10 questions about 1Malaysia Email

Oon Yeoh | Apr 26, 11

Malaysiakini

There’s been a lot of negativity about the 1Malaysia Email project to be handled by Tricubes. Perhaps a big part of that has to do with the fact that there aren’t actually that many facts released by Tricubes or the government about this controversial project.

We’ve heard bits and pieces about it through news reports, and an interview on BFM89.9 has shed some light on the project. But many questions remain.

Here are 10 key question that, if answered properly by either Tricubes or the government, would probably go a long way towards stemming the tidal wave of criticism the project has attracted thus far.

1. Why is it called 1Malaysia Email?

Apparently, the registered and approved domain email address will be
[email protected]
. So why isn’t it called MyEmail instead of 1Malaysia Email? Besides, doesn’t Tricubes know that roughly half the popular votes in the last election went to Pakatan Rakyat? That being the case, isn’t it a foolish strategy to brand an email service with name that is so incredibly politicised that it would alienate roughly half the electorate?

2. Will Tricubes guarantee the database will not be used for political purposes?

With a brand name that is as polarising as “1Malaysia Email”, many people will naturally question whether they will be spammed with political messages, especially during election campaign periods.

3. What does it mean to be a private sector initiative that the government supports?

Many people, including the prime minister, have stressed that the project is a private initiative that does not involve public funds. So, how exactly is the government supporting the project? According to Pemandu director Fadhlullah Suhaimi Abdul Malek, in his BFM 89.9 interview, it would not be correct to say that Tricubes was awarded a contract. Then what exactly was it awarded? A blessing?

4. Why wasn’t the tender more publicised?

Fadhlullah explained that Tricubes was chosen (again what does it mean by “chosen” if it’s a completely private sector initiative) because of the five companies that bid for the project, Tricubes was the only one that was listed. If what the government wanted was for more listed companies to bid for the project, why wasn’t the tender more highly publicised to attract more listed companies. Better still, why not just make a requirement that only listed companies should apply?

5. Can other companies really set up competing services?

During the BFM 89.9 interview Fadhlullah was asked if other companies wanted to undertake a similar private initiative, would they be allowed to do so, and he replied in the affirmative. Does that mean the government would similarly support rival services? If so, what’s the point of having a tender in the first place?

6. Is a portal involved?

The project has widely been referred to as a free email project. But there has also been mention of a portal involved. What exactly will that portal offer? What features? What functionalities? What type of content?

7. What are the fee-based value added services?

It’s been revealed that while the email account is free, there will be premium value added services that people can pay for. What exactly are these? Do you have to pay, for example, to be notified if you’ve received a “saman ekor”? Or will the police be the one that pays for sending you the notice? Or will both parties have to pay?

8. What is Tricubes’ privacy policy regarding use of its database?

Presumably there will be more than one revenue stream (other than the vaguely articulated fee-based value added services). Will there be advertising? And if so, will it be based on keywords contained in your message or will it be based on your authenticated profile? Will the database be sold to the highest bidder? Or will it only be available to government agencies?

9. Will it ensure prompt responses?

It’s been reported that one of the reasons for having this authenticated e-mail service is to ensure “direct and secure” communication between citizens and the government. Can Tricubes also ensure that the reply from the government is also prompt? If not, what’s the point?

10. Can we choose vanity names?

How will the e-mail names be assigned once we opt to register for our free 1Malaysia email? Will it automatically pull our names from the National Registration Department? Or can I, for example, choose to have a customised email address like
[email protected]
?

OON YEOH is managing editor at AsiaReach Media. You can follow him at www.twitter.com/oonyeoh

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 28 April 2011, 6:28 am and is filed under
1Malaysia
,
IT
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


1Malaysia.con

Dean Johns | Apr 27, 11

Malaysiakiini

The 1Malaysia Email project is both a symptom and a symbol of the rotten Umno/BN regime. It’s as blatant a con as everything this god-forsaken government says and does, and clearly corrupt into the bargain.

Its pretext of providing “direct and secure communications between the citizens and the government” and a “one-stop centre for government services, providing value-added services such as social networking, checking bills online and payment” sounds as fishy – or, since it is an Internet scam, phishy – as all get-out.

It is clearly intended to provide the government with unchecked power to spam and snoop on Malaysian netizens in the present, and the option of forcing the people to do anything from conducting all their Internet communications and transactions to possibly even voting through this dodgy portal in the future.

