Let the people judge

— by Lucius Goon

The Malaysian Insider

Nov 20, 2011

NOV 20 — There is a new mantra in Putrajaya: when they are caught in a tricky or difficult situation, they say “Let the People Decide”.

There is a reason why Muhyiddin Yassin and Hishammuddin Hussein have suddenly become lovers of the public opinion. It is because they hope to end whatever debate is going on, to recoup their position and then hope that Malaysians forget about the particularly embarrassing event.

Muhyiddin caught at the centre of National Feedlot Corporation (let us not be mistaken: he is a central figure in this scandal because he approved the project), says that the public upon reading Shahrizat Jalil husband’s porous defence will not swallow the lies of the Opposition.

The DPM just wants to end the debate on an issue which can embroil himself.

Now Hishammuddin Hussein, the man who denied the will of the people for free elections, is also keen for the people to judge the government’s actions in using the ISA to arrest 13 alleged terrorists.

So since we are all being supporters of public opinion, why don’t Malaysians also judge:

1) Why the rich and political elite in Malaysia are getting richer but not from productive industries but from inflated contracts, sudden market activity and sweet deals.

The talk of the town has been how Harvest Court Industries shares soared 27 times from a low of eight sen to 2.14 before Bursa Malaysia made it a designated stock.

Of some interest perhaps is news that the 28-year-old son of Najib Razak, Nazifuddin Najib, bought a 2.2 per cent stake in Harvest at RM1.50. Wow, a 28-year-old genius with cash to throw.

Maybe the people should judge how the political elite seem to have the most brilliant offspring. I mean the top executives of NFC are Shahrizat’s young children.

2) Why don’t Malaysians also judge why defence spending is not subject to scrutiny by Parliament.

According to a report by Transparency International, Bangladesh, Liberia, Papua New Guinea is more transparent in defence spending than Malaysia.

Maybe that is why the patrol boats and aircraft and submarines we buy are so many times higher than what other countries pay.

Zahid Hamidi is on a spending spree and not many people know how much he is paying or what he is buying.

3) Why don’t Malaysians also judge why the son-in-law of the DPM is involved in the lucrative biometric scanning project for foreign labour?

This is an interesting question to ponder because isn’t Muhyiddin head of some cabinet committee which overlooks foreign workers.

4) Malaysians should also judge how the political elite are able to send their sons and daughter’s to expensive boarding schools in the UK and Australia on their government salaries.

5) Malaysians should also judge how it is that young Umno politicians seem to have well-tailored clothes, luxury cars and entourage of hangers on but no regular employment.

What exactly does Khairy Jamaluddin do for a living?

I agree wholeheartedly with Muhyiddin and Hishammuddin that Malaysians should exercise their powers of judgement but don’t depend on the mainstream media.

Read the online media and devour rumours because in Malaysia, the unofficial stuff is often true.

                This entry was posted on Monday, 21 November 2011, 1:21 am and is filed under
Auditor-General Report
,
Corruption
,
Hishammuddin
,
Muhyiddin Yassin
,
Najib Razak
,
UMNO
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Malaysia in the Era of Globalization #89

By
M. Bakri Musa

Chapter11:     Embracing Free Enterprise

Let there be amongst you traffic and trade by mutual goodwill.

—Surah An-Nisaa (The Women) (4:29)

When you are lost, goes an old Malay saying, revert to the source.  That seems to be Malaysia’s new economic strategy following the Asian economic crisis of 1997.  Buffeted by the turmoil of globalization and open markets, Malaysians yearn for the simpler days of fixed exchange rates and controlled commerce.  Some even suggest regressing to the old days of bartering!  But as in the jungle, the path back is often overgrown, and one could just as easily get lost in retreating.  Malaysia is better off preparing for the new realities of open markets and globalization, instead of retreating to some imagined good old days of yore.

            With the collapse of communism free enterprise remains the only viable economic system.  It is successful because it has proven to bring the greatest prosperity to the largest number of people.  Many have sought a “third way,” a mid course or a bridging between free enterprise and state planning.  Alas, there is no such alternative.

            Free enterprise or capitalism, in the traditional definition, is an economic system based on the private ownership of the “means of production” and in which profits can be acquired through investment of capital and employment of labor.  This is in contrast to socialism and communism where the state owns the “means of production,” and also your labor.  In free enterprise there is private ownership of properties, while in socialism and communism, everything belongs to the state.  In Islam of course everything belongs to Allah, man is only His trustee (“vice regent”) on earth.  Only God can revoke this trust (presumably upon one’s death).  Nowhere in the Koran is it stated that Allah has substituted the state for humans for the trusteeship of the earth.  In this regard, capitalism rather than socialism or communism is closer to Islam.  Besides, the atheism of communism is the very antithesis of Islam.

            With capitalism you are rewarded for your efforts and ingenuity; with socialism, the all-powerful state decides how much you deserve or should get.  To use a biblical phraseology, with free enterprise you reap what you sow; with communism, to each his due or according to his needs.  To revert to my familiar bovine analogy, imagine you have two cows.  With socialism, in the spirit of equality, you are required to give one to your neighbor; in communism, you must give both to the state and it may in turn give you some milk in return; with capitalism, you sell one cow and buy a bull.  (If you are a real entrepreneur you simply let your cows loose amongst your neighbor’s bull!)  Real world experience proves that over time the capitalistic system produces the greatest number of cows.

            The failures of communism and socialism are now self-evident.  The old defunct Soviet empire is only the most dramatic example.  But remnants of that ideology are still alive and kicking to inflict their damage on the economies of many countries, Malaysia included.  Present-day stagnant India with its ubiquitous “Permit Raj” is an ever-ready sorry reminder of the dangers of central planning and big government.

            Malaysia, despite its commitment to free enterprise and open markets, is still very much enamored with elaborate central planning and fancy Five Year Plans.  My own minor involvement in the late 1970’s with Malaysia’s never ending Five Year Plans is instructive.  I see little evidence of improvement since then.  It was towards the end of the Fourth (or was it the Fifth?) Malaysia Plan.  I was instructed to develop plans for the next five years, and countless meetings were held.  Only months before we were busy with the midterm review of the current plan.  There were still many projects that were either behind schedule or had not been implemented.  Prior to that, we were engaged in yet another series of equally intensive reviews of uncompleted projects of the previous plans.  We were indeed heavy into planning.  In fact I could keep myself busy just attending these multitude of meetings!  Many civil servants spend their entire time doing just that.  Alas, planning is one thing, executing is another, as I would soon discover.

            I had this simple idea that instead of concocting grandiose new schemes that would never see the light of day, I would review all previous plans, starting with the very first one twenty years earlier.  To my surprise those plans were all well thought out, practical, and sensible.  My predecessors had obviously taken their responsibilities seriously and put much thought into their submissions.  The only problem was, few of those sound ideas had been implemented.  And the fewer still that had been completed were useless or inoperative because conditions had changed dramatically.  For example, by the time the new operating suites were completed they were already severely stressed from heavy usage because of the long delay between planning and completion.

            So instead of dreaming of glamorous new projects, I merely updated the old ones.  As for the required all-important “mission statement,” I stated simply that my objective was to complete all the projects of previous plans.  Direct and truthful!  After factoring for expanded capacity and inflation, I arrived at the new estimates with no difficulty.  My immediate superior was suitably impressed when I submitted my proposal way ahead of schedule.

            The only problem was, when the minister reviewed my submission, he was not amused.  First, I did not have any grandiose proposals, and second, so many previous projects had not been implemented.  While he understood my point, nonetheless he insisted that I come up with a new and better plan.  He was not interested to know why those previous projects were not completed.  They were his predecessor’s responsibility, not his!

            Fortunately for me, I too had my own personal five-year plan, for soon afterwards I resigned from government service.  And mine was fully implemented and on time.

            Today (2002) Malaysia is embarking on its Eighth Five Year Plan.  I can imagine all those bureaucrats spending countless hours in meetings with their Powerpoint presentations (if they are computer savvy, that is) on their various projects, complete with detailed dates of implementations, costs, and other minutiae.  When one sits at one of these meetings one is suitably impressed.  That is, until you actually see those projects at the ground level.  Then one realizes that all those wonderful plans are just that—simply plans.

            My experience with top-down bureaucracy of central planning was equally dismal.  I was in charge of the postgraduate educational program at the Johor Baru hospital and had ordered much-needed books and journals for the library.  Easy enough, except when it came time to get the funds I was told to submit the request to the Ministry of Health headquarters.  I did but was told that books could only be ordered once a year and that somebody from headquarters would be visiting me soon to discuss the purchase order.

            That bureaucrat did finally show up and the first thing he asked was whether I had competitive bids!  I had difficulty convincing him that buying medical books and journals was not like buying hospital uniforms where one can comparison-shop and accept the lowest bidder.  I suggested that the ministry authorizes a sum of money annually for books and journals, and let the hospital do its own purchasing.  He was not persuaded but instead tried to impress me with his vast knowledge of the civil service code and the relevant circulars.

            A year later the books and journals had yet to appear.  It would not surprise me that they had not even been ordered, awaiting no doubt approval from Treasury or perhaps the minister himself.  All for a measly few thousand ringgit!  Meanwhile those young doctors were without their reference books and journals.

            When I pointed this out to a more senior ministry official, his reply was that central planning was a way to cut out corruption.  Had they given me the cash, I might have spent it on frivolities or worse, absconded with it.  It is pathetic that they would trust me with the lives of the citizens but not a few lousy ringgit.  I shudder to think of the bureaucratic maze my purchase order went through.

            Extrapolate my experience and one need not wonder why Malaysia is a mess.  In response to the economic slowdown, the government in 2001 allocated a multi-billion ringgit fiscal stimulus package.  A year later the funds were still stuck at Treasury.  Whatever economic impact the planners had imagined in drawing up those wonderful plans, all came to naught.  The Prime Minister blamed the Public Works minister; he in turn blamed Treasury; and Treasury of course blamed the contractors.  Reminds me of the “blame the dumb cows” story!

            I have now come to the conclusion that all these elaborate central planning are nothing more than massive public works projects to keep the glut of civil servants occupied.  That those plans occasionally benefited the citizens is merely coincidental!

            If that were the only consequence of central planning, it would be relatively benign.  The more sinister aspect of central planning is that it would lead to the gradual erosion of the rights and liberty of citizens.

            These planners may be well intentioned initially, but all too often when they promise a rosy world, the reality is the reverse.  People’s lives would be planned to satisfy the needs and desires of the planners.  Left unchecked, these planners become control freaks.  This was the prescient observation of the Austrian economist von Hayek in his classic book, The Road to Serfdom.  It is significant that the book was first published at the end of World War II when the world was enamored with central planning and Maynard Keynes, a brilliant and eloquent proponent of government intervention, was the towering intellect in economics.

