Missing RM1.3 billion for the Penang Second Bridge.

by Richard Teo

History has an uncanny way of repeating itself. During Mahathir’s tenure as PM the construction of the North-South Expressway in 1984 was awarded to UEM (owned and controlled by UMNO) on the basis of a design-build-finance and operate concept.

Although the lowest tender bid was $3.2 billion, UEM was awarded the contract. Prior to completion,construction costs escalated to a phenomenal $6 billion. The escalated cost which normally would be borne by the turnkey contractor was underwritten by a govt soft loan.

This effectively meant that a competitive bid for a project which would cost $3.2 billion ended costing $6 billion. Presumably,the toll collection period had to be extended from an initial 15 years to 30 years to accomodate the doubling of the project cost.

The burden for the extra cost was shifted to the road users who now have to content and endure the paying of road toll for an extra 15 years (1988-2018). Later, in exchange for changing the increase in toll rate from every year to every three years, the concession period was further extended for another 12 years(2018-2030).

Had the contract awarded to the lowest bid at $3.2 billion was accepted, the govt would have saved $2.8 billion (or a shorter toll collection peiod of 15 years).

However, with its questionable practice of awarding the contract to a dubious company closely associated wih the ruling UMNO party, the ordinary citizen is bogged down with an additional period of 27 years to pay for the usage of the North-South Expressway.

Come 2007 and the cycle is about to repeat itself again with the award for the construction of the Penang second bridge. There was no tender for the project and it was speculated the bridge would cost RM2.3 billion. However, even before it got started,
NST
 June 24th reported that the bridge would now cost RM3 billion.

On 11th July, the star reported that Malaysia would secure a loan of RM1.7 billion (US$500 million) from China for the construction of the Penang second bridge. This latest  revelation demands some explanation.

Is the total loan of RM1.7 billion from the Exim bank of China represent the actual total cost of the second bridge? If it is then why was it touted by the govt that the bridge would cost RM3 billion?

Or like the NSE Expressway, the additional RM1.3 billion would eventually be structured as escalated cost to be indemnified to UEM?

When the RM1.3 billion is added to the actual cost of RM1.7 billion, the total cost of RM3 billion will be factored in as the total construction cost for the Penang second bridge. This RM3 billion will be the benchmark for determining the toll collection period extended to the concessionaire.

It was reported in the media that UEM would soon be signing a joint venture agreement with China Harbour Engineering Company (CHEC) to build the second Penang bridge. For the sake of transparency and accountability it is incumbent upon the the govt to fully disclose the nature and substance of the joint-venture agreement between the two parties so as to ensure that the Malaysian public is fully aware of the total construction cost of the second bridge.

The disclosure of the actual cost is of paramount importance because it will determine the toll collection period that will be extended to the toll concessionaire. An artificial and inflated cost would only mean extending the toll collection period to an unreasonable time frame and consequently will cause additonal financial hardship to users of the second bridge.

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 14 July 2007, 2:06 pm and is filed under
Good Governance
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


UPU appeal result – another disappointment

Email from a candidate who failed in his UPU appeal for placement in one of the public universities. How would you advise our disappointed young Malaysian?

The UPU rayuan result were out and i was expecting some good news after the 1st application where i got rejected, i checked the result this afternoon and was again dissapointed to see “Dukacita dimaklumkan bahawa anda TIDAK BERJAYA dalam Permohonan Rayuan Kemasukan ke IPTA Sesi Akademik 2007/2008”, the same thing i got at 1st where the only different thing is the additional Rayuan word there.

I’m a STPM student with CGPA 2.4 and KK marks of 7/10 (since i don’t have an excellent result, i have already chosen non popular/critical courses and even selected Sabah uni in 3 of my 8 choices, 1st, 3rd and 5th respectively) Since there are some friends who got grades lower than me got their courses (some even get 2 Ds and managed to get an offer) at the 1st application, i thought there will be a chance or at least some for me.

Failing for the 2nd time made me think whether the selection was done at random or something else where lower grades individual get the same equal chances regardless of grades. The selection were based on a person’s luck or the management at the iptas just randomly select from a pool of applicants, after this incident i suppose either 1 or both were actually the  reason why there are a batch of misfortunes like myself besides discrimination in the so called abolished quota system and etc.

Could you please shed some lights here, or with my results i shouldn’t be asking for so much and settle down with the result of today’s rayuan, please advice, thanks

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 14 July 2007, 6:43 pm and is filed under
Education
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Brickendonbury the answer to end the slaughter of  Malaysian football?

“Another bashing”

(Sunday Star)
 and
“ANOTHER HUMILIATION”

(New Sunday Times)
 — screaming headlines for Malaysia’s  5-0 thrashing by Uzbekistan in the Asian Cup Group C match yesterday after the earlier 1-5 thrashing by China.

But is Brickendonbury the answer to end the slaughter of Malaysian football — with the national Under-15 football squad leaving for London tonight, according to the following
Bernama
report yesterday:

Under-15 Squad To Train In Brickendonbury

KUALA LUMPUR, July 13 (Bernama) — The development of the national youth squad will concentrate on efforts to build up the players’ personality, exposure to training abroad and academic knowledge, said the Director of the National Sports Institute, Datuk Dr Ramlan Abd Aziz.

“Besides the focus on the aspect of training in football, emphasis will also be given to the academic and personality aspects. We want our young players who will be future professionals to have strong personality,” he said.

He disclosed this at a press conference on the training session for the Under-15 squad at the High Performance Training Centre at Brickendonbury, London from July 16 to Aug 8.

Besides undergoing training there, the squad under the guidance of Aminuddin Hussin will also participate in the Arsenal International Challenge.

The national Under-15 football squad will be the second group from the National Sports Council’s (NSC) High Performance Sports Program for football to undergo training at the centre.

Earlier, the Under-16 football team had been sent to the same centre for training in May.

Dr Ramlan said that in view of their young age and that they were still schooling, the training session at Brickendonbury also emphasised on the aspect of education. As such, several teachers would also accompany them on their trip to London.

Meanwhile, the Football Association of Malaysia’s (FAM) technical director Robert Albert noted that the boys would have the opportunity of a training session at the Arsenal Academy.

“Our intention of bringing the boys to London is to give them an international exposure since there are no major tournaments for them in the meantime here.

“At the Arsenal Academy, they will be exposed to the highest training level and the chance to use the facilities,” said Albert.

The squad comprising 22 players, four officials and three teachers will leave for London on Sunday.

So far, there has been thunderous silence from the Sports Minister and the Sports authorities on the shocking exposes by Sun journalist R. Nadeswaran early this month. A proper response will be expected from the Sports Minister in the  the next Parliament.

Nadeswaran’s two reports are reproduced below:

Citizen Nades – By R. Nadeswaran

Come clean on public money spent

Updated: 03:30PM Wed, 04 Jul 2007

Newspapers can criticise, but it must be made responsibly and aimed at correcting things. This will help the party criticised to accept them (criticisms) positively.

Leaders are only human and if there is nobody to criticise us, then we may be carried away by our positions. In a democratic system, our fate lies in the hands of the people, as such, it is best to be corrected early rather than be rejected by the people later.

– Deputy Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Abdul Razak when launching the Pahang edition of the Bahasa Malaysia tabloid, Kosmo!, November 2006

Until a year ago, many – this writer included – never knew of Brickendonbury or its significance to Malaysia. But just before last year’s World Cup finals in Germany, this small village about 65km from London was thrown into the spotlight.

theSun
 has written extensively on the proposal to create a High Performance Training Centre (HPTC) in an area which also houses the Tun Abdul Razak Research Centre (TARRC).

And over the past five weeks, we have exposed the lies and half-truths that have been conjured up to justify spending £10 million (RM 70 million) to upgrade non-existent hostels and facilities.

Criticism of this wasteful expenditure is being made responsibly and aimed at correcting things and saving taxpayers’ money.

Last year, when I first wrote to Hertford councillors who would decide on the proposals, one of them – Nicholas Wilson – replied in an e-mail: “The Tun Abdul Razak Research Centre land is deemed for research and development, it would be very hard to change the use of the existing centre and land …”

In the weeks and months that followed, I had been in touch with councillors and even local journalists.

I was at the TARRC in Brickendonbury on May 25 and May 30 and discovered that ministry officials had not been entirely honest. Allow me to put things in perspective.

Firstly, they told us that renovations would be carried out on existing hostels and facilities but there are no hostels or facilities to upgrade. Even so, the council officers say that they would only consider an application for a playing field with a small changing room.

Then they told us that the Under-16 football team would use it as a base and train with the Arsenal Academy. But as I discovered, the team did not train at the Academy, and the players stayed in a four-star hotel.

Then they said that every sen spent would be accounted for and confirmed that RM800,000 had been paid to an English architect.

However, according to council records, no plans had been submitted. After paying such a hefty sum, a new firm of architects has been appointed.

So, why did we part with this kind of money for nothing?

Every right-thinking Malaysian shares the DPM’s views that leaders can be carried away by their positions and should be open to fair criticisms.

To summarise this whole issue, we now have spent RM800,000 without a single line being drawn; we have spent an additional RM750,000 to send players to England to stay in a hotel and train on an uneven pitch at TARRC.

Also, there are no “existing” hostels to “renovate” or “upgrade”.

So, it brings us back to the basic question: Why weren’t Malaysians told of these and other material facts which are likely to emerge in the near future?

Rumours had been circulating that a “Malaysian middleman company” had been appointed as “project consultants” but the then director-general of the National Sports Council, Datuk Dr Ramlan Abdul Aziz, categorically told colleague Terence Fernendez and me in an interview that “no outsiders were

involved” and that he was in “the thick of things”.

Maybe he is not in the thick of things anymore as Ramlan has moved to the National Sports Institute, but as late as June 2, he has issued statements on the HPTC.

But now, the said rumour has surfaced yet again, with some quarters claiming that the previous architects – David Lane Associates – were not paid that much as claimed, and that some middlemen have pocketed a percentage for their “services”.

The DPM has his hands full with many other issues of national interest. The responsibility of answering all questions on this so-called training centre should be left to the sports minister or Ramlan – both of whom had been vocal in pushing this project through.