This promises to be the final link in the web of deceit that Umno/BN has progressively woven to extend and defend its criminal misrule of the country, and ensnare the populace forever in its net.

And the manner of presenting the thing to the people has been as suspect as the project itself.
 First it was presented on the Performance Management and Delivery Unit (Permandu) website as ‘a government initiative in providing a unique and official email account and ID for the citizens of Malaysia’.

Then, a day or two later, the story was changed to read ‘a private sector initiative led by Tricubes Bhd’. Premier Najib Abdul Razak supported the second version by tweeting: “Let me clarify that the 1Malaysia Email is a private sector project. No public money is involved, and it’s entirely voluntary.”

If no public money is involved, however, many of us are wondering where Tricubes, the lucky recipient of the project, is going to find the RM50 million reportedly required to fund it.

In fact it appears that Tricubes is virtually broke, or was when it was mysteriously awarded the 1Malaysia.con project, as it was under GN3 status under Bursa Malaysia guidelines and thus facing delisting unless it restructures its finances.

So it is terribly difficult to believe the claim by Permandu CEO Idris Jala, that Tricubes was awarded the project in a process of open bidding.

It looks to me, and to many other people whose comments I’ve seen, far more like one of BN’s customary free gifts to cronies. And what a gift, with the government agreeing to pay an astonishing 50 sen per email and Tricubes set to offer “extra security” in return for an additional fee from subscribers!

No wonder that the formerly ailing company has delivered a windfall for its investors, as its formerly lamentable share price has soared since it was given the go-ahead to proceed with the 1Malaysia.con project.

Laughable hypocrisy

Meanwhile, Najib, self-proclaimed author of the 1Malaysia slogan and chief sponsor of 1Malaysia.con, hosted a BN propaganda event in KL billed as the First Malaysia-Asean Regional Bloggers’ Conference.

According to a report by BN’s lapdog ‘news’ agency, Bernama, this event with its theme ‘Blogging Mindfully and Responsibly’ was staged to ‘provide a platform to derive defence mechanisms to protect the plethora of bloggers, especially on Malaysia and Malaysia-centric postings’, and ‘to highlight the obstacles faced by these bloggers as well as the adversity that bloggers might experience in their day-to-day tackling of various issues’.

The timing of this confab, or rather con-fab, revealed its laughable hypocrisy, just a week after the BN regime had mounted a denial-of-service attack on sites including Malaysiakini and Sarawak Report, and following the release of a UN report that ranks Malaysia way down with the likes of Pakistan, Russia, Zimbabwe and Mubarak’s Egypt on the Internet freedom index.

Never one to allow facts to get in the way of his falsehoods, however, Najib declared in his keynote speech to the gathering: “I have no doubt that whatsoever that Malaysia has one of the liveliest blogospheres in the world and definitely one of the freest if not the most free.”

Having delivered himself of this outright, barefaced lie, he noted that “the Internet is an engine for economic growth, the portal that opens up to a knowledge society”, before following with the self-revealing remark that “even a government that is not too keen about the democracy part of ‘digital democracy’ should embrace the digital part, as the economic implications are simply too great to ignore”.

In other words, as I take him to mean, his 1Malaysia.con is all about dollars, not democracy, and that his attempted co-option of Malaysia’s blogosphere is driven by his terror of assaults on BN by local versions of what he called “cybertroopers who waged viral warfare with the might of their keyboards, keypads and smartphones” in the Middle East’s Twitter and Facebook revolutions.

Hence his fear-driven plea for bloggers to air their views about his government, “even if it is constructive criticism”, and for a relationship between BN and the bloggers “based on mutual respect”.

Thanks to the likes of Najib and his colleagues and cronies, however, the BN government – like similarly corrupt and repressive regimes in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Yemen, Bahrain, Iran, Syria, Morocco and dozens of other countries – has long lost any right to respect from bloggers or anyone else.

And how much “respect” do Najib and his ilk show their people in constantly feeding them a pack of lies and treating the most gullible of the populace like monkeys by paying them peanuts for their votes?

Typical of the total lack of respect that BN has for truth, honesty or the intelligence of the Malaysian people was the claim by Dr Mahathir Mohamad, patron of Blog House Malaysia, convenor of Najib’s blogger-nobbling conference, that, like bloggers, “the mainstream media should allow themselves to be critical of the government now and then”.

Pretending to decry the fact that the mainstream media practise self-censorship in the face of all the laws he himself enacted to crush media freedom, he declared that “this had given the wrong impression that they had been censored by the government”.