Next:   Free Enterprise As An Islamic Tradition

                This entry was posted on Monday, 21 November 2011, 10:47 am and is filed under
Bakri Musa
,
globalisation
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


World Bank: KL a ‘mini Los Angeles’ of inefficient urban sprawl

By Lee Wei Lian

The Malaysian Insider

Nov 21, 2011

KUALA LUMPUR, Nov 21 – The World Bank said in a report today that Malaysian cities needed to adopt more compact urban forms to improve livability and attract talent.

The report noted that Kuala Lumpur had sprawled to accomodate unrestrained motorisation and had been referred to as a “mini Los Angeles,” referring to the fact that the US city has been widely derided for its unlovely and inefficient sprawl.

The World Bank’s Senior Country Economist for Malaysia, Frederico Gil Sander told The Malaysian Insider in an interview prior to the launch of the report that the country needed to review its land use policies and make it cheaper to develop along public transit arteries and make it more expensive to develop further away from public transport.

“Create incentives for people to develop along public transport arteries,” he said.

Sander also called for universities to be integrated more tightly into the urban fabric and attract more city dwellers to take classes or attend cultural events.

The World Bank report “Malaysia Economic Monitor: Smart Cities” noted that cities are central to Malaysia’s aspiration to become a high-income economy as higher levels of urbanization are associated with higher productivity and overall economic growth and the inherent proximity facilitates the flow of knowledge that drives innovation.

It recommended that Malaysia make its cities more physically and economically connected as well as become more sustainable and offer a higher quality of life.

The report also noted that for Malaysian cities to become hubs of innovation, it had to increase both the numbers and quality of skilled workers by improving educational institutions and retain homegrown talent while at the same time attracting talent from elsewhere.

“Improving quality of life for citizens by reducing crime and congestion is a key factor both to attract and retain talent – as well as an objective in its own right,” said the report.

Malaysia had neglected to expand its rail networks in the past unlike forward thinking countries such as Switzerland.

This was perceived largely due to the need to promote car ownership and support the national automotive industry.

Cheap fuel as a result of subsidies also made it relatively cheaper to drive in Malaysia than in other countries which helped encouraged urban sprawl.

The Land Public Transport Commission (Spad) was formed last year to help address the issue of lack of coordination in terms of public transport as well as to have oversight over the development of public transport in the country.

                This entry was posted on Monday, 21 November 2011, 6:12 pm and is filed under
Economics
,
Transport
,
university
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


World Bank: M’sian varsities a poor show

 Patrick Lee | November 21, 2011

Free Malaysia Today

Malaysia spends a lot on tertiary education, but its universities are not as good as others in Asia and many of its graduates are not equipped for the job market.

PETALING JAYA: Malaysia has little to show for its universities despite spending more money on tertiary education than do many other countries.

Malaysian universities lag behind many counterparts in Asia, including those located in neighbouring countries like Thailand and Singapore, according to a World Bank report released today.

“While Malaysia spends slightly more than most countries on its university students, leading Malaysian universities perform relatively poorly in global rankings,” said the report, entitled Malaysia Economic Monitor: Smart Cities.

Citing the Quacquarelli Symonds (QS) World University Rankings 2010, it noted that Universiti Malaya (UM) was ranked 207th worldwide and 29th in Asia.

It also quoted a US News and World 2011 report on the World’s Best Universities, which put UM, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Universiti Sains Malaysia and Universiti Putra Malaysia at 167th, 279th, 335th and 358th place respectively.

Even more worrying, the World Bank report observed, was the “increasing gap” between Malaysia’s and Singapore’s universities.

It compared UM with the National University of Singapore (NUS), which QS cited as the leading university in Southeast Asia.

“The gap between UM and NUS has been high and generally increasing, especially in the sciences,” the report said.

According to the report, UM and NUS were on par when it came to science and technology in 2005. However, UM has lost out to NUS over the past six years.

The report also said many of Malaysia’s university graduates did not seem to have the skills that would help them get employment.

Lack of R&D

It said that 18% of university graduates were reported to be unemployed 18 months after graduation.

“There is substantial evidence of mismatches between the skills produced by Malaysia’s universities and the skills demanded by the labour markets.”

It appeared that graduates lacked proficiency not only in technical and professional areas, but also in information technology and the English language.

Research and development, the World Bank said, also did not seem to play a big role in Malaysia’s universities.

Not even added funds for R&D under the 2007 National Higher Education Plan and “sophisticated programmes” seemed to have helped.

“For many years, Malaysia pursued a policy favouring commercialisation and applied research over fundamental research and development,” the report said. “Results of the reforms have yet to show in data.”

It said Malaysia’s gross expenditure on R&D was only 0.64% of GDP in 2010, compared to Singapore’s 2.52%.

Malaysia had 372 researchers and 44 technicians per million of its population, much fewer than Singapore’s 6,088 and 529, it added.

                This entry was posted on Monday, 21 November 2011, 6:01 pm and is filed under
Education
,
university
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Dr M: Siapa yang mengaku kelemahan diri?

—
Aspan Alias

The Malaysian Insider

Nov 22, 2011

22 NOV — Semalam hari minggu. Pagi-pagi lagi saya mendapat panggilan talipon dan beberapa SMS dari rakan-rakan dari jauh dan dekat bertanyakan saya samada saya membaca wawancara Utusan dengan bekas Perdana Menteri Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad.

“Bro dah baca ke interview Dr Mahathir dalam Utusan?”

Saya jawab, “Saya tak langgan Utusan sudah 10 tahun, nanti saya baca Utusan online lah!”

Saya terus sahaja membaca setiap ulasan Dr M dalam Utusan itu dan saya tidak berapa hairan kerana saya sendiri telah menyebut segala-gala yang di sebut oleh Dr Mahathir dalam wawancara beliau itu. Bezanya Dr Mahathir seorang tokoh besar sedangkan saya hanya seorang biasa yang melata di tepian politik negara.

Pada keseluruhannya Dr Mahathir bersetuju dengan pandangan ramai yang Umno dan pemerhatian yang Umno sekarang adalah parti yang lemah dan tidak pandai untuk menjadi parti pemerintah. Pendeknya Umno sudah tidak serupa Umno lagi.

Umno berpecah di setiap peringkat dari cawangan ke pusat dan tidak berkepimpinan. Umno tidak lagi berdaya menjawab persoalan yang di timbulkan oleh orang ramai melalui parti-parti politik pembangkang serta NGO dan ini amat menyulitkan Umno untuk terus relevan sebagai parti yang memerintah negara.

Saya tidak akan menulis secara detail apa yang di sebutkan oleh Dr Mahathir di dalam wawancara beliau itu tetapi cukup kalau saya rumuskan sahaja secara pendek dan “concise” tentang apa yang beliau rungutkan terhadap Umno itu.

Dr Mahathir tidak berselindung untuk mengatakan yang Umno pada hari ini sangat lemah dan tidak berkemampuan untuk memulihkan imejnya yang jatuh teruk selepas pilihanraya umum yang lalu. Bekas Perdana Menteri itu berkata yang Umno tidak mampu untuk menolak anggapan dan persepsi yang parti itu adalah parti yang sarat dengan rasuah samada di peringkat parti dan kerajaan.

Stigma rasuah yang melekat kepada Umno itu tidak dapat di buangkan oleh pemimpin serta ahli-ahli parti. Umno tidak mampu untuk menjawab tuduhan dari banyak pihak, parti politik atau pun NGO yang parti itu adalah parti yang rasuah dan menyalah gunakan kuasa.

Dengan jelas Dr Mahathir membayangkan yang Datuk Seri Najib Razak tidak berusaha dengan secukupnya kerana terlalu sibuk dengan kerja-kerja lain dan segala kelemahan yang ada kepada Umno yang di benci rakyat belum lagi nampak usaha yang berkesan telah di lakukan oleh Najib.

Umno, katanya akan menghadapi masalah besar di dalam pilihanraya yang akan datang dan jika Umno serta BN menang tipis ia akan menjadi satu kerajaan yang lemah dan tidak efektif. Perpecahan di setiap level parti kita begitu jelas kerana semuanya berebut-rebut untuk menjadi calon dan dengan keadaan in jelas membayangkan bahawa pemimpin-pemimpin Umno hanya lebih mementingkan kepentingan peribadi masing-masing.

Walaubagaimanapun elok saudara membaca dengan teliti apa yang di ungkapkan oleh Dr Mahathir dan pada pendapat saya apa yang di nyatakan oleh Dr M itu semuanya benar. Dr Mahathir telah menyalahkan semua orang terutamanya mengumpulkan semua kesalahan kepada Tun Abdullah Badawi dan menantunya Khairy Jamaluddin kerana kelemahan Umno itu.

Tetapi apa yang Mahathir terlupa untuk menyebut ialah Abdullah Badawi itu adalah lantikan beliau dan beliaulah yang memnyebabkan Abdullah Badawi menjadi Perdana Menteri yang beliau anggap sebagai lemah itu.

Dr Mahathir telah berjaya menaik dan menurunkan sesiapa dalam negara ini. Itu kehebatan Dr Mahathir. Tetapi ramai termasuk diri saya hairan kenapa beliau tidak berhenti-henti menyalahkan Pak Lah sedang orang yang beliau persalahkan itu adalah pilihan beliau dan beliau tidak mampu atau pun mahu untuk menyekat Pak Lah untuk naik ke taraf Perdana Menteri.

Jika si jembel seperti saya dari awal lagi menelah dan menjangka yang Pak Lah akan membawa negara tidur nyenyak kenapa Dr Mahathir masih mahukan Abdullah Badawi untuk mengambil alih tempat beliau?

Sebenarnya Dr Mahathirlah penyebabnya kenapa Umno pada akhir pemerintahannya sudah tidak ada pemimpin lagi. Dr Mahathir telah mengenepikan nama-nama besar di dalam Umno secara sistematik untuk beliau tegak seorang di dalam parti. Mahathir takut di bayangi oleh pemimpin-pemimpin yang sezaman dengannya dan beliau telah melakukan segala-galanya untuk kekal berkuasa.

Apa yang Mahathir terlupa untuk menyatakan dengan jelas dan berani ialah di mana-mana negara yang dipimpin oleh seorang pemimpin begitu lama akan akhirnya membawa durjana kepada negara itu. Yugoslavia telah berpecah kepada lima apabila Presiden Tito mati setelah memerintah selama 3 dekad. Begitu juga yang berlaku di Romania dan banyak lagi. Ruthopia telah kering kontang politiknya apabia Helle Salasie mati.

