabinet Minister to ask Malaysians to get used to sub-standard public works, such as leaks in Parliament after a RM100 million renovation.

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 12 May 2007, 11:41 am and is filed under
Parliament
,
Politics
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.