All I can say about this superannuated con-man is that, unlike Najib and his relatively youthful con-sorts in 1Malaysia.con, he is unfortunately unlikely to stand trial for his crimes against truth, justice and the Malaysian people, or ever be con-victed.

DEAN JOHNS, after many years in Asia, currently lives with his Malaysian-born wife and daughter in Sydney, where he mentors creative writing groups. Already published in Kuala Lumpur is a third book of his columns for Malaysiakini, following earlier collections ‘Mad about Malaysia’ and ‘Even Madder about Malaysia’.

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 28 April 2011, 6:09 am and is filed under
1Malaysia
,
Media
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Most important ingredient for national unity

By:
 K.K. Tan

The Sun

Wed, 27 Apr 2011

DESPITE the debate on racial unity and attempts by the government to achieve it, there seems to be more disunity than ever. It appears that the silent voices of reason and moderation of the majority, who are in support of 1Malaysia, are drowned by the increasingly aggressive voices from a small minority of extremists.

Once again, the destructive and inflammatory proposal to punish a certain ethnic community in the post-Sarawak election blame game is being promoted to “force” a warped kind of national unity. I am not siding with any political party, but touching on a fundamental principle of democracy. Presumably, the punishment suggested would involve the denial of legitimate aid, funding and development to the areas concerned.

According to Newton’s third law, for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

Hence, the attempted punishment of voters by the Sabah state government in the Tambunan by-election of December 1984 backfired in April 1985 when the ruling party was routed and lost in the state election.

If such “punishment” didn’t work in 1984, it certainly will not work in 2011. These punishment promoters are effectively undermining 1Malaysia.

This idea about using public machinery and resources to punish any community (who are law abiding taxpayers loyal to the country) for not voting the way some quarters want is tantamount to showing contempt to our cherished democratic process, rule of law and the spirit of our Federal Constitution.

It may even be regarded as blackmailing and intimidating the electorate into voting in a certain manner.

What happens if these promoters are still not satisfied and feel that the selective punishment on these voters, such as denying aid and development, does not go far enough? Where do we draw the line? We should learn from history on how to treat voters who are increasingly aware of their rights and to address their legitimate expectations.

Those who, under the guise of democracy, prey on the emotional fears of certain groups to stir up unnecessary tension, should be exposed for the dinosaurs that they are – and reminded that their era has passed.

Most of our mainstream political leaders (government and opposition), thankfully, do not fall into this category but it pays to be ever vigilant to ensure that such potential agent provocateurs do not gain a foothold, influence or legitimacy.

Another misconception being promoted is the need to get all the races united under their respective ethnic representation before we can achieve racial unity. It has never happened before and it will never happen this way, as our society is not programmed to develop in such a mechanistic manner.

This is not to deny that past democratic racial representation and bargaining in the period before, during and after independence had helped to establish some order and stability and therefore a semblance of harmony.

Even former prime minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad stated only last week that the ethnic polarisation into two main blocks of racial representation (Malays versus Chinese) would spell disaster and dire consequences for the country.

So how can we achieve racial unity? While mutual respect and social justice are essential elements, the most important ingredient is equality or the acceptance of equality of all races by all races.

Nowhere in the world can unity be sustainable unless there is genuine equality. Any ethnic community which feels it is being treated “less than equal” would not seriously want to unite with the other communities on a long-term basis.

Equality is based on a person’s attitude and outlook. It’s not about supporting or opposing vernacular schools; it’s not about tolerating other races or religions; it’s not about paying lip service to the voters every five years or less. And it’s not about the laws and policies needed to minimise racial conflict. All these are symptoms or signs of ethnic harmony or disharmony or measures needed to mitigate or minimise the effects of the problem.

Equality is about treating a person of another race the same way you want to be treated yourself. It is about challenging the negative racial stereotyping and questioning within ourselves, our family and friends the prejudices that we may have of other races.

It is about accepting, that despite the differences in our skin colour and cultures, we are all biologically, genetically and mentally the same. We are all from one human race but in a wide variety of “forms” while “substance” is the same for all races.

Equality is about accepting another person of another race as “one of us” or one of the same kind like your own. It’s like putting oneself in a same scenario of, for example, empathising with a family of another race going through a tragedy.