Di negara kita Dr Mahathir memerintah 22 tahun melalui berbagai cara untuk terus berkuasa termasuk mematikan partinya sendiri. Mentadbir secara kuku besi yang sangat halus dan telah menyingkirkan semua pemimpin sezamannya untuk berkuasa seorang diri dengan di sokong oleh pengampunya sahaja. Setelah 22 tahun beliau merasakan yang tekanan terhadap beliau semakin bertambah supaya keluar dari Putrajaya.

Dalam pada beliau berkuasa bersendirian beliau tidak membentuk kepimpinan lapisan malahan beliau lebih seronok untuk melihat pangganti beliau itu lebih lemah dari beliau. Beliaulah yang meninggalkan jawatan tanpa mewarisi kepimpinan gantian dan satu fakta yang mesti di terima ialah selepas beliau negara tidak akan lagi mempunyai kepimpinan yang baik.

Kalau beliau begitu marah dan membenci Pak Lah kerana Pak Lah seorang yang lemah beliau patut berkata kepada diri beliau sendiri yang ini adalah kesalahan beliau kerana meletakan Pak Lah sebagai penggantinya. Siapa sahaja yang mengganti beliau adalah pemimpin yang lemah dan siapa juga yang akan menggantikan pemimpin lemah itu akan merupakan pemimpin yang lagi lemah.

Dulu di katakan Pak Lah yang terlemah tetapi sekarang sudah menjadi pengakuan ramai pengganti Pak Lah lebih lemah. Pengganti Pak Lah ini tidak mungkin mampu mengawal negara kerana untuk mengawal ahli keluarganya pun tidak berdaya bagaimana beliau nak mengawal negara. Jika dulu Pak Lah dikatakan ada menantunya yang mempunyai pengaruh besar pemimpin pengganti Pak Lah mempunyai “soul-mate” beliau yang lebih berpengaruh dari pengaruh Khairy kepada Pak Lah.

Hakikatnya satu. Selepas Perdana Menteri Mahathir ketua eksekutif atau Perdana Menteri selepasnya adalah yang lemah. Jika Umno masih diberi mandat, percayalah yang akan menggantikan Najib akan lebih lemah lagi dan begitulah seterusnya sehingga negara kita hancur lebur. Itulah sebabnya tindakan ahli-ahli Umno meninggalkan parti tiu adalah perkara biasa. Kalau tidak secara terangan mereka meninggalkan parti di dalam peti undi dengan memangkah pembangkang.

Tindakan ramai yang bijak pandai menyertai PAS dan DAP dan meninggalkan Umno itu adalah benar tetapi ianya sudah bermula sejak zaman Dr Mahathir sendiri menjadi PM. Bezanya tindakan bijak pandai menyertai parti-parti alternatif itu baru bermula dan belum begitu jelas semasa itu. Dr Mahathir hanya bernasib baik kerana berhenti sebelum keadaan itu merebak. Maka yang menjadi mangsanya adalah pemimpin-pemimpin lemah yang beliau bentuk yang menerima padahnya.

Pendeknya apa yang diperkatakan oleh Dr Mahathir di dalam wawancara dengan Utusan itu semuanya benar. Hanya beliau terlupa atau tidak mahu mengaku yang beliaulah yang menyebabkan Umno menjadi lemah selepas beliau…dan bukannya kerana kesalahan Pak Lah.

Mungkin Mahathir terlupa untuk mengatakannya kepada Utusan. Lagi pun takkan lah beliau nak mengaku salah pulak? Bak kata perpatah, siapa yang hendak mengaku berak di tepi jalan? — aspanaliasnet.blogspot.com

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 22 November 2011, 12:20 pm and is filed under
Abdullah Ahmad Badawi
,
Mahathir
,
Najib Razak
,
UMNO
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


The right to assemble

— The Malaysian Insider

Nov 22, 2011

NOV 22 — On September 15, Datuk Seri Najib Razak went further than just saying he will repeal the Internal Security Act (ISA). In effect, he said the government of the day will treat all Malaysians as adults by reviewing section 27 of the Police Act on the freedom of assembly.

This freedom is enshrined in Article 10 of the Federal Constitution and the prime minister said then that the government will allow public gatherings based on international norms while taking a firm stand against street demonstrations.

Today, he made good his promise. In the most surprising of ways. His administration tabled the Peaceful Assembly Bill 2011 that actually ends any right to a public procession for any other reason except for religious events and funerals.

The Bill also seeks to limit constitutional right of assembly but doing so under guise of a more liberal government that takes care of every stakeholder of any public assembly. Fact is, the police now have wider powers than merely denying a permit.

They can suggest alternative venues for such assemblies, they can hold a draw to decide between two or more simultaneous assemblies — all in the name of a liberal and more democratic government.

Of course, the new law will not infringe on assemblies for elections or labour disputes. It is specific for those who have some beef against someone else. And with steeper fines too.

And the nub of problem is this: the new legislation, whether it’s the Peaceful Assembly Act or replacement security law for the ISA, is showing that this government is all along more interested in window dressing than true reforms.

It is interested in making announcements that will raise people’s hopes only to be let down months later. If anything, this new law is chilling for greater democracy in Malaysia. If anything, this new law is just proof that Barisan Nasional (BN) will not do anything to jeopardise its hold on Putrajaya.

This from a government that has done a lot for the country over the years. It reflects a great insecurity on its part by proposing such laws that impinge on civil liberties. What a pity. One expects better from a government that promises 1 Malaysia. People First. Performance Now.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 22 November 2011, 9:57 pm and is filed under
Human Rights
,
Najib Razak
,
Police
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Values?

—
Black Swan

The Malaysian Insider

Nov 22, 2011

NOV 22 — With the debacle that is the NFC and many other issues being hotly debated in Malaysia at the moment, a thought suddenly came to me.

The underlying and pervading issue here seems to be an issue of values. Let me qualify this: I am no psychologist with textbook definitions of values; I am a professional and mother who is increasingly aghast at what is going on in Malaysia.

Values to me are simply our personal guidelines that enable us to distinguish between right and wrong. We would do something that is right because our personal values guide so and we wouldn’t do something because the same values would, again, make us hesitate from doing it.

As the NFC debacle looms larger and politician after politician (from the highest offices of the government) come out and say that this was right and make it all sound very convincing, one then realises that they are saying so because they believe they are right. Why? Their personal values are guiding them.

Which brings to question the entire value system that is being practised. It has nothing to do with religion or race. These people’s values are guiding them to believe that they are right.

When you have politicians saying, “we want to do something because of its political dividend” or “we cannot afford to be ‘picky’” about which groups to align themselves with, and that everything must be done with only one goal in mind — winning the next election — the value system, to me, again comes into question. Isn’t public office about serving the people and doesn’t it require a certain degree of selflessness and humility?

Again, I believe it’s the values. It has become commonplace for the politicians to believe that governing is their entitlement and not a privilege granted to them by the citizens.

I personally believe that these values, distorted though they may be, are so ingrained that it is going to be quite difficult to move away from this. Until people have values that include accountability, transparency and respect for the other human beings at its core, I don’t believe any fundamental change is going to be possible no matter how many laws are passed and how many enforcement agencies or personnel you have.

As long as corruption, cronyism and arrogance are part of someone’s value system, nothing much can ever change. It is going to just entrench itself deeper into the nation’s value system.

Until we, as individuals, can look at ourselves in the mirror and say, “This is wrong and I should not do this,” no fundamental change can happen in the society — no matter how many slogans and billboards we put up.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 22 November 2011, 12:37 pm and is filed under
Auditor-General Report
,
Corruption
,
Good Governance
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Let Parliamentary Select Committee review Peaceful Assembly Bill

By
Proham
 | November 23, 2011

The Malaysian Insider

NOV 23 — Proham views with grave concern the proposed Bill on Peaceful Assembly fails to reflect the true spirit of human rights that is consistent with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Federal Constitution and the promise of the Prime Minister to institute democratic reform.

However, Proham acknowledges that the proposed bill recognises the citizen’s right to organise an assembly or participate in an assembly peacefully, although it makes it very difficult in practice.

The withdrawal of the permit to assemble is welcomed and reflects the PM’s commitment to further democratic reforms. However this is substituted by a whole range of pre-conditions and prior  approvals, and restrictive legal provisions , including strengthening the powers of the police, that will severely discourage and dissuade the freedom of peaceful assembly, which is a basic human right.

Therefore, Proham proposes that the Federal Government delays the second reading of this bill and commits it to a Parliamentary Select Committee process, whereby there is maximum consultation with Members of Parliament, the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (SUHAKAM) and civil society as a whole.

Proham truly feels that at this point of our nation’s history, we must build on our democratic tradition with consensus building from both sides of the parliamentary divide and the large majority of Malaysians. The rushing of such a bill can be construed as unnecessary unholy haste that will not be in the best interests of our nation and our people.

We appeal to the Federal government to consider Proham’s proposal to refer this bill to a parliamentary select committee and to consult our people more deeply and widely.

________

* Proham is a grouping of ex-commissioners of the Malaysian Human Rights Commission.

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 23 November 2011, 5:17 pm and is filed under
Constitution
,
Human Rights
,
Parliament
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Najib has smashed to smithereens the mirage of  political transformation and “best democracy in the world” which he created two months ago with a repressive and  undemocratic Peaceful Assembly Bill

The Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak has now smashed to smithereens the mirage of political transformation and “best democracy in the world”  with the first reading of the undemocratic Peaceful Assembly Bill 2011.

The mirage created by Najib that he wants to make Malaysia “the best democracy in the world” lasted only two months as the proposed repeal of Section 27 of the Police Act requiring police permits for any gathering of three or more persons is to be  replaced by a more undemocratic and repressive Peaceful Assembly Bill violating the constitutional right of Malaysians to  freedom of assembly.

In many respects, the Peaceful Assembly Bill is even more restrictive and repressive than Section 27 of the Police Act.  Under the new law, for instance,  a person can be fined up to RM20,000  as compared to RM10,000 under the Police Act.

In banning “street protests”, restricting assemblies from “prohibited places” or “within fifty metres from the limit of the prohibited place”, requiring notice of 30 days for an assembly to be held as well as empowering the police which is a total stranger to the concept of “democratic policing” to impose arbitrary restrictions  and conditions for an assembly, the fundamental constitutional right of freedom to assembly runs the risk of being grounded to ashes.

The Prime Minister should withdraw the Peaceful Assembly Bill in its present form to remove the undemocratic features to  ensure that the new law does not end up as a more undemocratic and repressive substitute for Section 27 of the Police Act.

