Is the Security Offences Bill constitutional?

 — Tommy Thomas

The Malaysian Insider

Apr 21, 2012

APRIL 21— Congratulations to Prime Minister Najib Razak who has single-handedly taken the necessary action to repeal the dreaded Internal Security Act, 1960 (“ISA”) : Clause 32 (1) of the Security Offences (Special Measures) Bill 2012 expressly says so.  It is fitting that 52 years after his late father, Tun Razak, moved the ISA Bill in Parliament, he goes into the history books as the leader who piloted its abolition.  His achievement is all the greater because his zeal to make Malaysia a freer country does not seem to be shared by his Cabinet — which has been conspicuously silent — or by law enforcement agencies like the Attorney-General, Police and other bureaucracies.

The abolition of the ISA must be seen against the background of the revocation in October 2011 of the 4 Emergencies which have scarred the national psyche for nearly the entire duration of Malaysia’s nationhood since Merdeka.  The result is much greater space and freedom for our people, and is welcome.

A. “Special Offences”

The Security Offences (Special Measures) Bill 2012 (“the Security Offences Bill”), as the name suggests, is a Bill providing for special measures relating to security offences.  Clause 3 defines “special offences” to mean the offences specified in the First Schedule.  Two categories of security offences are listed in the First Schedule.  Both categories are already found in the Penal Code.  The first category is “Offences against the State” which appear in Chapter VI of the Penal Code, that is, from Sections 121 to 130A.  The second category is “Offences relating to Terrorism” which can be found in Chapter VI A of the Penal Code, that is, from Sections 130B to 130T.

“Offences against the State” include waging or attempting to wage war against the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, Rulers or Yang di-Pertuan Negeri (“the Rulers”), hurting the Rulers, deposing the Rulers, overthrowing by criminal force the government of Malaysia or of any of the states and assaulting Members of Parliament or State Legislative Assemblymen in their exercise of their duties.  All these offences share a common theme of force being used or intended to be used in order to obtain their objectives, which are to overthrow the government or to harm members of the different branches of government.

“Offences relating to terrorism” concern acts of “terrorist”, who is defined as a person who commits or attempts to commit any terrorist act or participates in or facilitates the commission of any terrorist act.  Section 130B (2) of the Penal Code defines a “terrorist act” to mean “an act or threat of action within or beyond Malaysia” where

•    act done or threat made with the intention of advancing a political, religious or idealogical cause; and

•    act or threat is intended or may reasonably be regarded as being intended to

    i.  intimidate the public or a section of it; or

    ii. influence or compel any government, whether in Malaysia or elsewhere, or any international organization to do or refrain from doing any act.

Under Section 130 B(3) an act or threat of action includes causing death, serious bodily injury, serious damage to property, use of firearms, interference with any computer or communication systems, interference with police, or actions which prejudice national security or public safety.

The specific terrorist offences provided for in the Penal Code from Sections 130C to 130T include committing terrorist acts, providing explosives, recruiting persons to join terrorist groups, providing training or facilities to terrorists, giving of support, directing terrorist activities and criminal conspiracy.

B. Why the Bill?

The first observation to make is that the “security offences” under the Security Offences Bill already exist as offences under the laws of Malaysia, that is, by virtue of Chapters VI and VIA of the Penal Code, which came into force in 2007.  Why is it therefore necessary for Parliament to legislate on a second occasion the exact same offences using the exact same language?  The simple answer is that those accused of committing these offences under the Special Offences Bill will be prosecuted and tried in a very oppressive manner when compared to a prosecution and trial under the Penal Code.  This seems to be the raison de’ etre of the Special Offences Bill.  I wonder if Prime Minister Najib has been properly briefed that this is the consequence of the Bill?

That this seems to be the only intention of enacting the Special Offences Act becomes clear by a brief review of its provisions.  Part II confers special powers on the police for security offences.  Clause 4(1) empowers a police officer, without warrant, to arrest and detain any person “whom he has reason to believe to be involved in security offences”.  The person can be detained for a maximum period of 28 days for investigation under Clause 4(5).  Even after release, an electronic monitoring device may be attached to that person by an Order of Court under Clauses 4 (6) and 7(1).  A detainee may be kept in communicado, and no notification of his detention is to be made to his next-of-kin or lawyer for a period of 48 hours :  see Clause 7.

Part IV of the Bill contains special procedures relating to sensitive information.  Clause 8(1) provides that notwithstanding Section 51A of the Criminal Procedure Code (“CPC”), if the trial of a security offence involves “matters relating to sensitive information”, the Court shall conduct any hearing pertaining to the use of such sensitive information in camera, and may rule whether such sensitive information may be admissible as evidence or even disclosed to the accused : see Clause 8 (7).  Clause 8 (8) states that any such decision of a Court cannot be appealed from.

Accordingly, the expression “sensitive information” is of paramount importance.  It is defined in Clause 3 to mean:—

“any document, information and material

    a.relating to the Cabinet, Cabinet committees and State Executive Council; or

    b.that concerns sovereignty, national security, defence, public order and international relations

whether or not classified as ‘Secret’ or ‘Confidential’.”

This is an incredibly wide definition, and essentially covers every governmental document, information or material.  Thus, whistle-blowers who intend to make public wrong doings of ministers or civil servants may come under this category, provided, of course, that they are charged for a security offence.

All security offences shall be tried by the High Court (as opposed to the magistrates or sessions court).  The general rule is that bail shall not be granted to a person who has been charged with a security offence : see Clause 13 (1).  However, minors, women or sick persons, if charged, may be released on bail, but they would be attached with an electronic monitoring device.

Perhaps the worst treatment for any person who is to be charged for security offences under the new law when compared to being charged under the Penal Code is to be found in Part VII of the Bill which takes away any protection given to the accused by the Evidence Act, 1950 (and the cases decided thereunder) during the course of his trial.  Thus, statements made by any person who is dead or cannot be found or incapable of giving evidence shall be admissible as evidence under Clause 18.  This would be unjust and unfair because such a person/witness cannot be cross-examined on his statement.  Other unacceptable inroads into a fair trial include allowing the use of testimony of a child of tender years, even if uncorroborated and not given under oath, and of accomplices and agents provocateur.

C. Justification for the Bill

How does the draftsman of this Bill justify its enactment when it violates equality protection under Article 8 of the Federal Constitution because of its oppressive treatment viz-a-viz the Penal Code (together with the CPC and the Evidence Act)?  Article 8(1) provides that all persons are equal before the law and entitled to the equal protection of the law.  The answer is an attempt to classify the Bill as a special law pursuant to Article 149 of the Federal Constitution.  Thus, the Recitals to the Bill reproduce the language used in Article 149 (1) in an attempt to come within it.  It reads :

“WHEREAS action has been taken and further action is threatened by a substantial body of persons both inside and outside Malaysia —

1.    to cause, or to cause a substantial number of citizen to fear, organized violence against persons or property;

2.    to excite disaffection against the Yang di-Pertuan Agong;

3.   which is prejudicial to public order in, or the security of, the Federation or any part thereof; or

4.   to procure the alteration, otherwise than by lawful means, of anything by law established.

AND WHEREAS Parliament considers it necessary to stop such action.”

Articles 149 to 151 make up Part XI of the Federal Constitution which is entitled —

“Special Powers against subversion, organized violence, and acts and crimes prejudicial to the public and Emergency Powers.”

Article 149 confers powers on Parliament to pass laws against subversion, action prejudicial to public order, etc.  Article 149(1) contains 6 conditions precedent which have to be satisfied before such laws can be passed.  4 of these conditions are recited in the Securities Offences Bill.  From the government’s perspective, the advantage of an Article 149 law is that it is valid “notwithstanding that it is inconsistent with any of the provisions of Articles 5, 9, 10 or 13” of the Federal Constitution.  But, a breach of Article 8 is not permitted by a law enacted under Article 149.

Article 150 of the Federal Constitution is significantly relevant when interpreting a law passed by Parliament under Article 149 because it empowers the Proclamation of Emergency upon satisfaction “that a grave emergency exists whereby the security, or the economic life, or public order in the Federation or any part thereof is threatened”.  Such a satisfaction by the Executive warranting the Declaration of Emergency must be made on objective grounds, and is reviewable by the Courts :  see the important constitutional case decided by the Privy Council : Teh Cheng Poh v. PP  [1979] 1 MLJ 50.

In that case, which was an appeal from Malaysia, Lord Diplock stated that for laws to be passed by Parliament under Article 149, they “must be taken bona fide for the purpose of stopping or preventing subversion action of the kind referred to in the recitals of the Act in order to be valid”.  Thus, any laws enacted by Parliament “must be designed to stop or prevent that subversion action and not to achieve some different end’.

D. Constitutionality of the Bill

In consequence, in order for the Security Offences Bill to be constitutional it must be a valid exercise by Parliament of its powers under Article 149(1) of the Federal Constitution.  In other words, the Bill must be a genuine legislative solution to the problems recited in the Bill which must actually exist.  It is an objective yardstick.  An examination of the Bill will indicate that problems recited do not exist in Malaysia in April 2012, decades after independence.