A key objective of the struggle of the Palestinians against Zionism, of the Bosnians against the former genocidal Serb leaders, of the black people of South Africa against apartheid and of the coloured communities against racism in the West is about achieving equality, of being treated and respected as equals as the rest.

The situation in our country is certainly not like those mentioned here but such divisive and oppressive threats exist and the people of all races must be on guard against them.

Whether you like or dislike, agree or disagree with another person of another race, it must be based only on his ideas, attitude, personality, actions and politics and not simply because he is from a different race.

On achieving social justice (another ingredient for unity), affirmative action to help the poor and the socially disadvantaged seems to be the answer.

However, studies around the world have indicated that it must be based on need and has a fixed time frame. Unfettered and unlimited affirmative policies will lead to abuses and undermine the self-reliance and the self-improvement of the very community it sets out to help. It would be counter-productive in the long run.

The sole purpose of affirmative action is to create a level playing field for the poor in order for them to acquire the skills and knowledge to be on their own, so that they compete freely with others.

In this age of globalisation and increasing competition from other countries and economic groupings, Malaysia can ill-afford to wait and slow down the economy too much in order for the socially disadvantaged to catch up.

What we need is a philosophy that, while abiding by free-market principles, tempers that with compassion and an emphasis on social justice.

So, what is the most crucial ingredient for national unity? That same old rule stressed by the religious traditions of all Malaysians: Do unto others as you would have others do unto you.

This is K.K. Tan’s last article for this column. Next month, he starts a new one that will deal with not just race but other more global issues. His 29 articles from this column plus contributions from some leaders will be compiled into a book to be published by June.

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 28 April 2011, 8:31 am and is filed under
1Malaysia
,
Elections
,
nation building
,
Politics
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Najib’s no match for wily old Taib

by
Mohd Ariff Sabri Aziz

Free Malaysia Today

April 28, 2011

The moment he got wind of Umno KL’s plans to replace him, he swiftly moved to consolidate his grip over Sarawak.

COMMENT

It’s time for the boys on our side to rethink what has happened in Sarawak. A victorious and accordingly emboldened Taib Mahmud is now a cause for more headaches to Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak and Umno.

Let’s replay the behind-the-scene incidents on April 16. On that night, after making sure he already had the numbers, Taib called the house asking family members to get ready.

He warned them that much depended on speed and that there was no time to lose. Taib then called the governor informing the latter to get ready by 10.30pm.

He arrived 15 minutes past 10.30pm and was sworn in as chief minister, even before the people in Kuala Lumpur could savour the win.

Taib had got wind of rumours that he will be replaced by someone more docile and favourable to Umno.

The man Umno had in mind is said to be deputy Pesaka Bumiputera Bersatu (PBB) president .

Abang Jo is a Sarawakaian Malay and earmarked to be Umno’s man in Sarawak. But he wasn’t the first choice. Umno had discovered Salleh Jafaruddin and much hope was now placed on him.

Raziah’s choice

Najib’s intelligence people had reported that Taib was a much despised person in Sarawak and needed to be replaced lest the “fixed deposit state” vanished.

Najib’s political secretary who had been spending months on end in Sarawak had also returned to Putrajaya with the same prognosis. Taib simply must go, if Barisan Nasional (BN) is to retain its “fixed deposit”.

While Taib may not have as yet “chosen” his successor, probably because he’d prefer to die in office, his sister Rosie Genied (Raziah Mahmud Geneid), however, had other ideas. Her own main man was Planning and Resources Management and Public Utilities Minister Awang Tengah Ali Hassan.

According to reports, while Taib was busy being a newly-wed, it was the team of Rosie and Awang Tengah who vetted through the list of BN candidates for the April 16 polls.

One of the early casualties was Salleh. He was recommended as a candidate by Umno. They saw him as a possible replacement for Taib if he had stood on PBB ticket.For that, Salleh was given a few million ringgit. If he had won, he could always be inducted later into PBB and installed as the pliant CM of Sarawak.

But Salleh’s appearance raised suspicion within Taib’s camp.

Umno plant

All of a sudden, this chap who was linked to the infamous Ming Court conspiracy in 1987, seemed to have a reversal of fortunes of sorts.

Salleh is known as a compulsive gambler and is a man of straw. The fact that he suddenly had money to contest in the state election raised suspicion that he must be funded by some people.

Taib went along, agreeing that Salleh be fielded as a PBB candidate. He was actually buying time to uncover what earthly plot has been hatched against him.