(Media Comment  in Parliament after the Pakatan Rakyat Leadership Meeting on Wednesday, 23rd November 2011)

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 23 November 2011, 6:10 pm and is filed under
Human Rights
,
Najib Razak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


New assembly law undermines Constitution, says Ambiga

By Debra Chong

The Malaysian Insider

Nov 22, 2011

KUALA LUMPUR, Nov 22 – Bersih 2.0 chief Datuk Ambiga Sreenevasan slammed today the proposed new law on peaceful assembly for giving greater powers to the home minister and the police to curb dissent and undermine the Federal Constitution.

In a statement today, the prominent lawyer accused the government of failing to keep up with international standards and creating instead the illusion that Malaysians now have greater freedom as provided by the country’s supreme law.

“This Bill restricts our rights as much as possible.  It gives unfettered powers to the minister and the police to further restrict the freedom to assemble.  It impinges on free speech.  In short, it will stymie legitimate dissent in ourcountry,” Ambiga (picture) charged.

“Furthermore freedom of assembly includes peaceful street protests. By excluding this as a right altogether the Federal Constitution is once again undermined,” she said.

Ambiga moved to punch holes in the Peaceful Assembly Bill tabled this morning, saying it was worse than the existing and unconstitutional section 27 of the Police Act 1967 it was to replace.

“This right is one of the most basic and indispensable of the fundamental freedoms necessary for the functioning of a democratic society and is provided for in the Federal Constitution,” she said and cited from a 2004 Royal Commission on the Police led by former Chief Justice Tun Mohammed Dzaiddin Abdullah to prove her point.

The vocal human rights activist urged the government to immediately withdraw the proposed law if it was sincere to prove correct Datuk Seri Najib Razak’s reformist stand on making Malaysia the “best democracy”.

The prime minister promised a raft of reforms in his Malaysia Day address on September 15, including the repeal of the controversial Internal Security Act (ISA) and doing away with annual permits for the print media, saying he wanted to give Malaysians more freedom.

The former Malaysian Bar president cautioned that voters will be watching the MPs to see who supported the proposed law in the run-up to the 13th general election, widely expected to be called early next year.

But the Bar Council’s current constitutional law committee chief, Syahredzan Johan, took a slightly different stance.

The younger lawyer told The Malaysian Insider that while he had grave misgivings about the government’s prohibition of “street protests” and its definition, he regarded the new law as a “step up” compared to section 27 of the Police Act.

“Section 27 is very oppressive. Anything that loses that is a step forward, with caveats,” he said.

“To me it’s still a step forward because you don’t need a permit from the police anymore. Now they can’t stop you from assembling but we should push forward for the weaknesses to be rectified,” he added.

Pakatan Rakyat MPs in Parliament today castigated the government for presenting a more “repressive” law despite being globally panned after it resorted to tough police measures to clamp down on dissent.

In a city lockdown last July 9 during the Bersih 2.0 rally, police had shot chemical-laced water cannons and tear gas into thousands of street demonstrators demanding for cleaner elections.

The organisers estimated 50,000 people turned out for the rally, but official figures put the figures closer to 6,000 with nearly 1,600 arrested.

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 23 November 2011, 1:02 am and is filed under
Bersih
,
Human Rights
,
Police
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Peaceful Assembly Bill 2011: Unconstitutional and anti-democratic

By
Tommy Thomas
 | November 23, 2011

The Malaysian Insider

NOV 23 — Why is it always the case that the Malaysian government, in the guise of improving the freedoms of its citizen, enacts laws that actually erode liberties?

Since 1960 when the Emergency was revoked, only to be immediately replaced by the dreaded Internal Security Act, 1960 (“ISA”), successive governments have taken state action to the detriment of its people.  The Peaceful Assembly Bill, 2011, which had its first reading in the Federal Parliament yesterday, is another example of such retrograde law making.

I cannot believe that after 54 years of Merdeka in the 11th year of the 21st century, the Executive has the audacity to present a Bill, which, in its own Explanatory Statement, describes it as “one of the efforts initiated by the government to undertake the transformation of the existing legal framework in relation to the constitutional rights of citizens to assemble”.

Fundamental liberties are enshrined in Part II of the Federal Constitution, the supreme law of the land.  Article 10(1)(b) of the Federal Constitution provides that “all citizens have the right to assemble peacefully and without arms”.

Freedom to assemble is not absolute; thus, the Federal Parliament may enact laws that have the effect of restricting such freedom in the interest of “security” or “public order”.  Case law has established that such Parliamentary restriction must be “reasonable” by objective standards.

Thus, Parliament cannot suffocate the enjoyment of such liberties. Freedom of assembly is invariably exercised together with other fundamental liberties like personal liberty (Article 5 (1)); freedom of movement (Article 9(2)); freedom of expression (Article 10(1)(a); freedom of association (Article 10(1)(c); freedom of religion (Article 11) and so forth.

In perhaps the most important constitutional case in our history, a five-member Federal Court in 1992 in the Nordin Salleh case, held that any state action that would render illusory or meaningless the exercise of any fundamental liberty is unconstitutional.  Hence, the Court looks at the effect or consequence of state action.

It is against this background of constitutionalism, that the Peaceful Assembly Bill, 2011 must be scrutinised.

My first reservation is philosophical.  The Bill introduces the concept of “interests, rights and freedoms of other persons”, with the police having to weigh such interests, rights and freedoms with that of the persons who wish to assemble.

Hence, the inherent clash between Executive and citizen which characterises the eternal struggle for civil liberty has been extended to include the rights of other people — a classic extension of one of the oldest doctrines in politics : divide and rule.

In my opinion, a law that is intended to promote the exercise by citizen A and his friends of their right to assemble should not in any way be dependent on the right of citizen X and his friends to object or veto the former’s right to assemble.

The fundamental freedoms under Part II of our Constitution do not contemplate such clashes between different groups of citizens which would inevitable develop into a contest between majority and minority, with the minority always being the casualty.

Accordingly, all references to “the interests, rights and freedoms of other persons” in the Bill are, in my opinion, without any constitutional basis. The same point can be made about the use of new expressions like “counter assembly” and “simultaneous assemblies”.

Hence, the Parliamentary draftsman is deliberately giving power to the police to impose stringent restrictions and conditions under Paragraph 15 of the Bill that would have the effect of completely nullifying any freedom to assemble.

The Bill introduces a new type of assembly that I believe is unprecedented under our law, viz “street protest”, which is defined in Paragraph 3 to mean: “an open air assembly which begins with a meeting at a specified place and consists of walking in a mass march or rally for the purpose of objecting to or advancing a particular cause or causes”.

Paragraph 4(1) of the Bill imposes an outright ban on street protests. The current position is that if the police issue a license under Section 27 (2) of the Police Act, 1967, a “street protest” is permitted.  Hence, the new provision in this “reforming” Bill make it worse by totally banning such types of assemblies.

This would be unconstitutional. Does this mean that, under this Bill, only assemblies that are not “street protest” are permitted?  Yes.

What then are the features of such a permitted or sanitised form of “assembly”?

Part IV contains 11 separate provisions that specify the requirements before the police would approve the holding of such an assembly.

To start off, written notice of at least 30 days must be given to the police. Hence, spontaneous gatherings are not permitted.  The First Schedule to the Bill contains 12 categories of “prohibited places”, 50 meters from where assemblies cannot be held.

The Bill is so extensive in its reach, indeed, of Orwellian proportions, that daily innocent activities like funerals, weddings, family gatherings and meetings of associations have to be expressly excluded! The best way to test the efficacy of the Bill is to ask whether the assemblies organised by Bersih (1) or Hindraf before the General Election of 2008 would be permitted under the Bill.

The answer is clearly in the negative because they would be deemed “street protest”, and hence banned.  Likewise, the lawyers march to Putrajaya in 2007 to protest against the VK Lingam tape.  Finally, Bersih (2) in July 2011 would also not be permitted.

And, yet, this Bill is presented by the government as a piece of reforming law to enhance political space! Try as one may, one cannot find any redeeming features in the Bill. On the contrary, the provisions are offensive, and will certainly not pass muster.

How in the name of “security” and “public order” this Bill can be enacted by Parliament is absolutely baffling. Are our leaders so out of touch?  Can they ever tell the truth?

Are they aware of “Occupy Wall Street” as a global protest movement?  What about the Arab Spring?  Even sleepy, dull Singapore has had some kind of political awakening this year.

But let me conclude with our own example from history.  Some 65 years ago, just a year after the Second World War had ended, and the British colonial power had returned to Malaya, they had the temerity to introduce the Malayan Union plan in 1946.

“Street protests” as defined in Paragraph 3 of the Peaceful Assembly Bill, 2011, became the order of the day.  Indeed, Umno was founded by Onn Jaafar to lead the protests against Malayan Union.

The supremely ironic question is, if Hishammuddin Hussein had been in charge of such matters in 1946, would Umno have been founded, and his grandfather allowed to demonstrate and protest?

I call on all freedom-loving Malaysians to immediately contact their Members of Parliament to vote against this terrible Bill.  Indeed, the government should withdraw it.

I would expect the Malaysian Bar to lead the opposition to this poorly designed law that is not only an insult to our constitutional rights, but also to our intelligence.

________

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

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 23 November 2011, 2:07 pm and is filed under
Constitution
,
Human Rights
,
Parliament
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Are we stupid enough to fall for the same scam?

By
Kee Thuan Chye
 | Nov 24, 2011

Malaysiakini

I can’t help but wonder if the government really thinks that Malaysians are stupid. So stupid that we can be hoodwinked into believing that the changes they propose to our laws amount to actual reform.

Two months ago, when Prime Minister Najib Razak announced that newspapers would no longer have to renew their publishing licences annually, he might have expected us to go ga-ga and applaud and say that the media would now be freer.

But if we had done that, we would indeed have been stupid. Because we would not have realised that there is really no change.

Even if the newspapers need not renew their licences every year, the fact remains that the home minister still retains the power to suspend or close down any newspaper at any time – if he feels it is too free in expressing its views, or for whatever reasons.

So, whether there is renewal or not, it does not matter. As long as the home minister is still as powerful as before, your newspaper can still get into trouble with him. What’s more, his decision cannot be challenged in court.

Ah! If you now say that stinks like a scam, that the government is actually trying to deceive us, you would be right. But if you still think, like the mainstream media does, that there is actual reform in that licence renewal waiver, then the government would be right in thinking that Malaysians are stupid. Or, at least, some Malaysians.

You may be surprised that there are indeed such stupid Malaysians.

They are the ones who continue to support the ruling party and defend its policies, including its numerous flip-flops. They are the ones who will vote for that party at the next general election and say it is better to go with the devil they know than the devil they don’t know.