I am sure he is aware that there have been attempts to pass the buck and he should make sure that those responsible for this mess own up and explain themselves.

They should come clean – once and for all – and tell everything the rakyat want to know about how their money is being spent. No hiding behind the Cabinet Committee on Sports, the Official Secrets Act or some such obscure regulations.

We have a right to know and I am sure they will be reminded by the DPM’s remarks that “it is best to be corrected early rather than be rejected by the people later.” Especially so, when some leaders have the tendency to challenge journalists to stand for election if they are not happy with their policies.

The second report by Nadeswaran:

Myth or fact? You decide

They talked about a High Performance Training Centre in Brickendonbury where the Tun Abdul Razak Research Centre stands. They talked …

*about renovating “existing” hostels and facilities;

*about training with Arsenal;

*about “rave reviews” from squash players who used it before competing in Cologne and Amsterdam;

*about “total immersion” with our players getting involved with the local people and inculcate their work ethics and culture. Well done!

They talked and still talk about needing to protect the environment. They talk about global warming. Yet after destroying local forests, they have no qualms of destroying another country’s heritage.

*about submitting four different sets of plans to the Hertford Council on June 14;

*and about “plans being on track”.

Yes, even the Football Association of Malaysia, the much-maligned guardians of the country’s football fortunes boasted on its website: “The Malaysian national under-16 team is settling well at the High Performance Training centre in Brickendonbury.”

Settling well? Someone ought to give those guys at Wisma FAM a Pelanduk dictionary. Perhaps, then they will understand the meaning of “settling well”.

But then, when you are caught with your pants down, the ordinary guy would put his hands up, own up, say sorry and perhaps, in all humility, seek forgiveness.

Malaysian culture dictates that. But that’s not the political culture, let alone sports culture. The best is to be on “denial” mode – just insist the waters on our seas are red in colour. Then over time, people will start believing that their eyes are playing tricks with their brains. But many no longer fall for the old tricks.

So, drop gear and engage in “silent” mode. Let them shout till their throats are hoarse or their fingers numbed by cracking them on the keyboards. Over time, they will get fed up and give up.

No, my friends. Never. When you want to spend RM70 million to “upgrade” or “renovate” non-existent facilities, every right-minded citizen will stand up and demand that every sen is accounted for. After all, wasn’t that the platform our prime minister campaigned on, for which we all gave him a thunderous majority?

No, my friends. When half-truths and misinformation are fed to justify such colossal spending, they should be exposed.

Aren’t all members of the cabinet and the civil service guided by those very principles of good governance where transparency and accountability supersede everything else?

Have they forgotten the slogans they campaigned on and got elected to office? What about the civil servants and their akujanji and oath of office which require exemplary practices?

No, my friends, they are all are aware of their commitments, but sometimes they suffer from selective amnesia.

Yes, my friends, if they are not constantly reminded of what is expected of them, they sometimes tend to slip into permanent memory loss. And that’s why, time and again, they ought to be reminded of their social and moral responsibilities.

Elsewhere on this page, we put the facts on the table so that you, first as a citizen , and second as a reader of this newspaper, can differentiate between myth and fact.

You, dear citizen and reader, be the judge.

*****

Exposing the truth … Nadeswaran visited the TARRC for a first-hand look at the facilities of the “HPTC”.

But he was sorely disappointed by what he saw. The football pitch at the TARRC.

On a current note, the national junior squash team, who were the “pilot” team to use the facilities in Hertfordshire when they competed in Cologne and Amsterdam, have sent back initial raving reports of the facilities and competition that were available around the HPTC (in Brickendonbury), which proved very useful as run-up to the actual competitions. – Datuk Dr Ramlan Aziz, the (then) director-general of the National Sports Council, at a “tell-all” press conference, July 14, 2006.

Pilot team using the facilities in Hertfordshire? Hertfordshire is a county and there are plenty of big towns with facilities. But where did the squash players stay? It’s like saying there are several training facilities in Johor. But if you stay in Masai and travel to Johor Baru to train, it makes little sense.

There’s no place to stay in Brickendonbury, let alone the HPTC. They must have stayed in a hotel either in Ware or Hertford or even St Albans. Where did they train? They trained at one of the many private-run courts many, many kilometres away from the HPTC and paid for these facilities in pounds sterling. Around HPTC, you have nothing but farms with horses and sheep. The nearest towns, Hertford and Ware, are more than 10km away.

So, if you are competing in Cologne, wouldn’t it be prudent to stay in that city, close by to where the competition is being staged? What purpose did the HPTC serve? The players might as well have stayed and trained in London instead of heading to Brickendonbury.

If cost is a factor, they could have used St Albans as a base. Unlike Brickendonbury, it has more facilities and better accessibility.

Players can also walk from their hotel to the sports complex.

A total of 22 players will be the first to leave for England tomorrow as the batch of Under-16-year-olds head to the High Performance Training Centre in Brickendonbury. Robert Alberts, the technical director for the FA of Malaysia (FAM) said that the first group will not only train in London but will also play several friendly matches for the stint slated for 6-31 May. – Football Association of Malaysia website, May 5, 2007

Head to HPTC? For what? Other than an under-sized football pitch and a few changing rooms, there’s nothing there. The truth is that the players and officials initially stayed at the Roebuck Hotel in Ware. They travelled to Brickendonbury once a day and trained for two hours in that small field. Other than that, they were holed up in their rooms and attended “theory” classes in the hotel. In between, there were “academic” sessions for the players. Now, coming to the bit of Arsenal. They left Roebuck Hotel on May 10 and checked into the Malaysian-owned Holiday Villa Hotel in London and then on to the Arsenal training ground. The following day, they played a match against Arsenal’s Under-16 team, which they lost 5-0. The “match” was of three “halves” of 30 minutes each. And that was the end of the Arsenal stint!

The HPTC had been initially billed as a place where Malaysian athletes can “immerse” with the locals. But this was never the case. If the players are spending only two hours daily at the HPTC, why send them there at all?

Wouldn’t they have been better off at their hostels in the Bukit Jalil Sports School?

Any claim that the HPTC is “close to” or “trained with” Arsenal is not true. From London, the boys flew to Slovakia for two games there, and then returned to their hotels in Ware. In total, the boys spent no more than 100 hours on the training grounds.

Now here comes the cruncher. During May, the British Meteorological Office reported that temperatures in the day dipped to as low as 13°C. Did our boys cope with that kind of cold? Probably – with layers of warm clothes.

This is not mere speculation, considering that these are teenagers who hardly ever got out of Bukit Jalil at night.

Malaysia’s proposed High Performance Training Centre to be located at the Tun Abdul Razak Rubber Research Centre (TARRC) in Brickendonbury, Hertfordshire, England, is expected to take off by early next year.

According to National Sports Institute director general Datuk Dr Ramlan Abdul Aziz, a presentation of the proposed plan for the HPTC would be made to the East Hertford Council on June 14.

“We have had a number of meetings with the relevant authorities from East Hertford Council and the Malaysian Rubber Board on what can be done and what cannot be done, and we have finalised four options to be put forward.” – Bernama, June 2

No plans were submitted to the council. The council’s media officer, Nick White, in an e-mail on June 19 said: “Representatives of the Malaysian government and their planning team met with officers at East Herts Council last week. They set out their thoughts on how the facility could be used for training of their athletes in the run-up to the Olympics in 2012. No formal application has yet been submitted to the council, and the meeting represented an early discussion on the issues that this sort of proposal may raise.

As the proposals are still in the early stages and no planning application has been submitted, I’m afraid the information I can give you is limited.”

So, where are the “four different plans” Ramlan talked about.

The project from a forward training base in Europe moved to High Performance Training Centre. Now, the impression given to the council is that it will be Malaysia’s preparatory centre for the Olympics.

If that’s the case, we might as well save time, money and effort, and take up the University of Hertfordshire’s offer for our athletes to use its facilities.

The bulk of the money has been paid to St. Albans-based architect and town planner, David Lane Associates which has sent two invoices – one for RM350,000 and another for RM450,000 – for “work done” to apparently transform part of the TARRC into a mini-sports complex.

Asked to comment on this, Ramlan gave his assurance that the expenditure was within limits and had been accounted for. – theSun, Feb 27, 2007

On June 14, a Malaysian team met with the planning officers of the Hertford Council. It was then that a new team of architects entered the scene.

Nick White, in an e-mail to theSun said: “Just to update you both on the meeting that took place last week – there is now a new planning consultancy involved – White Young Green.”

So, now, we have to pay another firm of architects, but the issue is: Who hired David Lane Associates? Why another consultancy change, especially after Ramlan said that about RM800,000 has been paid in fees? How much will White Young Green cost?

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 15 July 2007, 7:15 pm and is filed under
Sports
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


IGP  – Admit “fear of crime” as a new  threat  which police must target to wipe out in battle against  crime

One common thread of the three public hearings of the  Parliamentary Caucus on Human Rights and Good Governance on
“Fight Rising Crime”
 held in Johor Baru last Sunday, Petaling Jaya on Wednesday and Bukit Mertajam this morning is the palpable fear of crime which have gripped Malaysians in the hot spots of crime in the country.

Fifteen years ago, there was crime but “the fear of crime” had not surfaced in the country.

Today, in Johor Baru, Kuala Lumpur, Petaling Jaya, Klang, Penang, Ipoh, the “fear of crime” have come into the lives of Malaysians making them ever  fearful about their own safety and those of their loved ones in the streets, public places and even when at home, gravely degrading the quality of life of Malaysians.

Up to now, the Police have only admitted to the problem of crime but not the “fear of crime” haunting and hounding the lives of Malaysians in the hot-spots of crime.  If the police is not even  prepared to admit that  “the fear of crime” is as real and big as the problem of crime in the hot spots of crime in the country — inter-related but separate problems –  how can the police successfully reduce and wipe out the “fear of crime”?