Thus, no action “has been taken” or “further action is threatened by a substantial body of persons” to achieve any of the 4 conditions.  To start off, there is no evidence of violence against the State by any person or organization, let alone “organized violence”.  It was claimed in 1960 when the ISA was introduced that it was necessary to arm the nation with adequate legal powers to cope with violence that had been organized and carried out by Chin Peng’s Malayan Communist Party since 1948.  Malaysia is blessed that in 2012 no similar threat of violence exists.  Likewise “substantial body of persons” are not exciting disaffection against our King, threatening our national security or public order or attempting to change by unlawful means anything in our system.  The best proof that even the government accepts that normalcy has fully returned to the nation is the revocation of the 4 Emergencies last year.

In consequence, the constitutionality of the Special Offences Bill is in grave doubt for at least 2 reasons.  First, whether Parliament can pass such a law in circumstances when the conditions precedent to a valid exercise of power under Article 149(1) of the Federal Constitution do not exist at the present time.  Secondly, whether the much inferior treatment of an accused when prosecuted and tried under the Bill when compared to being prosecuted and tried for the very same offence under the Penal Code violates the fundamental right of equality under Article 8(1).

E. 9/11 Paranoia

Civil liberties across the globe suffered major setbacks after the 9/11 attack in New York.  Hence, the past decade has not been happy for the protection of human rights worldwide.  The worst examples are the United States and United Kingdom (after the 7/7 attack in London).

The laws in the 2 Anglo Saxon nations have been substantially changed to the detriment of individual rights.  The State has been given massive power, unprecedented in history, all in the name of the “War on Terror” (whatever that nebulous concept may mean!).  The worst law is probably the Patriots Act of the USA, and the most well-publicised human right violations have occurred in the Abu Ghraib prison and Guantanamo Bay detention centre.

Unfortunately, our law enforcement agencies have justified the Special Offence Bill and other unacceptable laws by referring to the experience in the United States and United Kingdom.  But Malaysia is not the US or the UK.  Malaysians are peace-loving and non-violent.  The comparisons with these Islam-hating countries are wholly misplaced.

Accordingly, although I am delighted that the ISA will shortly be repealed, I am not persuaded that there is any need for the rest of the Security Offences Bill.  The Prime Minister has been poorly advised.  His objectives have not been fully carried out.  Further, repressive laws continue to be part of our laws.  Preventive detention is still valid under other written laws.  Until all these oppressive laws disappear, one cannot say that the people of Malaysia enjoy a full measure of freedom, even 55 years after Merdeka.

* Tommy Thomas is a senior lawyer of the Malaysian Bar.

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 21 April 2012, 3:06 pm and is filed under
Constitution
,
ISA
,
Najib Razak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


City shenanigans over Bersih 3.0

— Justice Seeker

The Malaysian Insider

Apr 22, 2012

APRIL 22 — The mayor of Kuala Lumpur, or the man who heads the KL City Hall (DBKL), is a political appointee.

He is appointed by Prime Minister Najib Razak, and he takes orders from Putrajaya. It is not an independent DBKL, as Home Minister Hishammuddin Hussein would have us believe, that the people at DBKL make decisions independently or without fear or favour.

DBKL listens to Najib, Federal Territories Minister Raja Nong Chik Raja Zainal Abidin, or any other Barisan Nasional power broker.

So Hishammuddin can save his act about hoping DBKL will offer the organisers of Bersih 3.0 the alternative of Stadium Merdeka, now that DBKL has denied approval for the use of Dataran Merdeka.

The Cabinet, in which Hishammuddin is a member, decided that Dataran Merdeka is off limits and wants to confine Bersih 3.0 to Stadium Merdeka and this information has been communicated to DBKL.

But here is the minister trying to hoodwink Malaysians into thinking a) that he is a reasonable chap; b) that the Datuk Bandar is some independent-minded chap and c) that the BN government is really unconcerned about Bersih 3.0.

This is the depth of the ministers; they get some talking points prepared for them by the government’s communications team and think that it sounds intelligent.

No one who has had any dealings with DBKL doubts that they are bound by instructions from Putrajaya!

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 22 April 2012, 6:19 pm and is filed under
Bersih
,
Elections
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Najib an opportunistic reformer, says author

Nigel Aw | Apr 21, 2012

Malaysiakini

Barry Wain, who in 2010 raised red flags at the Home Ministry with his book ‘Malaysian Maverick: Mahathir Mohamad in Turbulent Times’, has described Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak reformer image as a selective one.

The journalist and author, while acknowledging that the current premier had given more substance to his reform agenda compared with his predecessor Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, he had only instituted changes where the government’s position was not endangered, he said.

“Recognising his personal and political limits, Najib has become what I call a tactical or selective reformer, a less charitable description might be an opportunistic reformer,” said the Australian, who has lived in Asia for nearly 40 years.

“Skirting some of the areas most in need of reform, he is hoping he can make enough changes around the edges of certain policies, package them attractively and sell them to Malaysia to arrest Umno’s slide,” Wain told some 30 members of the Foreign Correspondence Club Malaysia (FCCM) at a talk in Kuala Lumpur last night.

‘Umno insider no natural reformer’

Despite the recent flurry of legislative reforms, it appeared evident that no attempt has been made to arrest institutional degradation of the police force and judiciary, said Wain, now attached to Singapore’s Institute of Southeast Asian Studies in Singapore.

Among examples he cited was the lack of accountability in the death of Teoh Beng Hock, the conviction of two police officers without known motive for the murder of Mongolia Altantuya Sharibuu and Opposition Leader Anwar Ibrahim’s second sodomy trial.

“No serious analyst in Malaysia or abroad would believe that Anwar’s prosecution and trial was free of political influence,” said the keen observer of Malaysian politics.

The premier, Wain added, had not signalled intention to reform the internal mechanics of Umno where corruption was most endemic and his proposed reforms to political financing was likely to circumvent money politics within Umno.

“Should Najib attempt to seriously curb the flow of patronage within the ruling party, he would probably follow Abdullah out the door,” he said.

Before the Najib’s reform push to soften the government’s image, his involvement in the the Perak coup had not not helped his reputation as a natural reformist, he added.

“Throughout Najib’s career, he has been cautious and pragmatic, he has never questioned Malaysia’s ethnic-based political system nor has he proposed significant innovation, not even during his direct ministerial responsibilities.

“It is difficult to define what he stands for… Najib is not only part of the system, one of his closest associates said, he trusts the system, he is the system,” said Wain.

On the economic reform front, he said, there also appeared to be an absent of genuine change.

“I remember the first time he announced the New Economic Model and said we’ll have a world-class education system, you know education in Malaysia is a mess, if you got the right policies it would probably take years if not generations to bring about change.

“Yes, he articulates it, it’s true we need a world-class education system but there is no follow-up action, sometimes it’s just like once he has said it he pretends it is done.

“With any politicians, one must watch what they do and not just what they say, and this is more true with Najib as there is a big gap between what he says and what they have”, he added.

Umno’s salvation, losing power

Wain added that he had spoken to people who Najib had consulted at the World Bank and they were convinced that the premier was capable of understanding the nation’s problems.

“But he is not instinctively bold or audacious nor does he have strong support from the party to make those reforms,” he said.

The truly outstanding leaders such as former deputy prime ministers Musa Hitam and Anwar Ibrahim and former finance minister Tengku Razaliegh Hamzah, Wain said, had long been ousted by former premier Dr Mahathir Mohamad (left) during his 22-year reign.

“Mahathir failed to provide future leadership for Malaysia… his long tenure also blocked the ascendency of others with leadership potential.

“The most capable people Mahathir got rid off and the people who are left are simply just second or third rung,” he said.

Umno in its current form, he added, was unable to reform while it remained in the cusp of power.

“I don’t believe Umno will reform itself, I think the best way for Umno is to be defeated and become the opposition and then go and do some serious reform and find new leadership.”

Mahathir, Wain said, completed Umno’s transition from a humble self-sacrificing party of peasants and schoolteachers to a party of self-serving corporate chieftain and dealmakers.

Even after the longest serving premier handed over power, his legacy lingered on as he had engineered both Abdullah and Najib’s premiership.

“The country has been run for more than eight years by fairly weak men put there by Mahathir,” he said.

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 22 April 2012, 12:18 pm and is filed under
Najib Razak
,
UMNO
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


‘Unwise for Umno to axe Najib after GE’

Nigel Aw | Apr 21, 2012

Malaysiakini

Even if the BN wins the next general election but losses more seats, it would still be unwise for Umno to unseat Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak as they did with his predecessor, says prominent author Barry Wain.

This, he said, is because the premier is popular among the people and the ruling coalition and government are dependent on his star power.

“In the event if Najib still wins the election but drops say a dozen seats, he could come under pressure, but it is difficult because Najib is personally popular.

“He is extremely popular, far more popular than Umno, the government and the BN.

“What they have going for them now in terms of electoral appeal is Najib,” Wain  said at a talk organised by the Foreign Correspondents Club Malaysia (FCCM) in Kuala Lumpur.

Former Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi had faced an internal rebellion within Umno even after leading the ruling coalition to a historical victory in 2004 when hit by the disastrous debacle of 2008 – the worst performance since the Barisan Nasional was born in 1972.

Speaking to some 30 FCCM members, the former Wall Street Journal Asia editor, who has resided in Asia for almost 40 years, said another reason Umno should consider retaining Najib is the issue of succession.

“If they (Umno) try to get rid of him, it is not an easy one because the logical person to put, if going by precedent, would be deputy prime minister Muhyiddin Yassin.