They are the ones who don’t know they are being fooled. They might even be people who know they are being fooled, but still choose to go with the devil who is fooling them. Needless to say, the ones who know they are being fooled and still continue to support the party are even more stupid.

Disturbing restrictions

And they will continue to be stupid if they believe that the Peaceful Assembly Bill, which the government tabled two days ago, is a step forward, guarantees more freedom, and will lead to Malaysia being “the best democracy” as promised by Najib.

Their stupidity will not allow them to see that it’s another attempt to hoodwink Malaysians. They will say it’s good because it allows Malaysians to gather in public without having any need to apply for a police permit.

Yes, on the surface, it looks good that a police permit is no longer required. But now consider the other conditions. The most disturbing one is this – although you don’t need a police, permit, your assembly cannot proceed if there is objection by the police.

What? Isn’t that like getting a police permit?

Let me repeat. You don’t need a permit but if the police object, your assembly can’t go on. So, what does that mean? Your assembly is still dependent on police approval, isn’t it? So what’s new?

If you straight away say, “That police permit waiver is a scam!”, then you’re not stupid. Because there is no change. And you can see it for what it is.

In fact, it has now become worse. You have to give the police advance notice of your assembly 30 days before it is due to be held. Thirty days! That’s a long time to plan.

And what happens if you want to stage a spontaneous assembly? What if the government does something cruel and unfair and unlawful and citizens feel compelled to take to the streets to protest against it immediately?

Well, that will be considered illegal. And if you don’t provide the 30-day notice, you can be fined up to RM10,000!

Youth discriminated

And did I mention the words “streets” and “protest”?

Well, according to the new bill, no street protests will be allowed.

What? Then what’s the point of an assembly? Only for socialising? For merely hanging about in public? No placards? No cheering? No chanting?

The new bill is obviously designed to protect the government, not to give more democratic space to the citizens. It is designed to prevent people from protesting against the government.

In fact, the new bill transgresses the rights of freedom guaranteed in the federal constitution.

One, if you are below the age of 21, you cannot organise an assembly. Is that fair? Are those below that age not citizens who should enjoy equal rights? Is this democracy? Is this “the best democracy”?

Two, if you are below the age of 15, you cannot take part in an assembly except cultural and religious ones, like funeral processions, or events approved by the home minister. Again, discrimination. Again, power to the home minister.

Three, areas at which public gatherings cannot be held have now been specified. Has this ever been done before?

Bill gives cops more power

And if you were to look at the list of prohibited areas, which include petrol stations, hospitals, mosques, fire stations, kindergartens, schools, etc, you would see that the democratic space – also in physical terms – has become even smaller. Especially since there must also be a buffer zone of 50 metres around each of these areas that public gatherings cannot traverse.

Most districts, especially in city centres, have a few of such areas in close proximity to one another. As such, the interstices between the buffers would be too small to accommodate a mass of people.

How then would a public assembly be able to fill these little spaces? This condition is clearly aimed at discouraging assemblies in city centres.

Four, the police have even more power now. They can decide to arrest any assembly participants they deem a problem, and those arrested can be fined up to RM20,000. Is that providing more freedom or more deterrence? And who is to say the police decisions may not be arbitrary?

So, my fellow Malaysians, are we going to be stupid? Are we going to accept this bill that discriminates against some of us, throttles our freedom and disregards the constitution?

Are we going to be fools and be thankful to the government and say the bill is providing reform and taking Malaysia forward, and should therefore be passed into law? Are we going to be twice bitten by the same scam and not be aware of it?

Well, there’s no fine imposed yet for taking to the streets. And there’s still leeway to do it without giving 30 days’ advance notice. Once the law is passed, however, it will be too late.

________

KEE THUAN CHYE is the author of ‘March 8: The Day Malaysia Woke Up’, which just won 3rd prize in the Popular Readers’ Choice Awards. It has also been translated into Chinese.

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 24 November 2011, 3:25 pm and is filed under
Human Rights
,
Kee Thuan Chye
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Emergency Declarations Revoked after 45 years

Part 1

Part 2

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 24 November 2011, 5:06 pm and is filed under
Constitution
,
Parliament
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


The 13th GE: It’s an open field

—
Sakmongkol AK47

The Malaysian Insider

Nov 24, 2011

NOV 24 — Rahim Tamby Chik (RTC) says there are attempts by the opposition parties to invite Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah to become PM. This will happen, Rahim says, if there is a hung Parliament. Such a situation is untenable, says Rahim, because it will create political instability. So Umno must work hard to get a two-thirds majority.

Those were the observations and musings by RTC on the political possibilities after the GE13. What is intriguing was his warning that a hung Parliament will create instability. I hope we will not be in such a situation. Malaysians would prefer a clear-cut victory one way or the other.

I am not going to respond to his nervous prognosis, being more interested on how such a scenario can possibly happen and what are the implications if it does. I don’t think we are going to have a hung Parliament. It will be clear-cut either way. I am also bemused at his attempt to involve Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah in such a scenario. To qualify as a participant in any future negotiations should a hung Parliament comes into being, TRH must be head of a political party. Right now, TRH is in Umno and doesn’t head a party nor is he a leader of any faction in Umno. Could Rahim’s advice be another attempt to isolate TRH from Umno?

TRH is far too principled to agree being appointed as leader of government on a personal-to-holder basis. He will be a figurehead. Oh, because Tengku has never disowned the ambitions to become PM comes the answer from Umno people. So my answer is: why should he not have that ambition? He was cheated to becoming one before. He has all the credentials to become one.

Here is an interesting piece of information. When certain Umno people wanted to kick out Abdullah Ahmad Badawi , they approached Tengku Razaleigh for a solution. Their agenda was only one — because of Najib’s hesitation they went to see Tengku Razaleigh asking him to stand as Umno president and Muhyiddin as deputy president. This group was made up of powerful people, united at that time by their intense disapproval and loathing of Abdullah. My point is this: at that time, they didn’t think it was inappropriate for Tengku Razaleigh to become Umno president and if he had won, he would have gone on to become PM. Tengku’s ambition wasn’t an issue. His age wasn’t an issue. The fundamental objective was to remove Pak Lah.

Why should the opposition parties invite Tengku Razaleigh to become PM if they could win the elections on their own? PAS has Hadi, the DAP has Lim Guan Eng and PKR has Anwar Ibrahim? This assessment presupposes that between the three, neither one accepts the leader of each party as a future PM. It also assumes further, that Tengku Razaleigh commands a number of elected MPs to give him standing in future negotiations. Where will he get the MPs? Rahim says 20-30 people are being lined up to stand as MPs who are aligned to Tengku Razaleigh. Where are these people? In Umno? Within the opposition camp?

So now, let us build up a case why a hung Parliament cannot happen. Just for the moment, let’s not talk about how Umno and BN can lose. Let’s talk about HOW the opposition — the DAP, PAS, PKR — can WIN. Let’s begin by asking: will PR lose its current 82 seats? Possible, but very unlikely. The seats which they lost when some people jumped ship will become theirs again. We won’t see the likes of Zahrain and his types in Parliament again.

DAP

The DAP now has 28 seats in Parliament. The DAP has gained substantial ground with Chinese voters. Chinese voters identify more with the DAP. By and large the Chinese do not require the intervention and involvement of the government to improve their wellbeing. They got to where they are now largely by their own efforts and independence. They want to preserve and reinforce that independent streak. How best for them to do that? By staking their future in a party that best represents the independence streak. They don’t want a sissy party perceived as easily compromised, intimidated or even bought over to represent them. The DAP is their preferred choice.

I mean that is the reason driving Hishammuddin pondering a move from Sembrong to Kota Tinggi. To the Chinese in Sembrong, and this doesn’t please me in saying, Hishammuddin is irrelevant to them. He knows if he stays in Sembrong, he can kiss his seat goodbye. They want to kick the ass of the man with the monkey grin.

The Chinese are less dependent on the government and by government, I mean the BN. They need champions for other requirements and that they find in the DAP. So the DAP will more or less pummel the MCA to the ground. They will take most of the 15 seats the MCA won in the 2008 elections. At the very best, the MCA can retain three seats. The worst-case scenario is the MCA wins nothing. The DAP will increase its seats by another 12 in Semenanjung. It gobbles up most of the seats now held by the MCA.

Why will the DAP win over the MCA? Because the Chinese believe the MCA has sold them out. Not necessarily by kowtowing to big brother Umno over many issues, but by retreating from representing the indomitable spirit of the Chinese. The MCA has lost its mandate. That’s how the DAP is winning the Chinese over — where the MCA failed.

On a more simplistic reasoning, the Chinese who have traditionally supported the MCA are asking: how is it almost all our Chinese MCA leaders are being persecuted and prosecuted by the courts once they leave office? How is it Umno leaders who did or are alleged to have done the same things are not? They know Malay leaders stole and swindled more.

What about the DAP in Sarawak? Generally speaking, the urban seats will be taken up by the DAP. That will be another eight or nine seats for the DAP. The seats held currently by SUPP will end up in the DAP’s hands. The DAP will get around 20 seats more than they got in 2008. This time around, the DAP will be in Parliament with probably 46-48 seats.

The newer and younger DAP leadership is taking on Malaysian politics with more finesse and it doesn’t now intimidate modern-thinking Malays as the older generation of DAP leaders once did. And it has shed its umbilical connections with the PAP. So now, if there are attempts for example to link the DAP as a stool or Trojan horse to Singapore’s PAP, such attempts will be laughed at.

PAS

It’s difficult to dislodge PAS from where they are now. Has any elected PAS rep jumped ship? This means PAS has been careful to select leaders on the basis of each having convictions and intense belief. It will likely do the same thing for the 13GE.

How can PAS win? It’s difficult for its opponent to dislodge PAS in its traditional role as champions of Islam and serving as the emotional anchor for conservative Malays. It will retain the many seats it now has in Kelantan. It will gain more seats in Terengganu which is expected to go back to PAS this time around. Some of the seats in Kedah, for example, currently held by the MCA and Umno will be won by PAS. The seat now occupied by the MCA’s Chor will be lost to PAS. PAS can win because it’s organised and is motivated by convictions. This is what sets it apart from Umno.

They are not out for personal glory and gratification. They have got a number of secular liberals in the party who can attract younger Malay voters. They will attract the serious thinkers among the younger Malay crowd who are not included in the tweeting about football or about Elton John variety.

PAS currently has 23 seats in Parliament. It will secure a large number in Terengganu, maybe one seat in Pahang, three in Kedah. My guess is they will increase their seats by another 7-8. PAS will enter the next Parliament with around 30-31 seats.