As a first step to effectively fight crime and the fear of crime, the Inspector-General of Police Tan Sri Musa Hassan should openly admit that the  “fear of crime” is  a new  threat  which the police must target to wipe out in the  battle against  crime, with regular monitoring of the success  of police performance on two separate measures –  to reduce crime and the fear of crime.

The Seberang Prai Tengah district police chief Assistant Commissioner Mohd Anil Shah Abdullah must be commended for attending the Parliamentary Caucus public hearing in Bukit Mertajam this morning, where he received plaudits from several speakers.

Mohd Anil can bear testimony  that there was no public animosity against the police at the public hearing but all-round goodwill and criticisms raised at the three-hour hearing were made not to run down the police force but to make it more effective and efficient to achieve its objective to maintain a safe and secure environment  by reducing crime and the fear of crime.

The preparedness of the police to face public scrutiny and criticisms before the nation’s media, whether at the public hearing of the Parliamentary Caucus on Human Rights and Good Governance or other forums, is an acid test, firstly as to whether the Police is prepared to end  its denial syndrome that it had been fighting a losing battle against crime and the fear of crime; and secondly, that it is serious in wanting to  regain public confidence and work with all Malaysian stakeholders to  establish a low-crime Malaysia where the people do not live in “fear of crime”!

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 15 July 2007, 4:57 pm and is filed under
Parliament
,
Police
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Crime and fear of crime worse than before Royal Police Commission period

Two  common threads of the three public hearings of the  Parliamentary Caucus on Human Rights and Good Governance on “Fight Rising Crime” held in Johor Baru the previous  Sunday, Petaling Jaya on Wednesday and Bukit Mertajam yesterday  are:

	Drastic shortfall in the two major objectives of effective policing, firstly, to prevent, reduce and detect crime; and secondly, to provide safety and security for law-abiding citizens and their families.

	Worsening crime situation and a palpable fear of crime which have gripped Malaysians in the hot spots of crime in the country, like Johor Baru, Kuala Lumpur, Petaling Jaya, Klang, Penang and Ipoh even worse than before the establishment of the Royal Police Commission 42 months ago.

The Inspector-General of Police, Tan Sri Musa Hassa and the  top police leadership must explain why crime and the fear of crime situation are worse than pre-Royal Police Commission period before 2004  although police pay rise has increased up to 42%?

That the crime situation gotten worse rather than better is illustrated by the latest batch of crime statistics given by Musa on Saturday, where he announced that the  crime index in the country had shot up by 5.11 per cent in the first six months of this year as compared to the same period last year.

The crime index for the first six months of 2007 as compared to the same period of 2006 is as follows:

From these statistics, ten states recorded an increase in crimes, ranging from 2% to 16.9%, with Selangor, Perak and Sarawak as the three worst states.

Should Malaysians be satisfied with this crime index, even without taking into account the huge number of unreported crimes?

The answer must be a million “No”, for the Police must be reminded that the country expects the Police to have a better control of the crime situation, especially after the report and recommendations of the Royal Police Commission, which has resulted in a police pay rise of up to 42%.

Both the Police and Malaysians must revisit the Royal Police Commission Report, for it is not just its key proposal for the establishment of the Independent Police Complaints and Misconduct Commission (IPCMC) which had been ignored, its other important recommendations for an efficient, incorruptible, professional world-class police service to keep crime low, fight corruption and respect human rights have also been forgotten.

Chapter 4 of the Royal Commission Report on “Challenges Confronting the Royal Malaysia Police” listed nine challenges. Challenge Two on  “The High Incidence of Crime” said:

“3.1  The incidence of crime increased dramatically in the last few years from 121,176 cases in 1997 to 156,455 cases in 2004, an increase of 29 per cent. The increase seriously dented Malaysia’s reputation as a safe country. Malaysians in general, the business sector and foreign investors grew increasingly concerned with the situation. The fear was that, if the trend continues, there would be major social and economic consequences for Malaysia. A survey of 575 respondents from the public carried out by the Commission clearly demonstrates the extremely widespread concern among all ethnic groups and foreign residents.  Between 82.2 per cent and 90 per cent of the respondents, or 8 to 9 persons in every 10, were concerned with the occurrence of crime”.

“3.2 There was an alarming increase in violent crime during the period. Violent crimes grew from 16,919 cases in 1997 to 21,859 cases in 2004, an increase of 29.2 per cent in 8 years.

“3.3 There was also a significant increase in property crimes during the period from 104,257 cases in 1997 to 134,595 cases in 2004, an increase of 29 per cent.”

Because of this high incidence of crime, the Royal Police said  it was “urgent” for a concerted police drive against crime.

It dedicated  Chapter 7 to “Launch A Sustained Nation-Wide Drive Against Crime” and  said:

“The Commission recommends that PDRM allot the highest priority to the campaign against crime, along with eradication of corruption and making policing more compliant with human rights and prescribed laws. The prioritization should remain until crime levels have reached a point considered no longer alarming.”

The Royal Police Commission recommended that the police formulate and implement annual and month crime reduction plans, and proposed the following target: “As an immediate measure, PDRM should target a minimum of 20 per cent decrease in the number of crimes committed for each category within 12 months of this Report’s acceptance and implementation”.

It is now more than two years since the publication of the Royal Police Commission. What has the Police to show for its “sustained nation-wide drive against crime”,  the proposed “annual and monthly crime reduction plans” and in particular “a minimum 20 per cent decrease in crimes within 12 months”?

If the Royal Police Commission’s recommendation of a minimum 20 per cent decrease in crimes within 12 months had been achieved, then the 156,455 crime incidence in 2004 should have declined to 125,164 cases in 2005. Instead, the traditional crime index had shot up another 9.7 per cent   to 171,604 in 2005, and  a further 15.7 per cent  to 198,622 in 2006.  If there is an annual 5.11 per cent increase for 2007 as reflected for the first six months of the year, then the total crime index would reach a record-high of 208,772 cases!

The Police had its own target of reducing the crime index by five per cent a year. If this more modest  target had been reached, then from 156,455 crime incidence in 2004, there should be a drop to 148,632 cases in 2005, 141,200 cases in 2006 and 134,140 cases in 2007.

It is clear therefore that both  the Royal Police Commission’s recommendation of a minimum of 20% decline of crime index in first 12 months or the police’s more modest target of 5% decline per year had not been achieved, and the Police is fighting a losing battle against crime with the traditional crime index set to break the 200,000 mark this year.

This would see the crime index increasing by 30% from 2004 instead of being reduced to “a point considered no longer alarming” as proposed by the Royal Police Commission when recommending an immediate target of 20% reduction of the crime index in the first 12 months of its Report.

The Royal Police Commission described as “alarming increase in violent crime” when referring to the increase from 16,919 cases in 1997 to 21,859 cases in 2004. In 2006, violent crimes have almost doubled to 42,343, a hefty jump of 94%.  What has happened to the Royal Police Commission’s proposed annual and monthly crime reduction plan?

                This entry was posted on Monday, 16 July 2007, 2:43 pm and is filed under
Parliament
,
Police
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Malaysia’s Politics Without Mercy

by Farish A. Noor

One of the paradoxes of politics in developing countries is how uneven that development can be at times: From Latin America to the Far East, the political culture of many a developing country betrays all the signs and symbols of a stunted politics arrested by the competing demands of modernity, feudalism and primordial values that pre-date the modern era.

Witness the development of the cult of leadership in so many countries, from North Korea to Libya and Iraq during the time of Saddam, where every bare space was utilised to promote and project the image of the ‘great leader’, said to be loved by millions. North Korea remains at the top of the league when it comes to the culture of leader-worship, where even the bad haircut of their leader-for-life has been passed down as an iconic image of the unreconstructed Cold War era.

Among the developing countries of the world, Malaysia ranks highly in the eyes of many. So high, in fact, that during his recent visit to Malaysia former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan waxed eloquent about the virtues of this modern majority-Muslim state, commending the government for its record in development and praising the ‘moderate’ Islamisation programme of the current Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi.

Many keen observers of Malaysian politics, however, were taken askance by the comments of the former Sec-Gen of the UN. While it cannot be denied that Malaysia looks outwardly as a prosperous nation with a booming economy, close observation of what has been happening there for the past few years would throw some of Kofi Annnan’s praises into doubt.

For a start, it is hard to see how Malaysia’s brand of statist Islam can be seen as moderate and progressive by any stretch of the imagination, considering the fact that this is still a country where detention without trial takes place and freedom of the press is virtually unknown. Shortly after Mr Annan delivered his laudatory comments, a Malaysian blogger by the name of Nathaniel Tan was arrested by the Malaysian authorities and charged with cybercrime. Kofi Annan has spoken out against the arrest and harassment of media personnel and bloggers before, in countries such as China — yet in this case was curiously silent.

During the same week leaders of the ruling UMNO (United Malays National Organisation) party, a right-wing conservative ethno-nationalist party that has been in power since 1957, vowed to ‘crush’ the People’s Justice (PKR) opposition party in the country, once and for all. Had Mr Annan stayed a little longer in Malaysia (and had he been able to read the vernacular Malay press), he may have realised that such talk of ‘crushing the opposition’ is normal in Malaysia’s feudal political culture, where terms like ‘crush’, ‘destroy’, ‘eliminate’ et al. Are the norm in Malaysian political discourse.

Kofi Annan did manage to meet the leader of the opposition PKR party Anwar Ibrahim, though not much is known about what actually transpired at the meeting. Had he taken the time to enquire, the members of PKR and other opposition parties like the Democratic Action Party (DAP) and the Pan-Malaysian Islamic party (PAS) would have had other stories to tell, about allegations of vote-buying, harassment of NGO activists, threats of arrest and detention without trial, etc. that may have altered Mr Annan’s rosy picture of Malaysia a little bit.

But why, some might ask, is the tone of Malaysian politics these days so merciless? Why would a party like UMNO, that has been in power for half a century, need to totally crush an opposition party like the People’s Justice party? For some members of PKR, the answer is clear. In the words of Latheefa Koya, central committee member of PKR: “(UMNO’s) use of language like ‘to crush and bury’ a legitimate democratic multiracial party clearly indicates the fear of UMNO, due to its outdated politics. Defending things like the Internal Security Act (ISA), Sedition Act, Official Secrets Act and not showing an once of respect for fundamental principles of human rights; and resorting to thuggery, is a sign of bankrupt politics.”