“He is not a terribly attractive figure to the public and is fairly devious in the public realm,” said Wain, who is writer-in-residence at the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies in Singapore.

Right-wing Umno’s death knell?

Muhyiddin, he said, is only popular among the right-wing section of Umno and if these elements insist on ousting Najib, the repercussion for the party would be serious.

“It could be that the right-wing is so inward looking … they are so determined to go their own way and would just put him (Muhyiddin) there regardless, then I think they will get a big shock in the subsequent election,” he said.

There aren’t many obvious candidates out there who could take over the helm as premier and therefore any attempt to replace the incumbent must be decided with care, he added.

Wain had in 2010 had attracted the Home Ministry’s spotlight after his book Malaysian Maverick: Mahathir Mohamad in Turbulence Times was withheld for five months for allegedly “insulting government leaders and Malay rulers”.

However, Wain this year had released the second edition of the book with a new chapter to update Mahathir’s political acitivities after retirement and in response to the former premier’s memoirs, Doctor in the House.

The new chapter also deals with what Wain described as the “chaotic and primitive approach to the free flow of information” when the Home Ministry initially attempted to censor the book.

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 22 April 2012, 7:23 pm and is filed under
Elections
,
Muhyiddin Yassin
,
Najib Razak
,
UMNO
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


3.1m dubious voters on list for a decade, says Bersih

By Shannon Teoh

The Malaysian Insider

Apr 23, 2012

KUALA LUMPUR, April 23 — Bersih accused the Election Commission (EC) today of failing to investigate 3.1 million voters whose identity card (IC) addresses differ from that in the electoral roll despite having the information since 2002.

Speaking at a press conference called by the electoral reform movement, independent polls analyst Ong Kian Ming said the EC was given this information for all states in the peninsula and also Kuala Lumpur in 2002 and the figure made up 37 per cent of the 8.3 million voters registered then.

The project director for the Malaysian Electoral Roll Analysis Project (MERAP) said he has had the information given by the National Registration Department (NRD) to the EC before the implementation of the new registration system where all voters have to be registered according to the constituency indicated by their IC addresses.

“The EC has failed to act on this… to clean up the electoral roll even though the presence of these non-resident voters contravenes Article 119 1(b) of the Federal Constitution which says a voter must be a resident in the constituency he is voting in,” he said.

Bersih steering committee member Maria Chin Abdullah also said this “shows serious problems in the electoral roll which is the role of the EC to correct.”

“They say they are cleaning it up, so why are these findings still emerging? The EC team should resign en bloc and let a new team step in to clean up the roll,” she added.

Ong  also said his research found 65,455 “foreigners” in the electoral roll, almost 90 per cent of whom had IC numbers which showed they were Malaysian-born.

Another 106,743 voters were deleted and 6,762 added to the electoral roll without public display between the end of 2010 to the third quarter of 2011, he added.

The UCSI lecturer also said the supplementary roll for the last quarter of 2011 did not contain the usual information about the number of voters added or subtracted due to death or enrolment in security forces.

He said that given the average of 20,000 deaths and the third Q3 2011 roll showing an unusual spike in police and armed forces enrolment to 9,000, this could add another 30,000 to 50,000 dubious names.

“Including the 100,000 identified by MERAP previously, there are at least 3.4 million cases or about 27 per cent of the current electoral roll which needs to be further investigated,” he said.

EC chairman Tan Sri Abdul Aziz Mohd Yusof had said last week Malaysia’s electoral roll was the cleanest in the world, as only 42,000 out of 12.6 million voters, or 0.3 per cent, were considered unverifiable.

But Ong said Abdul Aziz should have checked the 100,000 already identified by MERAP as having ages above 85 years old, gender inconsistent with their ICs, same names and similar birthdates, born overseas, Klang Valley voters who do not have house addresses, postal voters with regular ICs, spouses of policemen who are postal voters, spouses of army and police voters who have the same gender, army and police voters above retirement age and army and police postal voters who are above recruitment age.

The credibility of the electoral roll has been widely questioned since a Parliamentary Select Committee was set up late last year to look into electoral improvements.

The panel completed its six-month tenure and submitted its findings to Parliament last week but the opposition and civil society have criticised it for lacking specific recommendations on how to clean up the voter registrar.

Bersih, a coalition of 84 NGOs, then announced it would hold a third rally for free and fair elections on April 28.

Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak had announced the formation of the bipartisan polls committee in August 2011, after being condemned in the international press for his administration’s clampdown on Bersih’s July 9 rally which drew tens of thousands to the streets of the capital.

                This entry was posted on Monday, 23 April 2012, 2:37 pm and is filed under
Bersih
,
Elections
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


DAP wants ‘clueless’ PKA boss to disclose meeting minutes

By Clara Chooi

The Malaysian Insider

Apr 23, 2012

KUALA LUMPUR, April 23 — The DAP today demanded all minutes of the Port Klang Authority (PKA) meetings in 2009 and 2010 be made public, while accusing its chairman Datuk Teh Kim Poh and Transport Minister Datuk Seri Kong Cho Ha of misleading the public over the Port Klang Free Zone (PKFZ) bonds payment fiasco.

Petaling Jaya Utara MP Tony Pua said Teh was merely attempting to protect his boss Kong on Friday when the former denied allegations that the minister had been the one who had overturned PKA’s decision not to pay turnkey developer Kuala Dimensi Sdn Bhd (KDSB) bondholders.

“Teh must be either completely clueless about what had happened in 2009 and 2010 or he is just lying through his teeth to protect the boss Kong who appointed him to his current position,” Pua said in a statement here.

The DAP publicity secretary then cited a media report on July 28, 2010 that said it was Kong who had used his ministerial powers to override PKA’s decision to refuse to make the final RM222.58 million to the special purpose vehicle set up by KDSB to raise funds from the market.

The same report, Pua said, had also quoted Kong as telling reporters that “we will pay according to what has been decided much earlier; according to the schedule that was set a long time ago. I will talk to them (PKA)’.”

Pua said Kong had also at the time refused to consider various suggestions to hold the payments due in escrow, to be made to the rightful parties only after all the legal disputes regarding the scandal-ridden PKFZ have been settled.

“Such recklessness can only be interpreted as an attempt to bail out KDSB from its predicament when its bondholders exercises the undertaking which has been issued by KDSB, where KDSB will be forced to make the hundreds of millions in outstanding bond repayments,” the opposition lawmaker said.

Pua scoffed at Teh’s claim during a press conference on Friday that previous payments of RM660 million 2009 and 2010 to KDSB bondholders respectively were made and approved by then PKA chairman Datuk Lee Hwa Beng, and were merely a continuation of the policies started by Datuk Seri Ong Tee Keat, who was the transport minister in 2009.

At a press conference on Friday, Teh had claimed that it was Ong who had begun payments despite a dispute over whether the turnkey developer had completed up to RM1.6 billion in works.

“During his term, two payments of RM660 million each were made in June 2009 and June 2010. So under Datuk Seri Kong Cho Ha, this is just a continuation,” Teh had said at the media conference.

Ong had said during the launch of Lee’s book on PKFZ on Tuesday that the government should not pay the bondholders, with another RM733.37 million due at the end of June, until the legal disputes have been settled.

Ong has also said the government had paid RM3.039 billion to bondholders despite outstanding legal suits in the scandal that ballooned from an initial RM1.1 billion to a possible RM12.5 billion.

“I challenge Teh, as well as Kong, to make publicly available all PKA minutes of meetings pertaining to the above payments in 2009 and 2010 to prove that it was not the latter who overturned the payment decisions,” Pua said today.

“If the minutes of meetings in PKA indeed proved that it was Ong and Lee who approved the payments to KDSB bondholders, then surely there will be nothing to lose and all to gain with the public disclosure of the PKA meeting minutes.

“In fact I would like to see Teh prove Ong wrong, when the latter claimed that it was the then Finance Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak who overturned his decision not to pay the KDSB bondholders in 2009,” he added.

The PKA had insisted last Wednesday that it paid bondholders to avoid breach of contract in light of ongoing legal cases in the scandal.

But the DAP has said there are no contract terms requiring PKA to pay if work was not completed as under the bond agreement, KDSB was to cover any shortfall in payment due to incomplete work and gives bondholders the power to sue the company in such an event.

The PKA, which Lee left in March 2011, has also denied the DAP’s claims that it dropped legal action against KDSB for alleged fraud, unconscionable conduct and overcharging in favour of resolving the matter through arbitration.

The project, initially tagged at RM1.1 billion after it was mooted by then Transport Minister Tun Dr Ling Liong Sik in 1997, more than quadrupled to RM4.6 billion by 2007.

A position review by top accounting firm PwC revealed in 2009 that the total cost including interest from debt repayments could reach RM12.5 billion.

Since December 2009, six individuals have been charged in court including ex-MCA president Dr Ling and his successor as transport minister, former MCA deputy chief Tan Sri Chan Kong Choy, who are both accused of lying to the Cabinet.