PKR

What about PKR? I thought PKR is the weak link in PR. Let’s not forget it won 31 seats in the 2008 elections. Those who jumped ship were either ex-Umno members (that tells us much about the quality and resolve of Umno members) and those who were selected on the basis of urgency and expedience. The “fluid” candidates will be removed this time around, and it is likely that PKR will select candidates with a firmer constitution. PKR will secure a number of seats in Sarawak, taking away seats from SPDP and PRS. Baru Bian will spearhead PKR’s drive in Sarawak. I am thinking that PKR will still enter Parliament with around 33-35 seats.

Let’s take the worst-case scenario. DAP= 46, PAS= 30, PKR= 33. The opposition has 109 seats. They are short of three seats to secure a majority.

We haven’t included Sabah in our discussion. With the disenchantment towards Musa Aman, it’s unlikely that Sabah Umno can retain all its seats it currently has. Unless of course they pay the voters in their constituencies. The non-Umno parties in Sabah are increasingly less enamoured with Musa Aman and they can’t defend their positions by sticking around with Mr Vacuum Cleaner. The opposition will probably gain around six seats outright.

To me Sabah is the powder keg. It’s likely to blow in the face of BN. the non-Malay indigenous people of Sabah are likely to pressure their parties to abandon BN. They have had numerous Umno leaders leading them in the past, all they got was continued marginalisation. They don’t see development in their areas. They don’t see electricity and roads and clean water after years of BN rule. It’s therefore possible for us to see 8-10 seats migrating to PR’s camp. We can say that around 14-16 seats from Sabah alone are PR inclined.

My own personal observations about the coming 13th GE is as follows: PR 118-125 seats, Umno-N= 98-104 seats.

There won’t be a hung Parliament.

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 24 November 2011, 11:14 pm and is filed under
DAP
,
Elections
,
PAS
,
PKR
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Why are you frustrated?

—
Shanker

The Malaysian Insider

Nov 24, 2011

NOV 24 — PAC Chairman Datuk Seri Azmi Khalid was reported to be frustrated, when giving his comments on the National Feedlot Centre controversy. “The public is fed up”, he told reporters.

Firstly, I would like to ask Datuk Seri Azmi: why are YOU frustrated? How could you lament at the inefficiencies, wastages and corruption which have become ingrained in our civil service’s DNA, when the nation’s CEO (who by extension, happens to be your boss) went to a by-election with his “I help you, you help me” tag proudly on display? Here’s a management lesson 101 then:- down-liners apply the same principles and work culture that the top adopts. The down-liners are also good at doing going to sleep with their eyes open, when the same top delivers speeches peppered with virtuous sounding jargons, because most of them could pick out a “do as I say, but don’t do as I do” type, when they hear one.

In fact Datuk Seri, I wish to ask you, is feeling frustrated ALL that you could muster? Pardon me, but frustrated sounds a little polite for me in the light of what is revealed, year in-year out, by the Auditor General’s report. Frustrated sounds muted when considering Barry Wain’s revelation that the Mahathir years have wasted approximately USD100 billion of our money.

I do agree with you on one thing, Datuk Seri, and that is that the public is fed up. In fact, they are fed up with a government that continues to tinker with public expectation, leading them to believe one thing and then running askew when the real deal is exposed. Such is the case with the proposed Peaceful Assembly Bill. The prime minister’s pitches by saying that the law is “revolutionary” and an “improvement on current laws”, but all I see is an individual who – together with his party – is simply bent on avoiding another Bersih.

The short end of it, then? He wants to remain in power. Somehow, Umno’s 54 years appears to have given them an illusion that Malaysians are adept to being humoured callously.

The public is fed up because, whilst Finance Minister II Datuk Seri Husni Hanadzlah appears confident that the nation will not be exposed to the euro’s debt crisis, unfortunately our public funds suffer a much more atrocious fate because nobody seems to be able to protect us from exposure to Umno’s greed.

The public is fed up with the hypocrisy emanating from Putrajaya, which has now descended into farcical levels. The public is fed up because the government has seen it fit to ignore the pleadings of the innocent for justice, as seen in conclusion of the Teoh Beng Hock, Ahmad Sarbani and Altantuya cases.

The public is fed up when they apply for scholarships for their children, they are told, “no more allocation”; and yet, they have to put up with lame explanations such as that offered by Khairy Jamaluddin in his defence of the NFC.

The public is fed up that the Inland Revenue Board continues to think of ways and means to impose even more onerous laws upon taxpayers, only to then find that their hard earned income ends up supporting an inefficient and corrupt system.

You know what I think, Datuk Seri? I think this government is inviting Bersih 3 upon itself. Because at some point, our distress can no longer afford to remain content at levels deemed polite. We need to do something to save our nation, and the masses may just decide that another Bersih is necessary to end Umno’s hegemony.

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 24 November 2011, 11:22 pm and is filed under
Auditor-General Report
,
Corruption
,
Teoh Beng Hock
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Antara Islam dan ‘negara Islam’

— by
Mohd Asri Zainul Abidin

The Malaysian Insider

Nov 25, 2011

25 NOV — Awal bulan November ini saya hadiri seminar di The Middle East Centre, Oxford bertajuk “The Sacking of Syria: Assad as Hulego”. Pembentangnya Rana Kabbani, seorang penulis dan penyiar Syria. Saya kagum dengan keberanian wanita ini. Mungkin jika di Malaysia ada pihak yang tidak mahu hadiri ucapannya sebab beliau “free hair” dan agak bergaya. Letak itu di sebelah dahulu, saya kagum dengan semangatnya mengkritik regim-regim Arab. “A very inspiring speech.”

Saya tertarik apabila salah seorang British bertanya beliau bahawa tidakkah nanti selepas kejatuhan Assad akan menyebabkan golongan “extremist” yang memperjuangkan “Islam state” akan mengambil alih. Beliau dengan bersemangatnya bertanya balas “kenapa awak kata demikian? Apakah kerana awak mendengar mereka melaungkan ‘Allahu Akbar’?!”

Seterusnya beliau berkata bahawa mereka melaungkan Allahu Akhbar adalah kerana Islam agama mereka. Tiada siapa berhak menafikan hal itu. Ia bermaksud Allah itu Maha Besar. Itu adalah slogan Muslim apabila berhadapan dengan regim yang sombong dan bongkak. Untuk siapa lagi yang hendak mereka laungkan slogan kebesaran. Tiada kaitan dengan kehendak mengujudkan “Islam state” seperti yang diidamkan oleh sesetengah gerakan.

Kenyataan Rana Kabbani ini sebenarnya suatu hakikat yang tidak boleh dinafikan. Ramai orang dalam pertubuhan atau parti yang ingin mengujudkan “Islamic state” menyangka bahawa slogan agama, atau kesediaan rakyat berhimpun dengan mereka dalam usaha menjatuhkan sesuatu kuasa atau regim bererti rakyat bersedia untuk menerima acuan “Islamic state” yang mereka perjuangkan. Andaian yang kurang tepat. Hari ini di Mesir, selepas kejatuhan Mubarak, Ikhwanul Muslimin masih gagal mencari kata sepakat dengan banyak gerakan lain. Kebimbangan sebahagian rakyat terhadap kewujudan “Islam state” menjadi penghalang untuk menerima Ikhwanul Muslimin mengepalai mereka. Sangkaan bahawa rakyat yang bersolat dan bertakbir di Medan Tahrir, Kaherah pada hari revolusi lepas melambangkan persetujuan menerima “Islamic state” adalah andaian yang salah.

Saya baru sahaja menghadiri satu seminar tentang “Homophobia”. Seminar yang cuba memperjuangkan hak golongan GLBT ini. Saya ingin mendengar apakah idea mereka ini. Hakikatnya di Barat pun mereka tidak begitu diterima dan terpaksa merintih nasib. Inikan pula di negara muslim seperti Malaysia. Menariknya, pembentang dalam seminar tersebut juga mendakwa mereka (golongan GLBT) mempunyai sumbangan semasa perjuangan revolusi Mesir di Medan Tahrir baru-baru ini. Saya tidak pasti sejauh manakah benar dakwaannya. Cumanya yang pasti semua pihak bergabung untuk menjatuhkan regim Mubarak.

Saya teringatkan sahabat saya Muhammad Benaissa, bekas Menteri Luar Morocco — saya pernah cerita dalam artikel yang lepas — yang pernah turut menjadi fellow di OCIS, Oxford. Beliau telah kembali ke negaranya. Memang liberal pemikirannya. Beliau berkata bahawa kembalinya manusia ke masjid dan melaungkan seruan agama ketika menghadapi sesuatu regim tidaklah bermaksud mereka mahukan “Islamic state”. Hanya tabiat manusia apabila suara dan hak mereka disekat, tiada jalan yang tinggal, maka mereka akan memanggil Tuhan. Itulah pendapat beliau. Ada kebenarannya, walaupun sebenarnya ada yang benar-benar mahukan “Islamic state”. Ada pula yang hanya mengadu kepada Tuhan tanpa mempunyai sebarang hasrat tentang negara Islam. Mereka hanya mahukan hak dan keadilan. Hanya Tuhan yang sudi mendengar setelah pemerintah begitu “ketegar”.

Rakyat Muslim secara umumnya mahukan asas Islam dipegang dalam sesebuah negara. Asas itu merujuk kepada perintah-perintah Allah yang wajib diamalkan oleh seorang muslim seperti amanah, berperaturan, berprinsip, menghormati hak orang lain, terurus dan seumpamanya. Ini kerana kerosakan negara-negara umat Islam adalah disebabkan hilangnya ciri-ciri mulia dalam diri pemimpin. Rasuah, salah urus, tidak maju ke hadapan, tidak berwawasan, tidak menghormati hak rakyat dan seumpamanya adalah racun yang telah memusnahkan negara-negara umat Islam. Sebagai muslim, kita tahu hal ini bercanggah dengan perintah ajaran Allah dan rasulNya. Maka kewajipan berpegang kepada Islam bagi kepemimpinan sesebuah negara dalam kerangka ini disepakati oleh hampir semua pihak.