Indeed, after half a century of independence Malaysian politics is still determined by the logic of racial — and increasingly religious — communitarianism, something akin to the divide-and-rule politics of the colonial era. One would have thought that after being in power for so long the ruling National Front coalition led by UMNO would have evolved a national politics based on equal citizenship instead, but this has never happened.

It is therefore left to the opposition parties like PKR, DAP and PAS to cobble together a new vision of a Malaysia that is genuinely democratic and multiracial; though this is not an easy task. The dominance of UMNO and the ruling National Front coalition means that the public domain of politics is dominated by their interests, and reflected in the government-controlled media in the country. In the meantime, any attempt to question the logic of racial compartmentalisation in Malaysia will be met with a similar response that has been meted out to the Justice party thus far: Total opposition and the determination to crush all alternative approaches to politics. Malaysia may be a modern capitalist state with impressive tower blocks and shopping centres that can beguile even the likes of Kofi Annan, but its feudal politics remains as primordial and merciless as ever.

                This entry was posted on Monday, 16 July 2007, 6:40 am and is filed under
Farish Noor
,
nation building
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Release Nat Tan now – “investigate then arrest” and not “arrest then  investigate”

The Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi must respect human rights and  end police abuses of power of “arrest then investigate” and insist that police adhere strictly  to “investigate then arrest” procedures.

Abdullah should order the immediate release of blogger, PKR webmaster and aide to Anwar Ibrahim, Nathaniel Tan to send a clear message that his administration and the police under his watch respect human rights, one of the three core functions delineated by the Royal Police Commission in its Report and 125 recommendations to create an efficient, incorruptible, professional world-class police service.

Police abuses of power were manifest when they first let it be known that Tan  was arrested in connection with the doctored photograph purportedly showing Deputy Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak with his confidante Razak Baginda and the murdered Mongolian woman Altantunya Shaariibuu.

Then there was talk about action against Tan under the Penal Code before the Official Secrets Act (OSA) was trotted out as the reason for Tan’s continued remand.

And most incredible of all, the subject of the OSA action was the anonymous website on the RM5.5 million  corruption allegations against Deputy Internal Security Minister, Datuk Seri Johari Baharum.

It is not only Johari who would want to know the identity of the person or persons responsible for the anonymous website which posted the corruption allegations against Johari — and there are allegations that the anonymous website could originate from within  the police itself.

Let there be a full and thorough investigation to find out who is responsible for the anonymous website making the RM5.5 million corruption allegations against Johari, but leave Tan alone, as nobody seriously suggest that Tan is responsible for the anonymous website.

In the circumstances, the arrest of Tan is not to find out who are the person or persons behind the anonymous website against Johari, but has an ulterior motive — and must be regarded as highly intimidatory of dissent and a threat to all bloggers in the Malaysian blogosphere.

It is most ridiculous and outrageous that the anonymous website on the corruption allegations against Johari could be the basis for police arrest of Tan under the Official Secrets Act when there can be no reason to suspect that Tan was responsible for the website.

Not only the Attorney-General Tan Sri Gani Patail should act to stop further abuse of such police powers, the Cabinet must discuss the issue on Wednesday and send out a clear directive to the police that it must respect human rights and  stop “arrest then investigate” but must stick strictly to “investigate then arrest” procedures.

                This entry was posted on Monday, 16 July 2007, 3:47 pm and is filed under
Human Rights
,
IT
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Malaysia an Islamic state – Najib repudiating first three PMs on meaning of Merdeka social contract

Is Deputy Prime Minister,
Datuk Seri Najib Razak
repudiating the Merdeka “social contract” and the stand of the first three Prime Ministers, Tunku Abdul Rahman, Tun Razak and Tun Hussein Onn with his statement today that Malaysia is “an Islamic state with its own interpretation”?

Najib’s explanation that “as an Islamic state, it does not mean that we don’t respect the non-Muslims” and that “The Muslims and the non-Muslims have their own rights (in this country)” is no assurance at all, when there is unilateral, arbitrary and unconstitutional revision of the fundamental principles of nation-building agreed by the forefathers of the major communities on the founding of the nation that whilst Islam is the official religion of the Federation, Malaya and later Malaysia is not an Islamic State, whether of the PAS or Umno variety.

This cornerstone of nation-building was best spelt out by  Bapa Malaysia and the first Prime Minister, Tunku Abdul Rahman, at the 80th birthday celebrations organized by the Barisan Nasional in his honour on 8th February 1983, where Tunku pointedly said Malaysia should not be turned into an Islamic state, that Malaysia was set up as a secular State with Islam as the official religion which was enshrined in the Constitution.

Tunku said:

“The Constitution must be respected and adhered to. There have been attempts by some people who tried to introduce religious laws and morality laws. This cannot be allowed.

“The country has a  multi-racial population with various beliefs. Malaysia must continue as a secular State with Islam as the official religion.”

Tunku’s stand that Malaysia was not and never  conceived by the Merdeka Constitution to be an Islamic State  was endorsed by Tun Hussein when the third Prime Minister celebrated his 61st birthday five days later.

There can be no doubt that this fundamental position that Malaysia was never conceived to be an Islamic State would also have been endorsed by Tun Razak if he had been alive in 1983  to celebrate Tunku’s 80th birthday and comment on his speech, as there had been no dispute whatsoever in the first  three and even four decades of nationhood that Malaysia was a secular and not an Islamic state.

What confidence can  non-Muslims have in Najib’s assurance that in his concept of Malaysia as an Islamic state “with its own interpretation”, “Muslims and non-Muslims have their own rights” when the basic citizenship rights of the non-Muslim Malaysians to preserve and protect  the fundamental basis of nation-building could be summarily deprived and denied by a unilateral, arbitrary and unconstitutional revision of the Merdeka “social contract” with non-Muslim Barisan Nasional parties and leaders  without having any say whatsoever?

This is not only denial of the  fundamental citizenship rights of non-Muslim Malaysians but also of Muslim Malaysians the majority of whom would want Malaysia to steer away from extremist Islamist policies as  practiced under the first three Prime Ministers of the country.

Najib has come out with the declaration that Malaysia is not a secular but an Islamic State, at a time when he faces great personal and political  vulnerabilities, with many questions about his integrity and leadership swirling in the public domain.

Former Prime Minister, Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad made the “929” declaration that Malaysia was an Islamic State on Sept. 29, 2001 when Umno which he led suffered its worst general election defeat and he conceived this unilateral, arbitrary and unconstitutional declaration as a major gambit to fend off the PAS challenge to the Malay heartland.

It would appear that the Merdeka social  contract becomes a political pawn when political parties or individual political leaders find it expedient to manipulate and exploit it to shore up their political support.

Najib has cast a very dark cloud over the 50th Merdeka anniversary celebrations this year with his statement today, raising grave questions about the future of the Merdeka social contract and the compact reached by the forefathers of the major communities on the fundamental basis of Malaysian nation-building.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 17 July 2007, 11:37 pm and is filed under
Constitution
,
nation building
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Public forum – No to a Police State in Blogosphere

Nathaniel Tan, a 26 year old dedicated blogger, a Harvard University alumnus and an aide to Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim was arrested under the Section 8 of the Official Secrets Act (OSA) over allegations that he had documents linked to Deputy Internal Security Minister Datuk Johari Baharom’s alleged involvement in corruption.

Nathaniel was released after four days’ detention.

To demonstrate our solidarity with Nathaniel who has been dealt with great injustice, to show our steadfast refusal to let the Government curb the democratisation impact of blogs and the Internet, and to voice our displeasure at the OSA, we are organising a forum with invited speakers from across the civil society with details as follows:

Venue: KL & Selangor Chinese Assembly Hall

Date: 19th July 2007 (Thursday)

Time: 7.30 pm

Admission is Free; Bring Friends

The panel of Distinguished Speakers include:

Nathaniel Tan
, Blogger & Aide to PKR Advisor

Jeff Ooi
, Protem Vice-President, All Blogs Malaysia

Harris Ibrahim
, Lawyer & Founder of The People’s Parliament

Nurul Izzah Anwar
, Special Assistant to PKR Advisor

Lim Guan Eng
, Secretary-General of DAP

Tony Pua
, Economic Advisor to DAP Secretary-General

Chairperson: Soon Li Tsin
, Journalist & Blogger

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 17 July 2007, 11:24 pm and is filed under
Announcement
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Worsening crime index — 8.2 cases of rape a day in first 6 months this year as compared to 4 cases in 2003 and 6.7 cases in 2006

Last Monday in Parliament, I received an answer from the Prime Minister and Internal Security Minister, Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi that the crime index had registered a 8.7 per cent increase  in the first five months of this year as compared to the corresponding period last year, i.e 87,582 cases from Jan. to May 2007 as compared to 80,756 cases for the period last year.

Five days later, the Inspector-General of Police Tan Sri Musa Hassan updated the  crime statistics showing that for the first six months of the year, there had been a 5.11 per cent increase in the crime index as compared to the corresponding period last year. i.e. 106,236 cases from Jan. to June 2007 as compared to 101,073 cases for the period last year.

From Abdullah and Musa’s statements, we can deduce that  the average monthly crime incidence for the first five months of this year was 17,516 cases (87,582/5), while the crime incidence for June was 18,654, i.e. the crime incidence in June was  6.5% higher than the monthly average crime index recorded in the first five months of the year.

Malaysians must speak up and make clear that they find it completely unacceptable that the crime index keeps climbing up, reflecting an ever-worsening situation with regard to crime and the fear of crime in the country defeating the very  purpose of the establishment of the Royal Police Commission in 2004 to have a world-class police service and reduce crime in the country.

In the first six months of this year, there were 1,507 cases of rape as compared to 1,186 for the corresponding period last year — an increase of 27.1%.  This works out to 8.2 cases of rape per day in the first six months of this year as compared to four cases a day in 2003 and 6.7 cases a day in 2006 — another  shocking index of the worsening crime and fear-of-crime situation in the country, bearing in mind the high percentage of  unreported cases of crime.