                This entry was posted on Monday, 23 April 2012, 11:18 am and is filed under
PKFZ
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Let’s just get back to basics

 — May Chee Chook Ying

The Malaysian Insider

Apr 23, 2012

APRIL 23 — Let’s forget about trying to break into the Guinness Book of World Records and stuff. Let’s just get back to basics. Let’s just go back to square one; what it means to be a democracy, what it means to uphold the constitution. Let’s remember the pledge of the Rukunegara, first mooted in 1970. For those who have forgotten about it and for those who do not know anything about it, it goes like this:

“Our Nation, Malaysia, is dedicated to: Achieving a greater unity for all her people; maintaining a democratic way of life; creating a just society in which the wealth of the nation shall be equitably distributed; ensuring a liberal approach to her rich and diverse cultural tradition, and building a progressive society which shall be oriented to modern science and technology.

We, the people of Malaysia, pledge our united efforts to attain these ends, guided by these principles:

Belief in God

Loyalty to King and Country

Upholding the Constitution

Sovereignty of the Law and

Good Behaviour and Morality”

Seen or felt any of the above lately? Am I the only one sorely missing the spirit of the Rukunegara? Can we drown out the din, please, and get back to living with dignity, the way decent human beings deserve to?

Eight bills passed through in one day. Time stood still, so someone said. I wished. I wished we could go back to the time when I was only in Standard 4, when the Rukunegara was first mooted for our well-being and that of the nation, at large. I remember that fateful day when some of us were chosen to recite the Rukunegara during our school assembly. I was afraid I couldn’t pronounce the word “technology”, though during my school days, my memory was eidetic. Now, you can tell me any secret; I’ll forget it the moment you finish speaking! So, I digress, like RPK would say.

Anyway, I would think that living in the “best democracy” in the world, when those eight bills were passed in such haste, it was for our own good, as if tomorrow might never come! Or is it a case of “Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.” — William Pitt

We live under a tyranny and we are slaves? How come? You could have fooled me!

I thought we were living in a Parliamentary Democracy where we, who are qualified to vote, take part in elections and choose politicians to represent us in a Legislative Assembly. We choose these politicians. We, and they, these politicians, see to it that our best interests are taken care of. They, these politicians are supposed to be elected by us, us, so that they can redress our grievances. How is it that those amendments bulldozed through when time stood still were not done in our best interests? How come there’s more room for cheating now? For slandering? No way to check the identity of voters or that they voted only once? And who’s that dope who pronounced that we have the cleanest electoral register in the world?

Please-lah, we are already the greatest laughing stock in the world for tagging ourselves the best democracy in the world, now you want the international community to die laughing, calling our electoral register the cleanest in the world?

Don’t just say anything to get into the Guinness Book of World Records-lah! These Guinness people will have to come and verify, no? Can they come and verify for sure we are the best democracy in the world and that we have the cleanest electoral register in the world? Can? Maybe, that will be good!

Can they come and verify that we have the freedom of expression, freedom of speech and freedom of the press, so that we, Malaysians, are adequately informed and able to vote according to our best interests as we see them? Or will they come and see that some people are voting from beyond the grave, voting more than once, or those unqualified get paid to vote for some unscrupulous people? Or Malaysia is so “free” a country that some of the posters or banners strewn all over are not a sight for sore eyes, instead, they are an eye-sore? Malaysia Boleh, huh, now?

Let’s not try to get in the news for all the wrong reasons. Let’s just get back to basics. Let’s just go back to square one. We are supposed to have voted in an egalitarian form of government. One in which all the citizens (as in live ones, ok?) of our nation together determine policies, laws and actions of the state that will preserve peace, harmony and unity of our beloved nation. One that will preserve the spirit of the Rukunegara. One that will preserve equality and freedom where all citizens are equal before the law and have equal access to legislative process. One where the freedom of its citizens is secured by legitimised rights and liberties that are protected by our constitution. (For that matter, let’s claim back our constitution, which has been hijacked lately!) One that will preserve the sanctity of our vote.

Till then, I’m appealing to all right-minded Malaysians, let’s “Jom, Duduk Bantah”. Make your vote count. See you guys there. I’ll be at the Malacca version. Come and say “hi”.

                This entry was posted on Monday, 23 April 2012, 6:34 pm and is filed under
Bersih
,
Elections
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Testimonial siapa yang lebih baik? Tunku dan Hussein Onn atau yang lain-lain?

—Aspan Alias

The Malaysian Insider

Apr 23, 2012

23 APRIL — Semalam PM Najib di Pulau Pinang, negeri yang telah begitu maju dan telah pun menjadi negeri yang mendahului negeri-negeri lain dalam pelaburan pembuatan tahun lepas. Pulau Pinang diikuti rapat oleh Selangor dalam sektor yang sama dan kedua-duanya adalah negeri yang ditadbir oleh Pakatan Rakyat. Najib kali ini menjanjikan bulan dan bintang kepada negeri P. Pinang jika BN kembali memerintah negeri itu.

Janji pemimpin BN itu adalah janji dari parti yang telah jatuh ke dalam gaung dan kali ini ia memberikan janji kepada orang-orang yang telah mencampakkan BN ke dalam gaung itu. Lawatan ini adalah lawatan dalam siri kempen pilihanraya ke13 nanti dan Najib masih melagukan lagu-lagu lama yang sudah tidak masuk “carta lagu popular mingguan” lagi.

Lagunya yang dinyanyikan di Pulau Pinang semalam bertajuk “Ingat kepada jasa lama” dan “Jangan tinggal daku” yang telah dinyanyikan oleh pemimpin Umno setiap kali pilihanraya sampai. Lagu ini serupa seperti lagu “Selamat Hari Raya” nyanyian biduawanita negara Saloma. Lagu “Selamat Hari Raya” hanya berkumandang semasa kita menghampiri Hari Raya Puasa. Lagu-lagu ini datangnya bermusim. Bila habis Hari Raya hilanglah lagu selamat Hari Raya. Begitu jugalah lagu nyanyian Najib.

Tidak ada modal lain selain dari meminta rakyat dan orang Melayu khususnya untuk berterima kasih kepada BN dan mengenang jasa-jasa pemimpin-pemimpin terdahulu seperti Tunku Abdul Rahman, Tun Razak, Tun Hussein Onn, Dr Mahathir serta Abdullah Ahmad Badawi. Najib menggunakan nama-nama pemimpin yang terdahulu sebagai “testimonial” untuk mendapatkan sokongan yang berterusan dari rakyat. Najib dan Umno pimpinannya sedang kepanasan kerana dalil-dalil yang jelas telah dilihat yang BN akan menghadapi pilihanraya yang paling getir dalam sejarah negara merdeka kita.

Tetapi Najib tidak pula nampak yang “testimonial” nama-nama pemimpin yang disebut beliau itu tidak boleh meyakinkan rakyat untuk menerimanya bulat-bulat. Setidak-tidaknya dua dari nama yang disebutnya itu tidak berada didalam Umno semasa mereka meninggal dunia. Tunku Abdul Rahman sehingga akhir hayat beliau tidak mahu menyertai Umno kerana parti itu tidak lagi mempunyai “attribute” sebagai parti yang mempunyai intregiriti untuk memerintah. Begitu juga Hussein Onn. Kedua-dua bekas pemimpin besar Umno ini tidak mahu menyertai Umno sama sekali.

Oleh itu, “testimonial” yang mana satu yang harus dihormati oleh orang Melayu sekarang? Adakah perlu menghormati “testimonial” Tunku Abdul Rahman dan Hussein Onn atau “testimonial” pemimpin-pemimpin selepas mereka ini? Agak-agaknya “testimonial” yang mana yang lebih berintregriti dan mempunyai rekod yang bersih?

Isu ini penting kerana kedua-dua pemimpin ini telah begitu jelas menunjukkan pendirian yang tidak secocok dengan Umno. Kalau kita hendak mengenang jasa pemimpin-pemimpin terulung negara ini maka kita wajar memilih untuk bersama dengan pendirian mereka. Penentangan mereka terhadap Umno itu tentunya berkait dengan perjuangan mereka untuk siasah rakyat khususnya untuk orang Melayu.

Kalau Tunku dan Hussein tidak lagi berselera dengan Umno sehingga akhir hayat mereka, bagaimana kita semua mempunyai selera dengan parti ini? — aspanaliasnet.blogspot.com

                This entry was posted on Monday, 23 April 2012, 11:53 am and is filed under
Elections
,
Najib Razak
,
UMNO
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


The death of civil liberties

by
Malik Imtiaz Sarwar

Though the Government has said much about the repeal of the infamous Internal Security Act, little has been said to explain how its so-called replacement, the Security Offences (Special Measures) Bill (SOA), will impact on our lives. Even less has been said about the bill tabled to amend the Penal Code that went hand in hand with the SOA. I think there was a reason for this.

To say that the two bills are draconian would be a gross understatement. They brutally curtail the constitutional freedom of Malaysians to dissent. It seems that we have been made the victims of a sleight of hand. While we were being distracted by the song and dance that attended the termination of the ISA, Parliament was being harnessed to diabolical purpose. The passing of the two bills has sounded the death knell of civil liberties.

I am not given to hyperbole. The facts speak for themselves.

The SOA is more a procedural instrument. It puts in place the legal framework for the investigation and prosecution of what are described as “security offences”. It allows for the kinds of invasive measures that we have come to understand are needed for governments to combat terrorism effectively.  Government tells us that terrorism is the raison d’etre of the legislation.