Namun, apabila hasrat mengujudkan negara Islam itu dilaungkan, maka rakyat akan mempunyai tafsiran yang pelbagai. Ini bukan semestinya menunjukkan mereka menentang Islam, tetapi mereka keliru apakah sebenarnya “Islamic state” itu? Sebabnya, wajah “Islamic state” itu telah diconteng oleh banyak pihak. Media Barat dan juga sikap para pejuang negara Islam itu sendiri. Taliban umpamanya telah mengujudkan negara Islam dalam satu tempoh yang telah memberikan kesan yang negative tentang kebebasan rakyat dan hak-hak wanita. Iran sebelum itu sehingga kini telah menakutkan dunia. Ribuan cerdik pandai Iran terpaksa melarikan diri kerana ancaman regim Tehran. Penjara dan pembunuhan adalah perkara biasa di Iran. “Brain drain” menjadi satu masalah kepada negara tersebut. Padahal negara itu mempunyai ramai bijakpandai. Dua orang jiran yang menjadi sahabat saya di Oxford ini merupakan dua cendiakawan Iran. Seorang pakar mysticism dan seorang pula musician. Pakar mysticism ini tinggal di Amerika dan masih dizinkan balik ke Iran. Saya sering berbincang tentang bidang kepakarannya iaitu ‘Ibn Arabi’. Beliau baru sahaja menghasilkan karya “Method and Mysticism” yang dihadiahkan senaskah untuk saya. Sementara seorang lagi, Dr Mirdad yang pada zaman mudanya merupakan seorang pejuang ketika di universiti di Iran. Beliau bersama ratusan ribu yang lain membantu revolusi menumbangkan Shah Iran. Namun, apabila kerajaan baru dibentuk, demokrasi terus dinafikan atas nama agama, beliau dan rakan-rakannya memprotes kerajaan. Hasilnya, ramai yang dibunuh. Beliau sempat menyelamatkan diri lari ke beberapa negara dan akhirnya kini menetap di Sweden. Sudah hampir 30 tahun meninggalkan negaranya dan diharamkan pulang. Demikian tokoh cendiakawan agamawa Iran seperti Mohsen Kadivar diharamkan pulang. Mohsen Kadivar mempunyai website dan artikel-artikel menarik seperti Wilayat al-Faqih and Democracy.

Negara Islam yang menjadi impian untuk keadilan, hak dan kesaksamaan telah menjadi negara mullah yang turut menafikan hak yang diidami rakyat. Hanya menukar kuasa dari yang ber”coat” kepada yang berserban atau berlebai, namun keadilan dan hak terus terabai. Lebih malang lagi, kekerasan dan penafian hak itu atas nama Tuhan dalam perkara yang Tuhan tidak nyatakan pun. Wajah negara Islam itu mengelirukan banyak pihak, apatahlagi apabila ada yang cuba menggambarkannya sebagai negara hukum yang memotong tangan, merejam wanita, memancung kepala, mengharamkan itu dan ini, mengharamkan media, mengharamkan Internet, mengharamkan pendapat yang tidak sama dengan kerajaan dan “mazhab” kerajaan dan seterusnya. Tanpa terlebih dahulu menggambarkan wajah rahmat Islam yang lebih luas yang mengatasi segala unsur hukuman yang bersifat terpencil itu. Tuhan dalam sesetengah gambaran pejuang Islamic State adalah tuhan yang penuh bengis dan garang. Sedangkan Tuhan yang dikenali oleh muslim adalah Tuhan yang berfirman tentang diri-NYA: “Sesungguhnya rahmatKU mendahului kemurkaanKU” (Riwayat al-Bukhari).

Rakyat tidak menolak Islam, tetapi mereka mungkin ragu-ragu dengan model negara Islam yang hendak ditegakkan oleh sesetengah pihak. Mereka tidak ragu dengan Tuhan, tetapi mereka ragu dengan tafsiran kehendak Tuhan yang buat. Apatah lagi apabila kelompok agama itu sering memilih pendapat yang paling sukar untuk dilaksanakan. Dalam menafsirkan hukum-hukum yang bersifat zanni (mempunyai lebih dari satu tafsiran) ada kecenderungan sesetengah pejuang negara Islam memilih pendapat yang mungkin menjadi ketakutan kepada sesetengah pihak. Umpamanya, dalam Mazhab Shafie dan beberapa mazhab yang lain; seorang Muslim yang membunuh non-Muslim, tidak boleh dihukum qisas (bunuh balas). Ini berbeza dengan Mazhab Hanafi. Begitu juga dalam Mazhab Shafie dan beberapa mazhab yang lain pampasan untuk mangsa non-Muslim yang dibunuh hendaklah kurang dari kadar yang dibayar kepada Muslim. Juga pandangan dalam mazhab bahawa Kristian dan Yahudi yang menukar agama mereka kepada agama selain Islam boleh diambil tindakan dengan dibuang negara dan seumpamanya. Demikian juga pandangan dalam kalangan sarjana silam bahawa bukan Muslim tidak boleh membina rumah lebih besar dari rumah Muslim ataupun menaiki kenderaan dalam kawasan Muslim. Pandangan-pandangan seperti ini adalah tafsiran kepada politik di zaman tersebut dalam kerangka yang tertentu. Sekalipun ada hadis yang berkaitan, namun teks dan konteks hadis hendaklah disemak.

Disebabkan kecenderungan memilih “jalur keras” dan literal dalam memahami nas-nas politik dalam Islam, maka ada tokoh-tokoh gerakan Islam menampilkan pandangan-pandangan yang dianggap terkeluar konteks politik kerangka hari ini. Ini menyebabkan generasi baru, sekali pun bertudung dan bernasyid, belum tentu bersetuju dengan negara Islam model tersebut. Menolak negara Islam yang ditafsirkan oleh sesuatu pihak, bukan semestinya menolak Islam.

Seseorang dikira menolak Islam apabila membantah sesuatu nas yang jelas dari al-Quran dan as-Sunnah. Nas yang tidak mungkin mempunyai lebih dari satu tafsiran seperti haramnya arak, judi, zina, homoseks, riba, rasuah, pecah amanah, bunuh dan seumpamanya. Adapun nas yang terdedah kepada pelbagai tafsiran, jika seseorang menolak salah satu tafsiran ulama, bukanlah bererti menolak Islam. Hal ini hendaklah difahami. Jika tidak, semua Muslim akan terdiri dari kalangan yang menolak Islam. Ini kerana dalam ribuan hukum, yang mempunyai ribuan tafsiran, setiap orang akan memilih tafsiran tertentu. Mereka yang bermazhab Shafie, secara tidak langsung menolak pandangan mazhab-mazhab yang lain. Begitulah sebaliknya.

Maka, menolak sesuatu tafsiran tentang negara Islam atau Islamic state, bukan semestinya menolak Islam. Namun, jika atas factor benci atau tidak setuju dengan nas-nas al-Quran dan as-Sunnah itu sendiri, lalu menolak negara Islam, maka dia memang menolak Islam.

Hari ini di Barat, Turki nampaknya disanjung. Ramai yang memuji negara Islam moden yang cuba dibuat oleh Turki. Itupun satu lagi tafsiran negara Islam. Ya, ramai yang memuji negara Islam model Turki. Jika seseorang memilih negara Islam model Turki dan menolak model Iran atau Taliban, itu juga satu tafsiran yang perlukan perincian.

Apa yang penting gerakan Islam hendaklah mewujudkan sebuah negara yang tidak menyanggahi al-Quran dan as-Sunnah dan memenuhi inspirasi rakyat di era ini. Peduli apa pun namanya!

* Profesor Madya Dr Mohd Asri Zainul Abidin adalah Visiting Research Scholar 2011-2012 di Oxford Centre for Islamic Studies, England.

                This entry was posted on Friday, 25 November 2011, 12:06 pm and is filed under
Islam
,
Islamic state
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


I have been waiting for the revocation of the three Emergency Proclamations for the past 30 to 40 years

I stand to support the motion by the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak to revoke the Emergency Proclamations of 1966, 1969 and 1977.

I have been waiting for the revocation for the past 30 to 40 years.

The Barisan Nasional MP for Tangga Batu Datuk Idris Haron who just spoke misled the House when he said that Barisan Nasional stands for consistency.

This is because the byword of Barisan Nasional and UMNO is not consistency, but  inconsistency and hypocrisy, particularly on the issue before the House – the revocation of the Emergency Proclamations of 1966, 1969 and 1977.

On 28th and 29th June, 1979, my motion  to repeal the four Proclamations of Emergency of 1964 (concerning the Indonesian Confrontation), 1966 (Sarawak political crisis), 1969 (May 13 Riots) and 1977 (Kelantan political crisis) was debated in Parliament for two days but all the Barisan Nasional MPs spoke and voted against it.

But today, all the Barisan and UMNO MPs are supporting the revocation of the Emergency Proclamations.

Who is being inconsistent?

But first of all, let me ask why the Proclamation of Emergency of 3rd September 1964 arising from the Indonesia Confrontation had been omitted from the revocation list.

In Parliament from the seventies onwards in the past four decades, I had repeatedly spoken of the need to end the permanent state of emergency and revoke the four Proclamations of Emergency as the situations giving rise to their issue had long ceased to exist.

For instance, my motion in Parliament in June 1979 referred specifically to the revocation of four Proclamations of Emergency and no Minister had ever raised the point as now, that of following a 1971 judgment  that the 1963 Proclamation of Emergency had ceased to exist as it had been superseded by the 1969 Proclamation.

This is a new position taken by the government. If this is the position of the Attorney-General, what happens if there is another Attorney-General who does not agree with this point?  Will we find one day that the 1963 Proclamation of Emergency still exists?

Instead of claiming that the revocation of the Emergency Proclamations is testimony that the Barisan Nasional government is always ready to  reform in keeping with the times, Barisan Nasional and UMNO leaders must explain the long delay in repealing the Emergency Proclamations – 45 years in the case of the 1966 Proclamation to topple the then Sarawak Chief Minister, 42 years in the case of the 1969 Proclamation arising from the May 13 riots and 34 years in the case of the 1977 Proclamation to topple PAS control of the Kelantan government as the emergency situations causing the Emergency Proclamations to be made had long ceased to exist.

As I said in my 1979 motion in Parliament to repeal the Emergency Proclamations: “The perpetuation of a Proclamation of Emergency, when the emergency condition for which it was made had ceased to exist, is certainly an abuse of power and unconstitutional”.

This is also symptomatic of the arrogance of power which had long afflicted UMNO and Barisan Nasional.

The Emergency Proclamations would not have been revoked if not for the political tsunami in the 2008 general elections which deprived BN and UMNO of its two-thirds parliamentary majority and the need for the Prime Minister to create the image that he represented reform and the promise of the “best democracy in the world”.

But is the long overdue revocation of the Emergency Proclamations sufficient to signify that Malaysia is on the road to become the “best democracy in the world”?

Far from it.  The revocation of the Emergency Proclamations is a small step in the direction to make Malaysia a normal country.

If the Prime Minister is sincere in wanting to make Malaysia the “best democracy of the world”, there is a long list of reforms he must do.

For a start, he should restore the Merdeka Constitution provision on Article 150 on Emergency Proclamation to provide effective check and balance against undemocratic and  authoritarian government, as the Merdeka Constitution has been amended totally beyond recognition as to allow am arbitrary  multiple permanent state of emergency  to exist for over four decades.