He didn’t have to think hard. Sister Rosie and her favourite horse, Awang Tengah, smelled a rat in Salleh. They suspected Salleh to be a plant by Kuala Lumpur to eject Taib.

If Taib goes, Awang Tengah, Rosie and company will also have to go. No more land grabs, no more yachts, no more salacious soirees. This simply meant that Salleh had to be guillotined.

When it became clear to Umno that Salleh wasn’t on the list validated by Team Rosie, it was decided then to field him as an independent.

With Salleh gone, Plan B was placed on alert.

Abang Johari’s shortcomings

This time it was decided that someone deep inside the ranks of PBB must be identified. They zeroed in Abang Johari. He’s no handsome Joe, but he serves the interest of Kuala Lumpur.

Abang Johari is a Sarawakian Malay, a man who can be counted upon to further the political interests of Umno.

Never mind his facial appearance. That doesn’t factor in peoples’ minds as there are several ministers at the federal level with Down’s Syndrome looks.

Not relevant, too, are Abang Johari’s shortcomings such as being damaged by the business excesses of his friends. He is also said to suffer from the same affliction affecting Pak Lah. He sleeps through his job.

But THE most important factor is that he is MALAY. With him at the helm, Umno can move into Sarawak.

Double dealing

Having “uncovered” a possible coup, Taib’s people rushed to brief him about Kuala Lumpur’s double dealing. Politically savvy Taib would now show these KL knuckleheads who’s the “taikor” in Sarawak.

He prepared his team to campaign on local issues and if this fails, PBB will go after personalities. And if everything else failed, then cheat-to-win would be the final alternative.

Unbeknown to Kuala Lumpur, Taib had got a firm grip on PBB’s 35 seats well before the polls on April 16.

He had his people all over the place. He had the local ketua kampungs (village chiefs), the tuai rumah (longhouse chiefs) and kapitan (community leaders) on his side.

Taib has a huge war chest and most of all he had better information than the misinformation that Najib’s intelligence people were conveying to Najib.

The moment Najib boldly announced that Taib will retire, the CM knew Najib’s intelligence people had been sleeping through their task.

Perhaps they had too much tuak, gawai dayaks and so forth. But the knowledge was enough to embolden Taib.

Taib’s countermand

Each time Najib reassured Sarawakians that Taib would go, Taib would come out in open defiance countermanding Najib. “I will deliver the coup de grace,” said Taib and so he did!

Taib had done sterlingly in the highly charged polls. He retained all the 35 seats PBB contested.

Other than Sarawak United People’s Party (SUPP), which lost most of its seats, his other coalition partners won splendidly. Najib’s own BN over in the peninsula did dismally.

MCA had 15 seats in 2008 general election. Gerakan was all but wiped out – saved from extinction by the sad presence of its president Koh Tsu Koon, who incidentally also lost his seat.

MIC, meanwhile, is going around with bowl-in-hand chanting ritualistic assurances that the Indians are back in BN.

So, now comes the pain for Najib. How can Najib expedite the exit of Taib? He can’t force Taib out of office by using corruption as an issue.

If he does, then people will come back and ask him: “If you knew all along that Taib is corrupt, then why did you agree for Taib to stand as candidate? Wouldn’t that be like deceiving the people?”

Sarawakians are not Malay

The fact remains that Najib is powerless to deal with Taib and for many reasons. To begin with, there is the general sentiment of the Borneo people. They are not Malaya people. Sarawakians are not Malay people!

Sarawakians resent the dictates and high-handedness of the Malaya people. Secondly, Taib is not an Umno member and therefore not subject to any arm-twisting or enforcement of discipline. He doesn’t answer to the Umno president.

Thirdly, he has the numbers behind him. He won all the 35 seats his party contested. That’s more than what Umno can ever counter.

But the most important deterent to Najib’s possible voyage into Sarawak is what Taib holds – the key to Najib’s fixed deposit state.

Sarawak has 31 parliamentary seats. And Taib controls at least 25 of them. Can any of the boys on our side comprehend the implications of this awesome power?

Taib owns 25 parliamentary seats which he can deliver in any direction he so wants. If Taib decides to abandon ship, Najib becomes the opposition leader in the next Parliament. So indeed, a victorious Taib is no joy coming to town.

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 28 April 2011, 9:43 am and is filed under
Najib Razak
,
Sarawak
,
UMNO
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Pakatan’s Chances of Winning the 13th General Election

By
Kenny Gan

The 13th general election will be the most watched and anxiously awaited event in the annals of Malaysian political history. Previous general elections have been tame affairs where the result was never in doubt; it was only a matter of how many seats the opposition could wrest away from BN. But the next election will be different as BN faces a real threat of losing power to a united opposition.