The SOA could arguably be justified on this basis, though I question the need for such extreme anti-terrorism legislation in light of our not having been subjected to terrorist attacks or even threats. Curiously, the preamble to the SOA states that action has been taken and further action is threatened by a body of persons both inside and outside Malaysia to cause organized violence against Malaysians, to excite disaffection against the Yang di-Pertuan Agong and to procure the alteration though unlawful means of legal institutions in the nation. This is news to me. These are matters of great significance to us; they suggest that we are virtually in a state of war or that we are in the midst of an insurgency.

The truth of the matter is that we have not been made the subject of such scurrilous action and we have not been threatened with such action. The bill recites this so the Government can invoke a provision of the Federal Constitution, Article 149, that allows for Parliament to enact laws that contravene certain constitutional guarantees including those that prohibit detention without trial and guarantee a fair trial. The SOA allows, amongst other things, detention without trial for a period of twenty-eight days, and empowers the Attorney General to take extraordinary measures including the interception of all forms of communication where he has reason to believe a Security Offence (this is explained below) has been committed.

We should not lose sight of the fact that the ISA was enacted under Article 149 to address the guerrilla insurgency we faced in the 1960s. I have been made to understand that the Opposition’s unwillingness to associate with an obvious untruth is one of the main reasons it does not support the bill. The fact that Government has resorted to Article 149 gives credence to suggestions that the ISA has merely been repackaged and that the Government is not ready to give up the political advantages that such legislation gives it. As one Minister has observed, there were abuses under the ISA and no law is beyond abuse.

The SOA could perhaps be stomached if it was confined to terrorism. It however is not. In fact there is no mention of the word terrorism or terrorist in the legislation at all. Instead the SOA applies to what is referred to as “Security Offences” which is defined by newly introduced offences, hence the amendments to the Penal Code. This is where the real evil is.

The new offences fall within three categories: activity detrimental to Parliamentary democracy, espionage and sabotage. What is immediately apparent is that the three offences, and the various permutations the amendments allow for, are so widely defined so as to capture almost any form of conduct deemed undesirable by the powers that be. This is extremely alarming in light of trends on the part of the authorities where civil liberties are concerned.

Take the offence of activity detrimental to parliamentary democracy.  It is defined to mean “an activity carried out by a person or group of persons designed to overthrow or
undermine parliamentary democracy
  by violent or
unconstitutional means
”. This is worry in light of the way in which we have heard accusations of unconstitutional behaviour being hurled at diverse persons from opposition members to activists. Consider also the way in which the members of Parti Sosialis Malaysia were arrested prior to the Bersih 2.0 demonstration last year for the alleged offence of “waging war” against the Yang di-Pertuan Agong.

This point is further illustrated by the offence of “possession of documents and publications detrimental to parliamentary democracy” which carries a jail term of up to ten years. This offence is defined to include documents or publications that have a tendency to, amongst other things, counsel disobedience to the law pertaining to public order. It would clearly impact of demonstrations like those organised by Bersih 2.0 and other activist groups which were deemed by the police to be unlawful. Under this offence, any notices concerning such an event would be a document or publication detrimental to parliamentary democracy.

It does not stop there. Such offending documents or publications include any invitation or request for contributions or donations for the use of persons who counsel disobedience to the law, amongst others. Persons receiving such offending documents or publications are required now to deliver the same to a police officer failing which that person may be convicted and sentenced to a jail term of ten years as well. This would be the case if those offending documents or publications were republished. So, the net would widen to include any bloggers who author or publish material deemed undesirable.

In the same vein, espionage means “an activity to obtain sensitive information by ulterior or illegal means for the purpose that is prejudicial to the security or interest of Malaysia”. What that means is not clear. “Sensitive information” is defined to include any information that concerns, amongst other things, public order and the “essential public interest of Malaysia”. The scope of these provisions become a little clearer when we consider how it is our leadership has a tendency to label activities detrimental to its political standing as being aimed at undermining the Government. It seems to me that whistleblowers might also be caught by this provision as well, a point worth noting in light of the numerous scandals the Opposition have been disclosing recently.

I could go on but the point has, I think, been demonstrated. The scope of these offences leaves no room for doubt. They are self-evidently geared towards far more than terrorism.  The question I have is this: why has the Government led us to believe that these laws are intended to combat terrorism when in fact they do far more. Parliament has created a monstrous law that defies legal logic as much as it flies in the face of promise of reforms towards a more inclusive and participatory democracy.

Malik Imtiaz Sarwar is a practising lawyer and the President of the National Human Rights Society (HAKAM)

                This entry was posted on Monday, 23 April 2012, 12:47 pm and is filed under
Constitution
,
Human Rights
,
ISA
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Umno’s looming end

 — Sakmongkol AK47

The Malaysian Insider

Apr 22, 2012

APRIL 22 — It is already happening. The people in the mainstream media and “mainstream new media” do not have a clue about what is happening. They are seeing ghosts at every corner. Umno is in total disarray. In desperate times, Umno resorts to desperate measures.

Umno knows the Malay mindset. They know Malays have this addiction to horror stories, sex and other bizarre tales. That is why readership of the Mastika Magazine far outstrips that of Utusan Malaysia. In Utusan Malaysia, only two pieces of news are true; (1) the Islamic prayer times and (2) 4-digit numbers. Can it be that more Malays now patronise the gaming shops? Everything else in Utusan is deceit.

So, now, they concentrate on the horror of horrors — all else will die with the demise of Umno. The hard truth is, if Umno dies, the ones who will suffer most will be the parasitic leeches and the anointed rent-seekers, the licensed rajahs, the ones given licences to plunder, and the corrupt politicians. It’s the end of civilisation, but it’s the end of the plundering civilisation as Umno knows it.

Let me hasten to comfort Malays and Malaysians; nobody dies if Umno goes under. Especially not the Malays. The tide and ebb of Malays do not absolutely depend on Umno. We progress through education and through our efforts.

The government, any government, is merely an instrument by and through which we achieve common objectives for the public good. We are done with a government that sets one section of the citizenry against another section of the rakyat based on religion and race. And we must kick out a government that declares war on us but embraces lovingly abuse of power, corruption and thievery.

Malays will liberate their minds from the yoke of the unholy alliance between the feudalists and Malay bourgeoisie. By the Malay bourgeoisie I mean the class of Malays who have misappropriated the wealth creation means of this country through their hold on political power and impoverished the people in that process.

All they can see are overtures by some political parties courting some former political personalities into their fold. Hence, we hear news that PKR is courting some former Umno heavyweights and PAS is inviting some former high-ranking government officers to contest under their banner in the next general elections. That is only the beginning.

The entry of these people isn’t a cause for worry, the Umno men say. These are washed-up individuals and frustrated people. We like it when they regard us like that, because then, it will not be a problem contesting against us in the coming election.

Why is there, for instance, so much fuss about Kadir Sheikh Fadhir standing for elections on PAS ticket? It’s a case of having a big ago, opined one of his brothers.

I met Kadir some time ago; he told me he loved Umno. He has been a member since 1950s. For a person to disown Umno after being a member for a long time suggests some extraordinary changes in the character of either Umno or Kadir.

Kadir hasn’t changed. He’s still that flamboyant with a bon vivant air about him. Look at his vehicles, his houses and his immaculate dressing style. His office at the Mines is immaculately furnished. So his willingness to give up Umno isn’t because for want of material things. He has all that.

It’s Umno that has transformed into an ogre beyond recognition. It’s the blatant, rampant and monumental corruption. Kadir isn’t claiming that Umno is pristine during his time. But there was a sense of self restraint and a check on unbridled self-aggrandisement. The current Umno has lost all sense of proportion. It has now imposed itself on the peoples of Malaysia as a humongous thieving machinery.

It will be interesting to see what the mainstream conventional and new media make their stories out as. Will they describe these men as political relics, worn-out former government officers and in other uncomplimentary terms?

The pieces of the jigsaw puzzle are slowly coming into place. Umno and Barisan Nasional are on the way out. The 3.7 million Malays who did not vote and support Umno in 2008 are not coming back in droves to Umno despite the millions and millions paid out to them.

The number of one-minute Malaysian citizens given Mykads and the rights to vote are not going to be enough to cancel out the over one million Umno members who have crossed over to the light-side and the over two million ordinary Malay citizens who rejected Umno. They are tired of Umno’s hypocrisy and lies.

The Chinese have already made up their minds since 2008. They are not supporting Umno and BN. MCA is losing their minds thinking about the DAP strategy of putting up DAP generals in Johor. Ong Ka Ting suggests for a certain DAP leader to contest in his own seat because Ka Ting is not confident of retaining his own seat.

The remaining Umno people who remain within the dark-side are fools anyway.

Yet this is a party that is big on moral issues and because it’s trying to live up to this clean moral image, has been flooding the Malay mind over the last 15 years with pornographic tales about sodomy, bisexual tales and the size of a certain politician’s penis. The Malay mind is so warped and it’s waiting to be liberated.

But for now, let us continue the myth about Umno’s legitimacy.

Does Umno actually look out after Malays? Umno has always been denominational in the worse sense; I guess that is the only word and term I can use on Umno. Umno looks after a small section of the Malays lucky enough to be born with the right family name close enough to be in the fraternity of cronies and sycophants. As to the rest of the Malays, they are just digits.