In 1979, the DAP had wanted to challenge the legality and constitutionality of the continuation of the 1969 Emergency Proclamation, for instance a Privy Council decision striking down the Security Cases (Regulations) made under the 1969 Emergency Proclamation as unconstitutional and null and void. DAP MP for Bukit Glugor Karpal Singh was the lawyer who took the case all the way to the Privy Council.

The DAP plan was foiled however when the Barisan Nasional two-thirds parliamentary majority was again abused with the amendment of the Constitution to place Emergency Proclamations under Article 150 beyond the pale of judicial review by making them non-justiciable, making a total mockery of the doctrine of separation of powers.

Is Najib prepared to return to  the Merdeka Constitution provision not only to restore the powers of judicial review to ensure that there is no abuse of power in the exercise of Article 150 provision on  Emergency Proclamation, but also to subject Emergency Proclamations to meaningful Parliamentary review and control, as providing in the Merdeka Constitution:

“A Proclamation of Emergency and any ordinance promulgated shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament and, if not sooner revoked, shall cease to be in force –

(a) A Proclamation at the expiration of a period of two months beginning with the date on which it was issued;

(b) An ordinance at the expiration of a period of fifteen days beginning with the date on which both Houses are first sitting,

unless, before the expiration of that period, it has been approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.”

Malaysia is not a normal country when there is a permanent multiple state of emergency in the country since the sixties – symptomatic of the systematic erosion of democratic values and human rights in the country, resulting in the multiple crisis of the rule of law and  public confidence in the independence, professionalism and integrity of key national institutions.

There are numerous instances why Malaysia is not a normal country in all aspects of national life, for instance the million-strong best and brighest of Malaysian talents who have migrated overseas and the rampant abuses of power as in the Cattle Condominium scandal where a Minister’s family could easily get RM250 million public funds as a soft loan misused to buy two luxury condominiums while the ordinary cattle breeders are denied similar help.

Malaysia must make valiant efforts to become a normal country.

The Prime Minister has made many grandiloquent promises of government transformation, economic transformation and now political transformation – which have so far been mostly empty slogans.

The revocation of the long-overdue Emergency Proclamations will not open a new page of political transformation and democratisation in Malaysia.

What is needed is a full blueprint for democratisation and political transformation, as in the overhaul of the arsenal of draconian laws like the Internal Security Act,  Police Act, Printing Presses and Publications Act, Official Secrets Act, Sedition Act and a whole new mindset of democratic values and commitment by the Najib administration.

Why for instance has the Peaceful Assembly Bill presented by the government attracted such  widespread opposition and protest.

The Peaceful Assembly Bill is patterned after the Queensland Peaceful Assembly Act 1992 in many parts, but the big difference is that the Queensland Assembly Act clearly facilitates  and promotes the right to freedom of assembly while the Peaceful Assembly Bill tabled in this House has the very opposite effect giving  the police arbitrary powers to restrict the right to freedom of assembly as in the onerous and unreasonable 30-day notice for an assembly, the ban on “street protests”, the host of restrictions which could be imposed by the police for any assembly at a time when the public have no confidence in the independence and  professionalism of the police as it has no concept of “democratic policing” but is  still obsessed with “upholding the regime” as its primary task.

I fully agree with the Parliamentary Opposition Leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim that the Peaceful Assembly Bill should be withdrawn, or at the very least, when the Prime Minister moves the second reading of the bill later today, he should refer the bill to a Parliamentary Select Committee for full consultation of all stakeholders who have vested interest in the proposed legislation.

(Speech by on the motion to revoke the three Emergency Proclamations of 1966, 1969 and 1977 in Parliament on Thursday, 24th November 2011)

                This entry was posted on Friday, 25 November 2011, 11:32 am and is filed under
Constitution
,
Human Rights
,
Parliament
,
Police
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Malaysia can leap into World Bank top 10 list in two years, says chief secretary

By
Debra Chong

The Malaysian Insider

Nov 25, 2011

KUALA LUMPUR, Nov 25 — Malaysia only needs two years to break into the World Bank’s top 10 list of most competitive countries in the world, Putrajaya’s No. 1 public servant told The Malaysian Insider.

In a recent exclusive interview, Tan Sri Sidek Hassan said for the country to be a top performer the private sector needed to grow in tandem with its civil service.

“Our country can become more competitive by having the public sector 20 to 50 years ahead and bring it to today; and have the corporate sector 50 years ahead and bring it to today. Then, our country Malaysia can indeed be Number 1,” the chief secretary to the government said.

By that, he meant both government and private businesses needed to devise ways to fulfil the customer’s existing needs and anticipate future requirements before anyone else did.

And Sidek believes that Malaysians are ready to take on the challenge.

He noted that Malaysia had jumped five spots to 18th from 23rd in the World Bank’s ranking for 2012 in ease of doing business on the back of Putrajaya-led reforms, coming in fifth among all East Asian economies behind Singapore, Hong Kong, Korea and Thailand.

This comes after the nation regained its 21st place ranking in the World Economic Forum’s Global Competitiveness Index this year after falling to 26th in 2010.

“We are there but we have not arrived yet,” Sidek said, acknowledging the government’s weaknesses in filing taxes and issuing construction permits for foreign investors as highlighted in the 2012 Ease of Doing Business report.

“Our challenge is to be in the top 10 and it’s not about the very distant future. I’m talking about the next couple of years,” he added, confidently.

He noted that reforms were already being rolled out across the civil sector and only needed continuous follow-up action across the board to bring all administrative levels up to par.

Putrajaya’s decision to raise the retirement age to 60, he said, was a boon given that many senior civil officials were still mentally fit and had the added edge of experience to complement the annual injection of younger blood.

The top bureaucrat added that the government’s push to bring in more hires from the private sector was another boon as it created what he described as “cross fertilisation” and stirred friendly office rivalry.

“It is always good to have people coming from outside… at a pretty senior level because it complements what we have in the areas that we don’t have yet. That competition is good [because] people compete to be at the top and [we] get the best out of everybody there,” he said.

Sidek explained that the bureaucracy, too used to obeying rules even when outdated, needed help to learn how to be innovative and recognise when rules needed to evolve to keep up with the changed times.

Civil servants by training are asked to follow the rules,” he said.

“Our challenge here therefore is to keep up with time. In fact, we should be ahead of the time, ahead of the curve. It is what we in the Malaysian public service should be doing and in many instance we have been ahead,” he said, pointing out as a model example the Immigration’s swift issuance of passports within an hour.

In contrast, he noted that airlines in the private sector could take more than two hours to issue travel tickets to their customers.

Sidek said he had advised colleagues stuck for ideas to improve the government’s service to put themselves in the customer’s position.

He related a past experience of being stuck in a non-moving line at the Road Transport Department counter to renew his driver’s licence as having inspired him to look into ways to magic away the physical queue.

“I think what’s most important is the mindset,” he said, adding bureaucrats now understood they gained by simplifying red tape.

“I’m sure things will improve even better in the future.”

                This entry was posted on Friday, 25 November 2011, 12:35 pm and is filed under
Good Governance
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Najib at loss for words about new Myanmar Protest Bill which requires only 5 days’ notice when he describes his own Peaceful Assembly Bill as “revolutionary” but which  requires 30 days’ notice

The Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak must be at a loss for words to describe the new Myanmar Protest Bill requiring  its citizens to give five days’ notice to the authorities to protest peacefully  when he can claim that his own Peaceful Assembly Bill is “revolutionary” but which requires 30 days notice.

Myanmar has always been regarded as the worst laggard country in ASEAN in its utter disregard and contempt for human rights and it must be very mortifying and shameful for the Malaysian government, parliamentarians and people that we now have to learn from Myanmar on how to respect human rights and fundamental constitutional liberties of our people, at least on freedom of assembly!

Does Najib want to send the Home Minister, Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Hashim to Myanmar to learn to be more respectful of the fundamental liberties at least with regard to freedom of assembly for the respective citizenry?

This is one powerful reason why the Peaceful Assembly Bill which Najib presented for second reading yesterday should be withdrawn or all Malaysian MPs would not be able to hold their heads high whether in regional or international conferences when the Myanmar Parliament could pass a bill on freedom of assembly requiring only five days’ notice to the authorities while the Malaysian government is demanding 30 days’ notice.

I thought the day will never come for me to say this – the Malaysian Prime Minister and Cabinet should learn from Myanmar at least on freedom of peaceful protest and assembly.

It is no use for Najib to claim on the one hand that he wants to make Malaysia the “best democracy in the world” while on the other hand coming up with a Peaceful Assembly Bill which is unanimously condemned by the civil society and human rights activists as even worse that Section 27 of the Police Act requiring police permit for an assembly for three or more persons.

Has Prime Minister paused and considered why the reaction to the Peaceful Assembly Bill has been so devastatingly negative and the consensus in the civil society and human rights activists is that it will be even worse than the regime under to-be-repealed Section 27 of the Police Act?

As I intimated in Parliament yesterday in the debate on the revocation of the three Emergency Proclamations of 1966, 1969 and 1977, the Peaceful Assembly Bill which is patterned after the – Queensland Peaceful Assembly Act 1992 has evoked a different set of reactions:

 “The big difference is that the Queensland Assembly Act clearly facilitates  and promotes the right to freedom of assembly while the Peaceful Assembly Bill tabled in this House has the very opposite effect giving  the police arbitrary powers to restrict the right to freedom of assembly as in the onerous and unreasonable 30-day notice for an assembly, the ban on ‘street protests’, the host of restrictions which could be imposed by the police for any assembly at a time when the public have no confidence in the independence and  professionalism of the police as it has no concept of ‘democratic policing’ but is  still obsessed with ‘upholding the regime’ as its primary task.”

The parts where the Peaceful Assembly Bill had lifted from the Queensland Peaceful Assembly Act 1992 are generally acceptable but the most objectionable provisions in the Peaceful Assembly Bill are those parts which are not to be found in the Queenland Act – and which by and large should be removed.

The Peaceful Assembly Bill should be completely revamped and this is why it should be withdrawn and debate for its second reading should not continue on Tuesday.

As the Prime Minister claimed that the Peaceful Assembly Bill “represents a step towards strengthening the sovereignty of the rule of law while upholding the freedom of the fundamental liberties in Malaysia”, the Peaceful Assembly Bill should be withdrawn to be completely redrafted – particularly in removing the role of Minister of Home Affairs as the super arbiter whether protests and assemblies should be allowed  as this role should be played by the courts instead of by a politically-biased Minister if we are serious about “the sovereignty of the rule of law”.

                This entry was posted on Friday, 25 November 2011, 2:23 pm and is filed under
Burma
,
Human Rights
,
Najib Razak
,
Parliament
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.