The Royal Police Commission had recommended a sustained nation-wide drive against crime, backed up by an annual and monthly crime reduction plans by the police.  Musa should make  public the national and local, annual and monthly, crime reduction plans to allow the closest public scrutiny and involvement of all Malaysian stakeholders in a nation-wide drive against crime so as to restore to Malaysians, tourists and investors a safe and secure environment where crime is low and where  the fear-of-crime is eradicated  and non-existent just like two decades ago.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 17 July 2007, 10:55 pm and is filed under
Police
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Challenge to IGP – implement Royal Commission proposal of minimum 20% decrease of crime index in 12 months

The Inspector-General of Police, Tan Sri Musa Hassan has his tenure as the top police cop renewed when it expires in September but when will he get serious about the rising crime and commit the police to an immediate Crime Reduction Plan whose improvement could be openly monitored on a monthly basis?

When the Royal Police Commission submitted its final report in May 2005, it said  that Malaysia’s reputation as a safe country was “seriously dented” by the “dramatic increase” in the incidence of crime in the past few years and that “Malaysians in general, the business sector and foreign investors grew increasingly concerned with the situation”.

The Royal Commission warned that “if the trend continues, there would be major social and economic consequences for Malaysia”.

The Royal Police Commission was referring to the “dramatic increase” in the crime index from 121,176 cases in 1997 to 156,455 cases in 2004, which registered an increase of  29 per cent in eight years.

As a result, the Royal Police Commission proposed a sustained nation-wide drive against crime “until crime levels have reached a point considered no longer alarming”.

Although the Royal Police Commission did not spell out what were the crime levels considered “no longer alarming”, it proposed an immediate target of “a minimum 20 per cent decrease in crimes” within the first 12 months after the Report.

As the Royal Police Commission must be aware of the police target of reducing the crime index by five per cent a year, it would be safe to assume that to the Royal Police Commission,  a “no longer alarming” crime index would be a 20% reduction of crime incidence in the first 12 months after the  Royal Commission Report followed by a five per cent annual reduction of the  crime index.

This would mean  that for 2005, there would be a 20% decrease of the crime incidence of 156,455 cases of 2004 followed by a 5% annual decrease in 2006 and 2007 — which will work out to 125,164 cases in 2005, 118,905 cases in 2006 and 112,960 in 2007.

How has the  Police fared since the Report of the Royal Police Commission in reducing crime, whether according to the benchmark of the Commission of  a minimum 20% decrease in the first 12 months or the police’s own target of an annual reduction of the crime index by five per cent?

Far from being brought to levels which are no longer “alarming” to citizens, tourists and investors, the crime index after the  Royal Commission Report had increased by leaps and bounds –  shooting up by 9.7 per cent from 156,455 cases in 2004 to 171,604 in 2005, and a further 15.7 per cent in 2006 to 198,622. If there is an annual 5.11 per cent increase for 2007 as reflected for the first six months of the year, then the total crime index would reach a record-high of 208,772 cases!

Instead of reducing the crime incidence of 156,455 cases in 2004 to a level “no longer alarming”, crime incidence is set to break the 200,000 mark this year — which would be a hefty increase of some 30% of  the crime incidence of 2004!  Instead of bringing down the crime incidence to 112,960 in 2007, it is set to break the 200,000 mark — a shortfall of nearly 80%!

But what is shocking is that no one in police or government  regards such a huge jump in  the crime incidence as alarming or a threat to the quality of life of Malaysians, tourism and investment despite the alarm sounded by  the Royal Police Commission at the 2004 crime index.

Are the police only interested in the “materialistic” recommendations of the Royal Police Commission pertaining to better remuneration and conditions of service, including better housing, (which DAP MPs had supported in Parliament) while ignoring the most important of the recommendations to have a world-class professional police service to keep crime low and wipe out the fear of crime?

With the extension of his tenure as IGP, more is expected of Musa to deliver a Malaysian police which is capable of keeping crime low and wiping out the fear-of-crime in the hot spots of crime like Johor Baru, Kuala Lumpur, Petaling Jaya, Klang, Penang and Ipoh.

Is the IGP prepared to lead and sound the alarm that the rising crime index is completely unacceptable, go back to the Royal Police Commission Report to belatedly implement its proposal to achieve a minimum of 20 per cent decrease in the number of crimes committed for each category and in each state within the next 12 months?

This is the challenge to Musa following  the announcement by the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi early this month on the extension of his tenure as IGP.   Will Musa rise to the challenge?

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 18 July 2007, 10:53 am and is filed under
Police
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Is Malaysia Going Down the Road of Pakistan?

by Farish A. Noor

The recent announcement made by the Deputy Prime Minister of Malaysia, Najib Tun Razak, to the effect that ‘we (Malaysia) are an Islamic state’ is mind-boggling to say the least. Speaking during a conference in Kuala Lumpur on the theme of ‘The Role of Islamic States in a Globalised World’, the Deputy Prime Minister claimed that Malaysia has ‘never been affiliated’ to a secular position that that Malaysia’s development ‘has been driven by our adherence to the fundamentals of Islam’.
(Bernama, 17 July 2007)

One cannot help but wonder if this was a case of a cynical historical revisionism at work, for there is ample historical data to show that the opposite was the case, and that the forefathers of the Malaysian nation — from Tunku Abdul Rahman to his own father Tun Razak and Hussein Onn — were keen to ensure that Malaysia remained a constitutional democracy where the state would play the role of honest broker and govern a Malaysian public that was multi-racial and multi-confessional.

Furthermore the claim that Malaysia is an Islamic state is far-fetched to say the least according to the criteria of traditional Islamic legal orthodoxy and normative Muslim standards of ethics. Would an Islamic state condone the use of laws like the ISA that allow for detention without trial, or laws like the OSA and the Sedition Act? And does Islam explicitly talk about the need to create faith rehabilitation centres where Muslims and non-Muslims are interned to ‘convert’ them to the right (re. State-defined) practices of Islam?

The comments made by the Deputy Prime Minister would suggest a totalising discourse that fails to take into account the pluralism that is at the heart of the Malaysian nation and nation-building project. When he states that ‘we have always been driven by our adherence to the fundamental principles of Islam’, is he referring to the entire Malaysian population that includes not only Muslims but also Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs and peoples of other faiths? Or by the term ‘we’ is he referring to the oligarchy of Malay-Muslim elites who man the helm of UMNO and the ruling National Front alliance that governs the country?

It is therefore not surprising to think that this was yet another case of a Malay-Muslim politician playing to the Malay-Muslim gallery the way that so many other Malay politicians have done in the past. After all, the declaration of Malaysia as an Islamic state was made earlier by former Prime Minister Mahathir; and it was also Mahathir and his former Deputy Anwar Ibrahim who spearheaded the Islamisation programme in Malaysia in the 1980s, taking the country further from its secular constitutional roots and towards a more communitarian register on the basis of Malay-Muslim identity politics.

At this crucial stage in Malaysian history where the Constitution has all but been forgotten, it would be wise to reflect on the mistakes made by other Muslim leaders elsewhere who have brought their countries to the brink of ruin by playing the ‘Islam card’. One country that comes to mind is Pakistan, which today is black-listed as a den of terrorism and has been cast as a pariah state internationally. Yet Pakistan’s slippery slide towards violent sectarian religious politics was not started by conservative Mullahs or even the military dictator General Zia ul Haq, but the secular leader Zulfikar Ali Bhutto.

As soon as he came to power in 1971 Zulfikar Ali Bhutto launched his own ‘people’s revolution’ in Pakistan. While preaching his ideology of ‘Islamic Socialism’ (which Muammar Ghadaffi of Libya also claimed as his idea) Bhutto announced the immediate nationalisation of ten major industries, including iron and steel, basic metals, heavy engineering, petrochemicals and motor vehicles. Bhutto also introduced new legislation that was meant to improve the working conditions of the country’s illiterate and backward workers and peasants. These reforms were inspired in part by the example set by Colonel Muammar Ghadaffi of Libya, and Bhutto’s close contacts with China. During his trips to China, Bhutto had been advised by Mao Tze-Tung and Chao En-Lai to set up a ‘people’s army’ that would support his nationalisation project. The sudden and unexpected nationalisation caused the country’s already weakened economy to collapse completely, sending the stock market downwards and causing the flight of capital from the country.

Fearful of losing the support of the population, Bhutto then began to play the Islamic card as well. He assured the Islamist leaders that his own brand of ‘Islamic Socialism’ had nothing no do with Communism per se and that it was not an atheistic ideology. In 1972 he made a deal with the Jami’at-ul Ulema-i Islam (JUI) under Maulana Mufti Mahmood. Bhutto promised to allow Maulana Mahmood and the JUI to expand their activities in the Northwest Frontier Province (NWFP) as long as they would support his own PPP party in the National and Regional Assemblies. He also promised Islamist parties like the JUI and Maulana Maudoodi’s Jama’at-e Islami (JI) that he would introduce new laws and constitutional amendments that would make Pakistan an Islamic state.

Zulfikar attempted to streamline the process of Islamisation in Pakistan via political and constitutional means. Like Ayub Khan and Yahya Khan before him, he tried to use the state as a means to control and patronise the religious powers in the country. In 1972 Bhutto managed to get Pakistan to host the second OIC summit in Lahore, in an attempt to bolster his own Islamic credentials. By virtue of the 1973 Constitution, the State was officially the guarantor of marriage and the family, the protector of the mother and the child and the guardian of equality before the law by formally prohibiting all forms of sexual discrimination. Yet, the third Constitution of Pakistan had received the tacit assent of one of the most vociferous opponents of Ayub Khan: Maudoodi himself. Maudoodi’s support in the early 70’s was understandable for the reasons that the Constitution had for the first time declared Islam as the religion of the State; had imposed the preservation of religious ethos (by prohibiting prostitution, drugs and obscenity) and had laid down the official definition of a proper Muslim (which would serve as the basis for the excommunication of the Ahmadis in 1974). Furthermore, Bhutto had systematically purged his ex-allies from the radical Left with the expressed support of none other than Maudoodi. In return for these efforts of ‘purification ‘ (particularly on the campuses of the country), Maudoodi gave his tacit endorsement to the 1973 Constitution.