Umno is now selling the three myths that are the bedrock on which its survival depends:

1) Umno is necessary for the survival of Malays,

2) Umno is necessary for the survival of Islam, and

3) Umno is necessary to ensure the continuation of the institution of the Malay rulers.

What does it do, then, when everything else failed? Nobody is going to be fooled anymore that only Umno can bring development to the country. Communist regimes also carry out economic development. So, the politics of development isn’t going to work anymore because all governments carry out some form of development. It’s now no longer open for Umno to say only it is capable of bringing development for the country.

Let’s face it. Out of the top five states with the highest foreign direct investment, three are Pakatan Rakyat states. Sarawak does not even have Umno over there. So its achievement is solely brought about the chief minister of Sarawak, Taib Mahmud.

So, Najib hasn’t got a wonderful track record to speak of when he made that boast in Selangor asking the people to judge him on his track record and his big ideas.

What track record and what big ideas?  — sakmongkol.blogspot.com

                This entry was posted on Monday, 23 April 2012, 11:41 am and is filed under
Elections
,
Najib Razak
,
UMNO
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


How do you discern?

— May Chee Chook Ying

The Malaysian Insider

April 24, 2012

APRIL 24 — What do you pray for when you pray, as when you speak to God? I was educated in a convent. So, from young I was “exposed” to the Catholic faith. So, I learnt how to pray, at least I think I know how to pray. Apart from the set prayers, I learnt how to talk to God.

My first and only gift I’ve asked from God since my primary years has been this — a conscience. A heavy conscience can be so inconvenient but that was what I asked for and that was what I got. I asked for it, so to speak!

So, what’s a conscience? The Oxford dictionary defines a conscience as a moral sense of right and wrong. I guess it means that when you have a conscience, simply put, you do know when you are doing right or wrong. When it’s right, you feel good and liberated. When it’s wrong, you feel lousy and imprisoned by guilt, fear, doubts, etc.

Please bear with me when I speak of conscience from the viewpoint of a Catholic. The size of the world depends on your conscience. Conscience can make the world bigger or smaller. It was the Lord Himself who said this: Two men can look at the “lily in the field” and the one sees more than the other. The first sees the stem and the petals of the flower. The second sees this and something beyond: the Providence of the Father who clothes it more magnificently than “Solomon in all his regalia”.

For the second man, his conscience is something more than a “still, small voice” at the back of his head. His world is bigger and he is too big a person to be crippled by the chilling fear of punishment when he does wrong or a feeling of guilt when he dares to be unconventional. Such a man can see the whole stage and not just part of the scenery. His conscience is what we, Catholics, call “the Vision of the Whole”.

In today’s “specialist” world, one is cautioned not to be a Jack of all trades and master of none. Contemporary man is, therefore, forced to be small-minded. And this, because we are men of our time, can constitute a real danger to our quality of life. When we begin to look at the world through a microscope, we soon become prey to childish fears and anxieties. We become too scared to step out of line, to stand up and be counted, because we imagine ourselves to be alone.

But we are not alone. We are a far cry from being alone! As long as it is the right thing to do, we are never alone. I know it’s always easier to chicken out and it’s really hard to do the right thing and take the road less travelled. But I believe there are many people out there with a conscience. People who want to do the right thing. People who know right from wrong. People who can discern.

So, how do you discern? Discernment is said to be the ability to distinguish the contradictory desires prompted by the spirit and the flesh. It is the capacity in the changing circumstances of daily life to distinguish between the two paths or modes of living, and to choose the path that leads to life. So, if you can discern, it’s a good thing. Because you would be free to live the life you can; the life you should, with dignity.

I’m not writing this for those who can already discern. I’m appealing to those who are ignoring their conscience; perhaps those who still want to stay captive under their “tempurungs”. Or perhaps for those who have so far lived their life according to a disordered vanity and self-centred desire to achieve only for himself and his own good. Such achievements are only short-lived delights. How much can you wear? How much can you eat? How many bling-blings do you need to adorn yourself? How comfortable should your home be? How many places do you want to visit? To climb every mountain? To cross every ocean? To have it all and yet, nothing really, at all?

How do you sleep at night, knowing that either you are part of the injustice being perpetrated or ignoring the fact that there’s gross injustice happening before your eyes? Burying your head in the sand is not a solution!

There are good people and there are bad people everywhere. I believe there are good people, too, in the ruling party, in the government and in the civil service. And among you who have been shielding your eyes from the glare of injustice. You know what’s happening. Do you know what’s going to happen to your children, soon enough?  Do you know what kind of a country you will leave behind for your children? What do you say when you pray? How do you make an account of what you have done or for what you have failed to do? Can you look into your children’s eyes and say, “My conscience is clear?”

I know I’m being lofty. Only because I’m hopeful that among you people out there, there’s still an iota of decency left in you. That you still have a conscience. That you still can discern. Please do the right thing and push for change. Malaysia needs a change. Malaysia needs a chance. A chance to be true to herself. To king, country and God.

Last but not least, “Happy are your eyes because they see, your ears because they hear.” Happiness is yours for the taking. Push for change. See you at Dataran, let’s “Jom, Duduk Bantah”.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 24 April 2012, 10:44 pm and is filed under
Bersih
,
Elections
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


How to steal an election

— Faizal Tajuddin

The Malaysian Insider

Apr 23, 2012

APRIL 23 — Step One: Pretend you’re reforming and making changes. For the better, of course. And make sure people notice it, and to make doubly sure they don’t forget, don’t make the changes too early. Do it late. Very late. A month or two before General Election late. Then you can appear on mass media and go “See? See? It was a struggle and a sacrifice and it was tough but we did it for you. For the people!”

Step Two: Real reform can be dangerous. Especially if one is too comfortable holding on to power. The power is practically a permanent mandate now. An entitlement. And real changes might mean you’d lose that power. So don’t really change anything, appear to change something. A little bit of window dressing or a new coat of paint, something along the lines of: Telling people you’re going to scrap the ISA, but then replace it with something just as nasty. Or tell people they can protest peacefully now, no need for permits, freedom of assembly is upheld etc, blah blah blah, but then designate practically everywhere as non-assembly zones.

Step Three: Really change something. Only this time, something of benefit for powers that be and not for people, then slip in that tiny, innocuous real game-changer along with the big pronouncements and make the necessary amendments at the parliament. Rush all those bills in one day, get it all done and announce it to the media. With any luck, everybody would concentrate on the big public relations “reforms” and ignore that one tiny innocuous nothingness that really changes a whole lot.

Step Four: Celebrate. You just won the election again.

What is that tiny innocuous nothingness that could be an election decider? Just a small amendment to the election law, that’s all.

The midnight rush to pass eight bills should really raise an alarm. That was pretty telltale that something was not right. While the MPs were groggy and caught completely unaware, the bills were passed and it was only the day after that the Bersih committee noticed it and called a press conference to announce the matter. It was a really big deal, and the Bersih committee didn’t mince their words and inform everybody present just what a Big Deal the amendment to the Election Offences Act 1954 was, only to be received by very little coverage by the press.

Well what are the electoral amendments really?

One has got to do with the campaigning period. Previously during the campaign period, all printed materials must have names and addresses of its printer and publisher. The amendment has deleted this particular provision, paving a way for potentially a very dirty campaigning period. Now anybody could print anything at all, defamatory, sexist and racist remarks or whatever allegations they’d want to throw anonymously with zero consequence.

The rest of the amendments have to do with the process on the polling day itself, and these amendments could really decide the election due to a severe lack of transparency the changes introduced and the window of opportunity for serious electoral fraud to happen.

The biggest concern for a fair election in Malaysia was usually due to the phantom voters. A sudden swell on the electoral roll on the EC list, alongside the bussing-in of voters from other districts is what we usually hear about. Phantom voters are not easy to detect on polling day, and the new amendment made it practically impossible.

Previously, party agents are allowed to check on the identity of voters outside of 50 metres perimeter of the polling centres. That provision has now been deleted and now party agents can no longer check the identity of voters anywhere in the constituency.  It was hard enough to check the identity of voters in the previous provision. Now it’s impossible. There’s also a new provision where previously, people other than polling staff and EC officials can’t be anywhere within 50 metres of the polling centres. The new provisions changed the 50 metres perimeter into 100 metres perimeter. You need to have a pair of military binoculars to observe what’s going on in the polling centres at that range. Which ties in with the most sinister of the amendments made thus far.

The latest amendment introduced an even bigger concern, which is the high probability of ballot box stuffing due to the absence of party/candidates agents in the polling station themselves.

The fine print says that candidates’ agents are only allowed at the polling booths at the EC’s stipulated time. Not only does phantom voters go unchecked with the new amendment, non-existing observers or party agents in the polling station makes it possible for electoral frauds to happen on polling day, in broad daylight, in all the polling stations. The ballot box would be left unattended and unmonitored, as the new amendment only allows party agents to observe at the EC’s discretion and we don’t know how long agents are allowed to observe under that stipulated time. That leaves only the EC officials and polling staff with the ballot box in the polling stations probably for hours on end with no party agents or observers to pick up discrepancies. The excuse given was to avoid overcrowding in the polling centres, which is a ridiculous excuse. Malaysian classrooms (which are turned into polling centres) fit 20-40 students on average. The number of people including the presiding officer, polling staff, party agents and observers if they’re allowed in the polling centres (as they should) at all times wouldn’t even exceed 10 people.

Even if the number exceeded 40 people, the need for a transparent electoral process overrides petty considerations such as overcrowding. Not allowing any other observers other than EC officials to be in the polling centres provide a huge window of opportunity for fraudulent practices. Who would be able to see if ballot boxes were stuffed with ballots voting a certain way? Couple that with the new 100 metres perimeter no-go zone, and the polling centres have now been turned into a zone where electoral ballots conjuring tricks could happen and the hope of Malaysian electorates for a fair election is snuffed.

A fair and transparent election would mean that every step of the process in the election period is completely transparent and can be scrutinised by all stakeholders.

From a fair campaigning period to the opening of the poll where the ballot boxes are sealed right in front of stakeholders, to the voting process and all the way to the closing of the poll and the counting process. Every step of the way can be observed not only to avoid fraudulent practices but also to ensure the confidence of the public that the Election Commission is absolutely neutral in running the election. That is why practically every election in the world would have domestic and international observers monitoring each step of the process, not only to avoid or minimise electoral frauds, but to reassure the public that the EC is doing their job independently. Practically every country in the world allows observers with few exceptions.

The presence of international and domestic observers goes a long way in improving the public’s perception that the electoral process is absolutely transparent. Not allowing them only shows that the Election Commission has got something to hide.

Would it be a stretch to say the election has already been decided now that the amendment for the bill of the election act has been passed? Certainly the amendment allows a big gaping window of opportunity for major electoral frauds to happen. It’s the Election Commission’s job to ensure that none of this is supposed to happen. In fact, to ensure and project transparency to the public who is the biggest stakeholder in the electoral process is the primary job for the Election Commission, and a serious breach of trust was committed when the bill passed with little debate and likely escaping the notice of the Parliamentary Select Committee too.

At this stage one has to wonder — whose interest is the Election Commission protecting here? Certainly not that of the Malaysian public or these amendments would never have come to pass. Instead of being more transparent in the running of the election, the EC only severely restrict it at the eleventh hour right before the General Election. This is hands down the biggest screw job the EC has committed on the Malaysian public practically weeks before election. It raises tenfold the perception that the EC colludes with the ruling regime to retain power at whatever cost and erases any little shred of confidence the public might have on the Election Commission.

Does Malaysian EC even project a sense of fair play in the running of election thus far? When even Afghanistan’s election seems much more free and fair in comparison to us, the Malaysian public should really be worried. Not because Afghanistan’s election is rigged, but because the Election Commission in a country where democracy is a pretty new concept and even after 30 years of Taliban rule, civil war and occupation by Russia, the Afghan’s EC tries to conduct the election as fairly and project themselves as fairly as they could to their own population. So what’s the Malaysian EC’s excuse?

If nothing changes in whatever little time is left before the General Election is called, it’s not a stretch to say that the election has been won.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 24 April 2012, 8:28 am and is filed under
Bersih
,
Elections
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Peaceful transition of power: Open letter to all political parties

by Dr Lim Teck Ghee

CPI

Tuesday, 24 April 2012

With the general election imminent, one key question remains yet unanswered: Will the Barisan Nasional respect the outcome of the polls and ensure a peaceful transition of power?

This is the sixty four thousand dollar sensitive question – unasked in our repressed mass media, largely unexplored by political analysts, never-to-be-publicly wondered but lurking in the mind of many concerned Malaysians.

One exception to the unwritten rule of never posing such a politically incorrect question took place in a private lunch talk organized by the Royal Selangor Club (RSC) for its members early this year. The January 12 event featuring Prime Minister Najib Razak as speaker had attracted an audience of more than 200.

An RSC member (who identified himself as the son of a former long-serving staff of Najib’s father, the late Tun Abdul Razak Hussein) asked the following towards the end of the talk:

“Mr Prime Minister, would you make the transition of the government for Pakatan a smooth one if the opposition wins the next general election?”

According to some of those present, after some hesitation the prime minister responded: “I do not have to answer that question” or words to that effect; following which he abruptly left, ostensibly for another function.

Why did the Prime Minister not respond?

The PM may have felt that he was not able to answer the question for several reasons.

One, he may have lost his wits after being completely taken off guard.

Two, he may not be able to guarantee a peaceful transition of power despite being personally willing to concede should the electoral outcome favour the opposition.

Three, he himself may not be inclined to permit a peaceful transition of power.

Historical record on power transition

Most people are aware that the BN, and earlier, the Alliance parties, have a long, unblemished and unsurpassed record of manipulating the election results through constitutional and other means.  This is why they have remained in power for over 50 years.

Aficionados of the prowess of the ruling coalition in cooking the election results are often rapturous recalling the systematic manipulation of the electoral rolls, malapportionment and gerrymandering of constituency boundaries, control of the media, and a long list of other unfair and exploitative practices, including tampering with the constitution.

Even Dr Mahathir Mohamed in 1970 before he became prime minister was moved to write in The Malay Dilemma: “The manner, the frequency and the trivial reasons for altering the constitution reduced this supreme law of the nation to a useless scrap of paper”.

During several periods of our history of state and federal elections, we have also seen how the Alliance and BN parties have resorted to their trump card of using dubious ‘constitutional’ means to remain in power.

PM’s public assurance needed

Several months after that disconcerting encounter at the RSC, Najib and his senior Barisan colleagues again have the opportunity to answer that question and put to rest any doubts about a peaceful transition of power and regime change.

We have seen that the latest electoral reform initiative for fair and clean elections has been hijacked for the purpose of scoring political points for the incumbents ahead of the coming elections so that true electoral reform still remains a mirage.

Although the odds are in favour of a BN victory, it is important that the ruling coalition provides the assurance – before Malaysians go to the polls – that if the unthinkable happens and they are defeated, Najib and his Umno men will respect the outcome and ensure a peaceful transition of power.

In 1971 following his assumption of power through emergency rule, Tun Razak noted that “So long as the form [of democracy] is preserved, the substance can be changed to suit conditions of a particular country…”

Whether Najib could possibly tread in his father’s footsteps and we might see history repeat itself in the imposition of some form of emergency rule following (or even preceding) the 13th general election is one which needs to be clarified publicly and unequivocally.

Respecting the Constitution

It needs to be stressed that our Federal Constitution is clear on the right of Malaysians to elect a government of their choice in a free and fair election. Upon the dissolution of Parliament, it becomes the fundamental, legal and constitutional duty of the caretaker prime minister, Najib Razak, to respect and obey the supreme law of the land.

Not providing an answer to assure the public that the supreme law of the land will be respected may be construed as a serious constitutional offence.

Should the reassurance not be provided before the election takes place, Malaysians have the right to question the moral and constitutional fitness of the serving PM and his party.

Finally, it would be doubly reassuring if the head of the military and the police can reinforce the prime minister’s statement on the peaceful transition of power and pledge that they will serve the country regardless of which political party is at the helm.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 24 April 2012, 7:50 pm and is filed under
Elections
,
Lim Teck Ghee
,
Najib Razak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


PTPTN loan is good, but …

— Stephen Ng

The Malaysian Insider

Apr 24, 2012

APRIL 24 — It was on November 1, 1997 when the National Higher Education Loan (PTPTN) scheme started giving out loans. At that point in time, private colleges were starting to bloom, and foreign universities such as Monash University and Nottingham University were also invited to set up their campuses in Malaysia.

The PTPTN was created to be a rolling fund to provide loans to students who could not afford tertiary education, because very few banks in those days were willing to provide the loans. Even banks were charging higher interest fees for students who opted for the loans compared to the PTPTN.

Besides, the cost of private education is higher than that offered by the public sector. This is understandable, because they are linked with international universities and were catering to a generation of students who would have otherwise opted to go overseas. There was also no government funding to make available teaching equipment in these private universities.

I remember former Health Minister Dr Chua Soi Lek visiting a medical faculty in a private college. He made such a big fuss, complaining that the facilities for the newly set up medical faculty were not on par with the public universities. In my heart, I asked: “In the first place, how much has the government provided in soft loans to these private colleges?” Dr Chua, of course, never helped to fight for government funding to boost private education sector.

As I see it now, with the exception of certain colleges, the private education sector has in fact met the aspirations of the young people of Malaysia. Because of the PTPTN, many students have been able to pursue their education. Otherwise, they would not have been able to continue their education overseas, or even locally in the public universities due to the quota system.

My question therefore is why is the PTPTN now the subject of ridicule?

The more I think about it, the more I see the reason for the student protest. When I reflect over the current development where students and graduates are now protesting against the PTPTN, I think the grouse does not only lie with the fault of the PTPTN.

I see it as the students’ failure to communicate their grouses more effectively to fellow Malaysians. The way I look at it, I can now summarise for them in a few points:

● The standard of public universities has indeed dropped so low over the years that parents are reluctant these days to send their kids to pursue their degree in any of the public universities. They rather send their children to Singapore than to place them in a local public university.

● Because of this vacuum created in public tertiary education, the private education sector has indeed seen tremendous growth over the years. Some of these colleges continue to expand and make tonnes of money, while others have consolidated their positions and set up foundations to manage the institutions for perpetuity sake. This is where profits are being pumped back into the institutions.