But despite all these moves and concessions made in favour of the religious lobbies (including prohibition of alcohol, gambling etc.), the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, appeared to be theocratic in theory but secular in practice. This was the conclusion that the Islamist camp eventually came to by the mid 70’s. Zulfikar Ali Bhutto’s PPP government was caught in a trap of its own making. The feudal Bhutto attempted to present himself as a democrat and a populist, and he introduced many radical policy changes that were destined to have a long-lasting impact on the country itself. He pushed Pakistan into the nuclear race even when it was clear that the country could not sustain such a project either economically or politically. His desire to entrench himself on the terrain of Pakistani politics led to a sustained assault on the country’s civil service and judiciary, and culminated in the formation of his own private para-military force (the Federal Security Force FSF).

Bhutto’s crypto-socialist policies also led to the demoralisation of the ruling elite, many of whom took the opportunity to immigrate to the West. In one vital area this was to have a potentially dangerous effect: The higher ranks of the armed forces were no longer the exclusive purview of the ruling elite but was finally left open to the newly emerging urbanised middle classes, who were much more conservative and religiously inclined. In 1976 he picked the comparatively junior General Zia ul Haq as Commander in Chief, in an attempt to pre-empt any coup attempts by more senior generals. This would later prove his undoing.

Today, after decades of Islamisation at the hands of Pakistan’s Mullahs that went unchecked by Zulfikar Ali Bhutto and later Zia ul Haq, Pakistan has become an outcast state there religious politics has proven to be divisive and detrimental to the plight of women, non-Muslim minorities and minority sects among Muslims. All of this could have been avoided by sticking to the secular principles of the Pakistani constitution, but that same constitution has been torn to shreds by successive politicians — including Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif — who found it expedient to play the ‘Islamic card’ whenever it suited them, just to garner some cheap votes at the elections. The rest, as they say, is history and that history now weighs heavily of Pakistan and its people.

Is Malaysia heading down the path of Pakistan? Well, at the moment Malaysia has several ‘Islamic’ features that even Pakistan does not have, such as the morality police squads, Islamic detention centres and the like. Thus far from being a model moderate Muslim state that naive outsiders like Kofi Annan seem to admire so, we seem well on the path of an increasingly divisive, sectarian religiously-based politics that has spun out of control.

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 18 July 2007, 12:44 pm and is filed under
Farish Noor
,
nation building
,
Religion
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Nuri helicopters – is it right to risk lives of air force personnel if Defence Minister and VVIPs find them too dangerous to use?

The country grieves with the families of the six crew members of the S61-A4 Sikorsky Nuri helicopter who perished in a
crash
 in Genting Sempah on Friday, which resulted in a massive five-day search operation involving about 1,600 search and rescue personnel.

The casualties were:  Capt Nor Azlan Termuzi, 29, from Kuala Lumpur; co-pilot Capt Nor Intan Asykeen Mohd Arof, 27, from Butterworth; air quartermaster Flight Sergeant Khusnizam Ariffin, 34, from Kelantan; avionics technician Flight Sergeant Mohamad Azmie Md Yassin, 35, from Batu Berendam, Malacca; airframe technician Leading Aircraftsman Saifulizam Alias, 28, from Muar, Johor; and engine technician Leading Aircraftsman Muhammad Ridzuan Ahmad, 27, from Pokok Sena, Kedah.

The latest Nuri helicopter crash — the 17th in 40 years and claiming 72 lives –  has again raised questions about the safety and airworthiness of  the Nuri  helicopters.

It is most heart-rending  to read of the account of Hashidee Murshin Hassim,  29, a childhood friend of Captain Nor Azlan Termuzi, of how  the pilot in the fatal crash had a “fear of  flying Nuri”.

Azlan, who had been a pilot for 11 years, had been flying the Nuri on the Sungai Besi-Kuantan route for the past two years.

The New Straits Times in its report
“Captain feared flying Nuri”
 quoted Hashidee as saying that Azlan had told him that “he would rather drive a truck to Kuantan, because he felt safer”.

According to the
NST
report:

For each flight, Hashidee said, Azlan would always rely on the assurances given to him by the helicopter technician.

“He was even thinking of quitting the force, but his contract with them was the only thing that stopped him as he would have to fork out RM49,000 for breaching it,” he said.

“Everytime he flew the Nuri he would call to tell me that he was taking off and upon reaching Kuantan, he would call me again.

“This time, he never called me back.”

It is a very serious reflection of the shocking state of morale in the air force when Nuri pilots are living in literal fear of flying the helicopter.

Deputy Prime Minister and Defence Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak reiterated yesterday that the Nuris were a
irworthy “workhorses”
of the armed forces in transportation and operations.

However, when
asked
whether he had flown on the Nuri, Najib said he had done so earlier but now used a special VIP aircraft.

Can Najib produce the log of the number of times he had used the Nuri each year since  he  became Defence Minister  in December 1999, and the number of times VVIPs had used the Nuri helicopters in recent years and their identities.

If the Defence Minister and VVIPs are steering clear of the Nuri, with Nuri pilots like Azlan living in fear of flying the helicopter, is it  right  to risk the lives of air force personnel in the continued use of Nuri helicopters?

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 18 July 2007, 12:28 pm and is filed under
Defence
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Slaying an Immortal Tiger: Malaysia’s New Economic Policy

by Azly Rahman

The New Economic Policy (NEP) owes it genesis to a vision that sought to redistribute wealth among Malaysia’s races and create a Malay middle class. Today, there are a significant number who believe that most of the benefits have gone to upper and upper-middle class Malays. As a whole, a vast swath of the Malaysian middle-classes remain relatively poor. It is the urban lifestyle has brought this group to such a level – like America’s middle-class, they are riddled with credit card debt and face rising costs of living.

The NEP created the country’s own Rockefellars, Vanderbilts, and Carnegies (dynasties of the ‘old money’), as it continues to create its own versions of Bill Gates, Rupert Murdoch, and Warren Buffet (newer dynasties of ‘new money’). In tandem, there are a growing number of millionaire Chinese and Indians that have benefited from the truncated structure of the NEP.

The NEP has also overseen the growth of a larger class of poor across all ethnic groups too, with Malaysia witnessing the rapid growth of an urban poor who live below the poverty line. Hypermodernity and rapid industrialisation, in the hunt for huge profits through expensive real estate projects have also engendered waves of immigration from Indonesia and Bangladesh, adding to the complex social dynamic in Malaysia’s urban centres.

The NEP was quite ill conceived to begin with, although in fairness, it was not meant to continue indefinitely unlike what one observes today. It was premised upon the principles of ethnic segregation and a leg-up for the most disenfranchised community – the majority Malay-Muslim population. A noble policy then, affirmative action was also the dominant philosophy of human development in the 1960s and 70s.

Today, the NEP can hardly be appended to noble intentions. The only Indian and Chinese individuals that continue to support it are either found in political parties that are aligned to the ruling coalition, the Barisan Nasional or to those Chinese and Indians who rely on government patronage for contracts and tenders.

The state of Malaysian politics continues to worry. Even the Malay middle class – products of the Mahathir development philosophy are now in a state of confusion and contradiction. On the one hand, they have benefited from the policy of affirmative action. On the other hand, they are concerned about the depth of corruption in Malaysian politics and the number of incompetent public servants running the bureaucracy.

Concomitantly, Malaysian governments have successfully developed a strange brew of authoritarianism and contradiction while trumpeting the belief that it is doing fine in the areas of race relations and socio-economic justice. The nature of Malay nationalism is reaching a frightening apex with Malay leaders resorting to Malay nationalism as the panacea of choice when faced against anti-NEP sentiments.

A new philosophy is needed, a new paradigm needs articulation, underpinned by a new economic ethos that will benefit all ethnic groups and communities. All this, in response to a new Malaysian reality that should acknowledge the “non-bumiputras” as the “new bumiputra”. Malaysians should not continue living with the sins of their fathers and continue the archaic legacy of colonialist ideology – divide and rule. Nonetheless, more than just a token act towards placating hitherto “second-class Malaysians”, it is the technological imperatives that will probably force a review of the NEP, if it has not already.

Globalisation and the interface of new mass-reach technologies have redefined the boundaries of social justice. The international community is interested in the story of Malaysia’s NEP, just as Malaysians are interested in the story of the Palestinian question. More than at any other time in this generation, we are in an age where “the center cannot hold”, especially when the spine of its raison d’etre was hosted on the back of information dominance by the state and a social contract that cannot last beyond one generation. One might ask: what are the implications for Malaysian politics and business should the NEP continue in its current form?

Quite simply, the perception of mass dissatisfaction will continue to grow, those marginalised by the system will continue to heckle and the middle class, especially the Malays will continue to protest. Politically, mass mobilisation in support of progressive political groups will increase. The futility of affirmative action and the ideals of equal opportunity will become popular rallying calls of the Malaysian civil rights movement. Citizen journalism will continue to challenge government-controlled media outlets and online platforms like Malaysiakini, Malaysia-Today and jeffooi.com, will probably end up as the first port of call for the news-hungry Malaysian.

The post-Mahathir regime thinks that it can still use the Mahathirist formula of maintaining power and wealth. It does not realise that Malaysians no longer wish to see a 5, or 6 or 7 term Prime Minister in power, as such as how the 22-year Mahathir rule. They want to see a government that serves the people and not one that makes the people modern slaves. They want to see corrupt politicians brought to justice. They do not want a government that is run by arrogant politicians who see politics as a dynasty-building vehicle and a conduit to build up a personal fortune. While the political system perpetuated by the NEP does not necessarily make the latter scenario a given, it has by default, sowed the seeds for it. The NEP is no longer serving the needs of Malaysia. The policy is hopelessly one-dimensional and short-sighted. It may be not be weeded out overnight, but its form can certainly be altered over time. Education is probably the best starting point. Children of poor Malaysians, regardless of ethnicity must be given equal opportunity funding for higher education. Children of wealthy Malaysians and members of the Malaysian royalty should not receive preferential treatment, for obvious reasons.

But there could well be a sliver of hope yet – a sure sign that the Malaysian government is aware of the travails facing the country. The government-driven Iskandar Development Region project may well be more important for Malaysia than ordinary Malaysians envisage. As the laboratory of a “no-affirmative action” special economic zone, its success may well be critical for a thorough review of the NEP, especially if Malay Malaysians do well there.

At heart ultimately in the fight to banish the NEP to the annals of history is a culture of insecurity that Chinese and Indian Malaysians need to appreciate too. As argued by Malay nationalists, the real reason the NEP was implemented in the first place was the economic  under-representation of the Malays in Malaysia. Until and unless a new social contract is written, one that is seen not to align disproportionate wealth to a minority, or unevenly among the races – real change for Malaysia, is a figment of imagination. Equal opportunity would mean nothing if a new socio-economic philosophy replaces purported Malay economic preponderance with that of any other race.

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 18 July 2007, 12:04 am and is filed under
Azly Rahman
,
NEP
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Great letdown – Cabinet failure to reaffirm Malaysia is a secular and not Islamic state

I was waiting for the Cabinet to issue a policy statement after its meeting yesterday to clarify and correct the pronouncement  by the Deputy Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak on Tuesday that Malaysia is not a secular state but an Islamic state driven by the fundamentals of Islam.

But there had been total silence from the Cabinet after its weekly Wednesday meeting yesterday.

The Cabinet failure to reaffirm that Malaysia is a secular and not an Islamic State is a great letdown bringing to the very fore the question whether the upcoming 50th Merdeka anniversary celebrations is to commemorate 50 years of a secular Malaysian nation or the beginning of a Malaysian  Islamic State!

Some MCA leaders have made
noises
 in the media that Najib’s declaration that Malaysia is an Islamic state and not a secular state flies in the face of “numerous documents, including the Reid Report, the Cobbold Commision and a 1988 Supreme Court decision” but why  was there not a single one of the four MCA Ministers, as well as the Gerakan, MIC, SUPP, PBS and other non-Muslim Barisan Nasional (BN)  Ministers who dared to raise this  important subject  to ask for a public Cabinet reaffirmation that Malaysia had always been conceived to be a secular and not an Islamic State?

Is this to be another MCA “sandiwara” — using low-level officials to question Najib’s statement that Malaysia is an Islamic and not a secular state while top MCA leaders assured the UMNO leadership  of their support in Cabinet and the Barisan Nasional Supreme Council?

This was what happened when former Prime Minister, Tun Dr. Mahathir Mdohamad made the unilateral, arbitrary and unconstitutional declaration that Malaysia was an Islamic State at the Gerakan national delegates conference on Sept. 29, 2001 — the “929 declaration”.

This was what I said the very next day, 30th September 2001 in my
media statement
:

The headline screaming from the front page of Mingguan Malaysia today is “Malaysia negara Islam — PM”, reporting on the  speech by the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Dr. Mahathir Mohamad yesterday when opening the Gerakan 30th Delegates’ Conference in Kuala Lumpur, declaring categorically that Malaysia is an Islamic State under UMNO rule.

“It is a double shock to  Malaysians, firstly, that  such a declaration was made at the Gerakan Delegates’ Conference, and secondly, the instantaneous and  fulsome support given to Mahathir’s declaration by the Gerakan President, Datuk Seri Dr. Lim Keng Yaik and the MCA President, Datuk Seri Dr. Ling Liong Sik, who were  also present at the function.

More shocks were on the way, for a week later on 5th October 2001, at a hastily convened emergency meeting of the Barisan Nasional Supreme Council, all the Barisan Nasional leaders gave categorical and unreserved endorsement to Mahathir’s declaration that Malaysia was an Islamic State.

In my first immediate response to the “929 Declaration”, I had warned that “it  undermines the secular basis of Malaysia and would have far-reaching consequences for the Malaysian nation-building process in the 21st century”.

In the past six years since Mahathir’s “929 Declaration”, Malaysia has taken many steps backwards inimical to the Merdeka social compact agreed by the forefathers of the major communities to defend, promote and preserve the secular, multi-religious and progressive character of nation-building.

In my 30 years in Parliament from 1969 to 1999, no MP whether from the ruling coalition or the opposition had spoken about an Islamic State, but when I returned to Parliament in 2004 after an absence of five years, there had been such  a sea-change in Parliament to the extent that an UMNO MP could openly make the taunt without any objection from any BN  parliamentarian that those who did  not like Malaysia becoming an Islamic State could leave the country!

Just as Mahathir’s “929 Declaration” had set in motion the regression of Malaysia from a secular state towards UMNO’s concept of an Islamic State, Najib’s July 17 statement (“717 Declaration”) if unchallenged and uncorrected will see another phase in the further undermining of the fundamental cornerstone of Malaysian nation building where Islam is the official religion with  Malaysia remaining a secular and not  an Islamic state.

Unless the Cabinet takes the first opportunity to reaffirm the Merdeka social contract that Malaysia, with Islam as the official religion,  is a secular and not an Islamic state, many Malaysians will be asking what is  the meaning of celebrating the 50th Merdeka anniversary of nationhood next month.

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 19 July 2007, 12:26 pm and is filed under
Constitution
,
nation building
,
Religion
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Independent inquiry – whether Najib negligent in not phasing out Nuri helicopters earlier

Deputy Prime Minister  and Defence Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak, announced yesterday that the Cabinet had decided that the
Nuri helicopters be phased out within three years
 and that an international tender for new helicopters would be called in the next few months.

The Nuri helicopters would still be used pending the arrival of new helicopters.

He  said: “They are the only aircraft available to carry out operations.  We can’t stop using them.”

The air force has more than 20 Nuri helicopters aged between 30 and 40 years.

 “We pray that such accidents will not happen again,” Najib said, adding that no one could guarantee such incidents would not recur.

Such an explanation is neither  satisfactory nor acceptable  to the  public or the bereaved  families of casualties of Nuri helicopter crashes, who must bear a life-long doubt whether their loved ones would still be alive if the authorities concerned had fully discharged their duties to ensure that the Nuri helicopters were  fully safe and air-worthy.

When eleven RMAF lives were lost in two RMAF Nuri helicopter crashes in Sabah in March 1997, DAP had called for the most thorough inquiry into the airworthiness of all Nuri helicopters.

I had asked at the time if the Nuris were airworthy, why was there such a high rate of Nuri helicopter crashes which had already claimed some 74 lives in 14 air disasters since 1968.

There are now conflicting figures of the total number of lives lost from Nuri helicopter crashes since they were  first commissioned 40 years ago in 1968 — with one report accounting for a total of
95 lives  lost
 from Nuri crashes in the past four decades.

The Defence Ministry should release a full report  of the total number of Nuri crashes in the past 40 years and  the lives lost  and the cause in each case.

But what is more  important and pressing are two matters:

Firstly, an independent and public inquiry  as to whether Najib had been negligent in not ensuring an earlier phasing out of the RMAF Nuri helicopters which would have saved the lives of the six RMAF personnel lost in Friday’s Nuri crash  at Genting Sampah – as Najib had been Defence Minister since December 1999; and

Secondly, what measures are taken to ensure that there would not be another RMAF life lost because of the lack of airworthiness in the next three years before the complete phasing out of the Nuri helicopters.

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 19 July 2007, 3:32 pm and is filed under
Defence
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Mainstream media ban on Najib’s “717 Declaration” – to save MCA for jettisoning Merdeka social contract?

On July 17, 2007, Deputy Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak declared that Malaysia is an Islamic state driven by the fundamentals of Islam and not  a secular state.  He even  went out of his way to emphasise that Malaysia had “never been a secular state”.

Next day, Wednesday, July 18, 2007, just before the Cabinet meeting, MCA President and Housing and Local Government Minister, Datuk Seri Ong Ka Ting spoke to Najib about the latter’s “717 Declaration”.

What really transpired nobody would know,  but the result is there for all to see — the
ban
 on all mainstream media on comments on Najib’s “717 Declaration” that Malaysia is an Islamic State and had never been a secular state.

Did the idea of the ban and blackout of  all mainstream media on comments on Najib’s “717 Declaration” emanate from the MCA or did it come from Najib?

Is the ban on   all mainstream media from reporting  comments on Najib’s “717 Declaration” that Malaysia is an Islamic State designed  to salvage  MCA from the political fall-outs in being a party to the jettisoning of the Merdeka “social contract”?

This is not only a cowardly and undemocratic act, the gravest blow to press freedom in the 45 months of  Abdullah premiership, but a great disservice to the integrity of the Merdeka social contract agreed by the forefathers of the major communities as the cardinal basis of nation building —  a secular Malaysia with Islam as the official religion.

The solution is not to ban the press and  deny Malaysians the right to speak up  to defend the Merdeka social contract which had also been the life-work of the three first Prime Ministers, Tunku Abdul Rahman, Tun Razak and Tun Hussein, but for Najib to retract his “717 Declaration” and the Cabinet to reaffirm the Merdeka social contract that Malaysia had never been conceived as an Islamic state but as a secular state with Islam as the official religion.

The question all Malaysians are entitled to a clear and unequivocal answer is whether the upcoming 50th Merdeka Anniversary celebrations is for Malaysians to commemorate 50 years of a secular Malaysia or to mark its official end and the beginning of an Islamic state?

                This entry was posted on Friday, 20 July 2007, 11:34 am and is filed under
Constitution
,
Politics
,
Religion
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Hishammuddin’s “no more statement that Malaysia is secular state” warning and power-grab by publications unit

“Amaran kepada MCA – Hishammuddin minta henti kenyataan Malaysia Negara secular”
— blared the
Berita Harian
 front-page headline today, which carried the report by-lined Norfatimah Ahmad and Suzianah Jiffar  as follows:

RANAU: Pergerakan Pemuda Umno meminta pemimpin MCA berhenti daripada mengeluarkan kenyataan yang mendakwa Malaysia sebagai sebuah negara sekular kerana tindakan itu tidak membawa manfaat kepada sesiapa.