● The fact that the younger generation is left to fend for themselves is what I believe the young people are sore about with the BN government. While the burden is now shifted from the parents, it is the children who have to pay the loan. Upon getting a job, the first loan that they have to service is the PTPTN loan! Don’t you think this is scary for the young ones?

● An average fresh graduate in the job market will have three big loans hanging around his neck: (a) bank loan for a car (b) bank loan for a house or apartment to set up a family (c) the PTPTN loan, which is not even tax deductible. Besides, their salaries are not any better than their counterparts in Singapore.

● While they are suffering, we are watching how taxpayers’ money is going into a black hole. Just a good example, we do not see the government making serious efforts to recover RM250 million from the failed project owned by the family of Shahrizat Jalil. And the latest news report involving Nedim Nazri, son of a minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, who was driving around in a sports car. Plus, Tajudin Ramli’s debt that was written off by the government.

I see much of what’s happening today has its roots in the era of Dr Mahathir Mohamad. He has created a culture that is hard to unwind. Even the PTPTN chief has failed to see the young people’s viewpoint, thinking that the PTPTN has indeed done a great favour for the nation, when what could have been better was for the government to spend taxpayers’ money on human capital development.

Good quality education is a better investment for the future of our country. If we cannot even invest in the education of our young Malaysians, where would be head towards as a nation?

As PKR strategist Rafizi Ramli had said, it only takes an additional RM2 billion from Petronas money to invest in the human capital development of young Malaysians.

Therefore, young Malaysians, I am with you.

* Stephen Ng reads The Malaysian Insider. He has some experience in the private education sector.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 24 April 2012, 9:59 pm and is filed under
Education
,
university
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Reforming Education: Post-Form Five Options

by M. Bakri Musa

(Fifth of Six Parts)

In the previous four essays I reviewed the particular challenges facing students in rural and residential schools. This essay delves into the six-month period in which our university-bound and other students find themselves in academic limbo following their Sijil Persekutuan Malaysia (SPM) examination.

            In reviewing the recent SPM results, Education Minister Muhyiddin did not once pause to ponder what those nearly half a million 17-year-old Malaysians were doing since they sat for their test last November. These are the youngsters infesting our shopping malls, roaring around on their motorcycles, or otherwise getting into mischief. For over six months they are unable to plan for their future. They cannot even enjoy their break as their future is uncertain. The government’s myriad post-SPM programs like Sixth Form, matrikulasi, polytechnic institutes, and teachers’ colleges depend on the SPM scores, and therefore do not begin until the middle of the year.

            This long period of uncertainty and inactivity during a critical period in a teenager’s development is unhealthy. The expression “an idle mind is a devil’s workshop” is never more true than for teenagers. Even if they could ward off the devil’s machination, with the long hiatus would come considerable attrition of knowledge and good study habits. This is particularly critical for those aspiring to go to good universities.

            Those parents who can afford it, had planned for it, or who are not in the habit of depending on the government, enroll their children in the many excellent private programs immediately in January following the SPM examination. Then when the results come out, they would apply to the various government programs. If they are accepted then they would be relieved of a great financial burden. If they are not, they would continue with their private program.

            The monetary saving, even though considerable, is but a minor advantage. The greatest benefit is that should they be accepted into Sixth Form, matrikulasi, or any other public post-SPM program, they would be at least six months ahead of their classmates who had been idle. This academic advantage is even greater when you factor in the attrition of knowledge and good study habits of those who had been idle. This six-month advantage is almost insurmountable in a 12- or 18-month program (as with Sixth Form or matrikulasi), and would remain when these students go on to university.

            Most Malay families cannot afford private programs, have not planned for the six-month hiatus, or have long been dependent on the government. Thus their children are typically idle after their SPM as there is no government program that starts in January. For those who excel in their SPM and then are accepted in the government’s many university “prep” programs, they wonder why they cannot keep up with their non-Malay classmates who had been diligently studying in private programs for the past six months. Unaware of their already significant academic disadvantage from their being idle, these Malay students would then readily succumb to ugly racial stereotyping of the “dumb Malay.” I meet many of these students here in America and feel sorry for the terrible burden that they have to bear.

            Their burden is no less heavy should they enroll in local public universities. Then their Malay Vice-Chancellors and Deans would berate and chastise them for not “measuring up” with non-Malays, thus essentially aggravating and confirming the ugly racial stigma. If only those officials had diligently studied the problem and listened to those students, they (officials) would not be so quick to resort to racial stereotyping.

            As with the problems of our kampong and residential schools, the solutions here are as simple as they are obvious. Again here, as the burden falls primarily on Malays, it is critical that we resolve it.

            One solution would be to begin the various post-SPM programs like Sixth Form in January, as in the old days. Have a special entrance examination in September, in time for the results to be ready by early December. There will be another intake in late March or early April for those who were unsuccessful at the earlier entrance examination but had excelled at their SPM. This would be a separate class, with abbreviated holidays to make up for lost time.

            For those who enter in January, there would be a first term examination in early March. If they pass that, then no matter how poorly they performed in their previous SPM, they would remain in class and not be expelled, as was the practice in the 1960s. That would motivate them to pay attention to their first term test!

            We should have the original full 24-month pre-university program instead of the present highly truncated one. The objective is to not only prepare our students well for university but also to cover much of the first year’s work. Only then could we justify a three-year baccalaureate program. The added costs for starting Sixth Form in January would be minimal. After all, the teachers are already being paid. Indeed, a good question to ask would be what are those teachers doing from January to June?

            Fully resurrecting Sixth Form in its original form without addressing its many shortcomings would be no advance. The old Sixth Form was too selective; fewer than 10 percent of my classmates made the cut. Related to this was the second problem; the not unexpected overrepresentation from the better-equipped urban schools. As the urban/rural divide then also paralleled the racial one, it did not take long for the issue to be exploited by chauvinistic politicians. The third issue was that the old (and also the present) Sixth Form was its narrow and rigid curriculum.

            The first problem is readily solvable by simply expanding Sixth Form. That would also be cheaper than expanding matrikulasi or the various universities’ “foundation studies” programs. That in turn is of several orders in magnitude cheaper than the current idiotic practice of sending students abroad after their SPM to pursue essentially Sixth Form work.

            If we were to continue with matrikulasi I would restrict the intake to students from kampong and other schools too small to have their own Sixth Form. Matrikulasi should supplement not replace Sixth Form, as was the original intent. I would have the universities run matrikulasi or have it subsumed under their Foundation Studies program. Each university would then have the opportunity to design its own curriculum and introduce innovations and other unique elements with the idea of the government adopting some of the more successful ones nationally into its Sixth Form. Such a program would also be a resource to the universities’ education faculty and teacher-training program.

            I would broaden the Sixth Form curriculum from the current five subjects to seven, and eliminate General Studies. All students would have to take Malay and English (not Malay or English literature, as those would be separate subjects). Arts and Islamic stream students would take as electives a laboratory science and mathematics, together with their three Arts or Islamic Studies core subjects. Science students would take an Arts elective, mathematics (preferably calculus or statistics), and their three science subjects. I would teach science and mathematics in English, and abolish the current Islamic stream’s Sijil Tinggi Agama Malaysia (STAM). Its curriculum is even narrower and more rigid; it does not serve our students well.

            I would introduce a new elective for arts and science students, Islamic Studies. It would be an academic not religious subject, and cover Islamic thoughts, philosophy, arts and culture but minus the religious rituals and Koranic recitations. The course would treat Prophet Muhammad, pbuh, as a great historical figure. This would attract those non-Muslims with the intellectual curiosity to study Islam without fear of being treated as potential converts.

            Instead of tinkering with the current Sixth Form examination, as with making the term examinations count towards the final as per the current proposal, I would retain its present form as a comprehensive terminal examination.   Instead I would give equal weight to the term examinations (the Grade Point Average) for university admissions and other academic purposes.

            We currently pay too much attention to SPM. It is after all essentially a middle school examination. When the results are released for example, there will inevitably be a national outcry over alleged unfairness in the awards of scholarships. Those SPM students awarded the scholarships could not enroll directly to university or even a community college; they would have to undergo the equivalent of matriculation or Sixth Form first. So why not wait until these students are actually accepted to top universities before awarding them their scholarships? Besides, at this stage in our national development, we should be focusing on graduate, not undergraduate and certainly not scholarships for matriculation.

            If we do award undergraduate scholarships, they should be tenable only at the top universities. In America there would be fewer than 50 such institutions, with about half a dozen each in Australia, Britain and Canada. I certainly would not award scholarships for studies in India, Indonesia, the Middle East, and Eastern Europe.

            Our university-bound students must have solid 13 years of rigorous schooling. Do away with the present six months of idleness following SPM. Expand and diversify the paths towards university post-SPM, as with accepting IB, GCE A level, and other foreign matriculation examinations.

            Lastly, an important point worth repeating as it is in keeping with the theme of my earlier essays. Those students who are in limbo for six months following their SPM examination, as well as those in kampong, residential and religious schools are overwhelmingly if not exclusively Malays. Solve their problems, which are independent of race, and we would go a long way towards ameliorating the so-called “Malay problem” of lagging educational achievement. That alone should excite those in Perkasa, UMNO, and other vociferous champions of Ketuanan Melayu.

Next:   Last of Six Parts: Futility of Reform

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 24 April 2012, 8:32 am and is filed under
Bakri Musa
,
Education
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.