Ketuanya, Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Hussein (gambar)menegaskan polemik sedemikian tidak harus cuba diperbesar-besarkan oleh MCA kerana ia tidak membawa kebaikan kepada mana-mana pihak sebaliknya boleh memberi kesan negatif.

“Saya beri amaran kepada pemimpin MCA supaya berhenti membuat kenyataan sedemikian. Ingin saya tegaskan, saya bukan pemimpin naif yang akan membenarkan perkara ini berterusan. Amaran saya ialah berhenti membuat kenyataan,” katanya selepas merasmikan mesyuarat Umno Bahagian Ranau, di sini semalam.

Kelmarin, beberapa akhbar melaporkan Setiausaha Agung MCA, Datuk Ong Ka Chuan, mempertikaikan kenyataan Timbalan Perdana Menteri, Datuk Seri Najib Razak, Isnin lalu yang menegaskan Malaysia adalah negara Islam yang melindungi hak bukan Islam.

Ong antara lain dilaporkan berkata, kedudukan Malaysia sebagai sebuah negara sekular terbukti menerusi pelbagai dokumen sejarah termasuk Laporan Reid, Suruhanjaya Cobbold dan keputusan Mahkamah Agung yang dibuat pada 1988.

Beliau berkata, status sekular Malaysia itu juga terbukti berdasarkan persetujuan dan kontrak sosial oleh pemimpin terdahulu seperti termaktub dalam pelbagai dokumen yang digunakan dalam proses merangka Perlembagaan Persekutuan.

Bernama
 yesterday also carried a similar report which appeared on
New Straits Times online
, as follows:

Stop making statements on secular state, Hishammuddin tells MCA

RANAU, Fri:

Umno Youth chief Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Tun Hussein today asked MCA to stop making statements on Malaysia being a secular state.

He said though it was nothing new, such claims would not benefit anyone.

“I’m not naive enough to allow this issue to go on,” he told reporters when asked to comment on the issue after opening the Ranau Umno delegates conference.

MCA secretary-general Datuk Ong Ka Chuan had said the party had ample evidence to show that Malaysia was a secular state, including several important events leading to the country’s independence and formation of Malaysia.

He had cited notes prepared by the Colonial Office dated May 23, 1957 at the London Conference Talks.

– BERNAMA

The question that immediately comes to mind from Hishammuddin’s warning to the MCA Secretary-General Datuk Ong Ka Chuan is whether  MCA Ministers and  leaders are under the thumb of both  UMNO Youth and  low-level government officials.

This is because a clamp on the  MCA Ministers and leaders have already been imposed a day earlier by the Internal Security Ministry’s Publications Control and Al-Quran Texts Unit banning all media  from publishing comments on the highly controversial and divisive statement  by Najib which had no constitutional basis whatsoever — that Malaysia is an Islamic state  driven by Islamic fundamentals and is not and had “never been a secular state”.

A senior officer of the Internal Security Ministry’s Publications Control and Al-Quran Texts Unit Che Din Yusof  has said that  allowing such discussions would cause “tension”.  He said “Islam is a sensitive issue”, and  a  directive had been sent to all mainstream newspapers banning the publication of   any news on whether the country is secular or Islam — apart from the statements by the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister.

It would appear that the Internal Security Ministry’s ban and blackout of any response to Najib’s dubious claim that Malaysia is an Islamic state and is not and had “never been a secular state” applies to all, including MCA Ministers and leaders, except Umno and UMNO Youth leaders as evident from the warning not only by Hishammuddin from Ranau, Sabah but also the statement by UMNO Information chief, Tan Sri Muhammad Muhd Taib, on the same subject distorting and rewriting constitutional history and developments – which appeared in the same
Berita Harian
 report today.

For political reasons, MCA Ministers and leaders may be cowed by Hishammuddin, but why must the MCA Minsters and Deputy Ministers be subservient to the lowly officials in the Internal Security Ministry’s Publications Control and Al-Quran Texts Unit?

Is the MCA Deputy Internal Security Minister, Datuk Foo Ah Kiow, supervising the Publications Control and Al-Quran Texts Unit or is  he himself being supervised by the Unit?

Although the Internal Security Minister is the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, who had left for Perth on Monday night for a 11-day private family holiday, Abdullah had been such an absentee Internal Security Minister that at the best of times he had left  the ministry in the charge of  his two deputy ministers, Datuk Johari Baharum and Datuk Foo  Ah Kiow.

Has the role of political master and policy implementer in the Internal Security Ministry between the politicians and the civil servants been reversed?

Has the Ministry’s Publications Control and Al-Quran Texts Unit usurped powers to the extent that it is now not only more powerful over the Deputy Internal Security Ministers but  also Cabinet Ministers — as this must be the first time in the nation’s 50 year history where it  had issued a directive which amounted to a de facto ban on statements by Cabinet Ministers and deputy Ministers except for those from the  Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister!

What is the precedent and basis for the Publications Control and Al-Quran Text Unit to grab   such powers?  Who empowered  the unit to act so undemocratically, delivering a grave blow to media freedom and the freedom of speech of Malaysians, even censoring the freedom of expression of non-UMNO Ministers and Deputy Ministers?

Let MCA Ministers and other non-UMNO Barisan Nasional Ministers  declare whether  at the Cabinet meeting on Wedneday they will challenge the right and power of the Publications Control and Al-Quran Text Unit to impose such a ban on discussion and debate on Najib’s statement that Malaysia is an Islamic state driven by Islamic fundamentals and not and had never been a secular state.

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 21 July 2007, 12:12 pm and is filed under
Constitution
,
Human Rights
,
Media
,
Religion
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Forum: An Islamic State after 50 years?

Forum:An Islamic State after 50 years?

Date: 25 July 2007 (Wed)

Time: 7.30pm

Venue:KL & Selangor Chinese Assembly Hall

Speakers:

Ambiga Sreenevasan, Bar Council President;

Malik Imtiaz Sarwar, HAKAM President;

Tan Sri Abdul Khalid Ibrahim, PKR Secretary-General;

Lim Guan Eng, DAP Secretary-General;

Lim Kit Siang, Parliamentary Opposition Leader.

Enquiries, call 03-79578022 (Lau Weng San)

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 22 July 2007, 11:10 am and is filed under
Announcement
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Power-sharing in BN? Press freedom in Malaysia?

Further confirmation that the  government ban on the media from reporting comments on the
“717 Declaration”
of Deputy Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak that Malaysia is an Islamic state driven by Islamic fundamentals and not and never had been a secular state is confined to Ministers, Deputy Ministers and political leaders from MCA and other Barisan Nasional component parties but not to Umno.

This was why it was reported  yesterday

(1)	Umno Youth leader Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Hussein
defied the “ban”
 when he arrogated to himself the role of an “elder” and  publicly warned MCA leaders to stop making statements on Malaysia being a secular state; and

(2)	Umno Information Chief, Tan Sri Muhammad Muhd Taib,
distorted and rewrote  constitutional history
 and developments to endorse Najib’s claim.

Today, Umno Youth deputy leader,
Khairy Jamaluddin
, has demonstrated that he is also not bound by the ban, which applies only to MCA Ministers, Deputy Ministers and national leaders and those from the other Barisan Nasional parties when
Berita Minggu
 reported his speech on the subject, as follows:

‘Malaysia bukan negara sekular, tidak amal teokrasi’

GEORGETOWN: Malaysia bukan negara sekular, sebaliknya sebuah negara Islam yang tidak mengamalkan teokrasi dalam pemerintahannya, kata Naib Ketua Pemuda Umno, Khairy Jamaluddin.

Beliau berkata, Malaysia meletakkan Islam sebapublicgai agama rasmi dan termaktub dalam Perlembagaan Persekutuan menunjukkan negara ini bukan sekular seperti Turki, Indonesia dan Perancis.

Katanya, konsep negara Islam yang diamalkan Malaysia bukan mengamalkan teokrasi atau aliran yang menggunakan satu sumber mutlak sebagaimana Iran.

“Negara sekular mengamal konsep pemisahan agama dengan pemerintahan tapi kita bukan demikian. Kita juga bukan negara teokrasi dengan melihat satu sumber saja.

“Malaysia bukan Indonesia yang mengamalkan Panca Sila. Di Indonesia, rancangan agama selain Islam turut disiarkan televisyen, tapi kita tidak begitu. Kita juga bukan Iran yang tiada mahkamah sivil.

“Saya juga sanggup berdebat dengan sesiapa juga yang terus-terusan mengatakan Malaysia adalah sebuah negara sekular. Bagi saya, Malaysia negara Islam,” katanya.

Beliau berkata demikian dalam ucapan perasmian Persidangan Perwakilan Pergerakan Pemuda Umno Bayan Baru dan melancarkan jentera pilihan raya Parlimen Bayan Baru di sini, semalam.

Kelmarin, Ketua Pemuda Umno, Datuk Seri Hishammudddin Hussein, meminta pemimpin MCA berhenti daripada mengeluarkan kenyataan yang mendakwa Malaysia sebagai sebuah negara sekular kerana ia tidak membawa manfaat.

Hishammuddin menegaskan polemik sedemikian tidak harus cuba diperbesar-besarkan MCA kerana ia tidak membawa kebaikan kepada mana-mana pihak, sebaliknya boleh memberi kesan negatif.

Khairy berkata, pemerintah Malaysia juga menitikberatkan soal Islam, termasuk menyalur peruntukan kepada institusi agama dan penganjuran program keagamaan.

Khairy’s arguments are open to challenge on many points, but this is not the purpose of this blog – which is on the double standards so blatant in BN.

Could the four MCA Ministers and the Ministers from Gerakan, MIC, SUPP, PBS and other BN component parties explain why the government ban is not only so arbitrary and undemocratic but  so unfair and  one-sided?

Is this the real meaning of “power sharing” in Barisan Nasional and  media freedom in Malaysia?

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 22 July 2007, 6:45 pm and is filed under
Constitution
,
Media
,
Politics
,
Religion
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.