To be sure, this is not the first time that the opposition parties have grouped together to challenge BN. In the 1990 general election, Tengku Razaleigh’s Semangat 46 forged a coalition with other opposition parties and in 1999 DAP, PAS and Keadilan formed Barisan Alternatif to take advantage of public revulsion over Mahathir’s cruel treatment of Anwar.

But these opposition pacts did not even manage to deny BN its customary two-thirds majority. They failed because the social forces at that time were just not in their favour. The minorities were controlled by racial and religious fears and the mindset of the people then could not accept being governed by any coalition other than BN.

Things are certainly different now. Never before has there been such a nexus of events to influence the political destiny of the country. The coming together of the opposition, the dissipation of racial and religious fears, the sea change in mindset, the political awakening of Sabah and Sarawak and yet another sodomy outrage on Anwar have coalesced into the perfect storm to threaten BN.

The Tyranny of Numbers

Although chances to unseat BN have never been better one should not be mistaken into thinking that ousting the behemoth is easy or inevitable. In Malaysia there is no such thing as free and fair elections. The playing field is wholly tilted to BN which has almost unlimited funds and controls the mass media and all the levers of power which it shamelessly uses to its advantage.

There are 222 parliament seats so a party winning 112 seats gains a simple majority to form the government with the other side ending up with 110 seats. Of course such a slim majority is not workable in practice as a single defection will lose the majority. If PR wins a majority which is too thin BN will waste no time in scuttling their majority by inducing defections.

However the aim is to gain an idea of whether PR has any chance of winning, never mind the practicality of governance. After the 2008 general election, PR held 83 parliament seats to BN’s 139. This means PR must retain all the seats it won in 2008 plus an additional 29 seats to obtain the bare minimum majority. On the surface this looks rather optimistic.

But numbers can be deceptive. Our election system is based on “first past the post” which means that a win by 1 vote is still a win. Hence a small swing in vote share can result in a large number of seats changing hands. An alternative system is proportional representation where seat allocation is based on the proportion of votes secured but the disadvantage of such a system is that it tends to result in weak governments.

After the 2008 election there were many marginal seats won by both sides which could change hands with just a small swing in voter support. Based on data on marginal seats sourced from malaysiakini, a 6% swing to PR will result in PR capturing an additional 29 seats, i.e. winning 112 seats to BN’s 110.

An overall 6% swing in voter support is a large swing and this must come on the back of the 2008 swing against BN. To put this in perspective the overall swing to and against BN in past general elections are as follows: (sourced from The Star)

1995 – 11.8% swing to BN due to Dr. M’s liberalization policies

1999 – 8.7% swing to opposition due to Anwar factor

2004 – 7.4% swing to BN due to new PM Badawi

2008 – 10.7% swing to opposition due to tsunami.

So a 6% swing is within the range of possibility but the crux is that swings have alternated between BN and opposition from election to election. Since the last election saw a swing of 10.7% to the opposition an additional 6% swing in the same direction seems optimistic. Even more ominous, a mere 1.2% swing to BN will see BN regaining its two-thirds majority. Is BN safe in Putrajaya after all?

The Keys to Putrajaya

The key to break this tyranny of numbers is Sabah and Sarawak. To put it another way, Sabah and Sarawak hold the keys to Putrajaya.

In the above analysis we have assumed that the voting pattern in the two East Malaysian states will not differ greatly from 2008 subject to a moderate percentage swing. In 2008 the opposition only managed to capture only a single seat each in Sabah and Sarawak.

But Sabah and Sarawak are experiencing a political awakening in the wake of the 2008 tsunami. The notion of the two states being “fixed deposits” for BN is no longer true after the 2011 Sarawak state election. The mood in Sabah towards the federal government is anger at the hordes of illegal immigrants and Sabah is ripe for political change.

Hence we should treat Sabah and Sarawak differently on the basis that their normal voting pattern is going to be upset from the usual trend and moderate swings do not apply. Sabah has 26 parliament seats and Sarawak 31, numbers which are disproportionate to their population.

Results from the recently concluded Sarawak state election indicate that PR’s success can be translated into 6 to 8 parliamentary seats. As for Sabah it is certainly set to lose more than one seat.

If we assume that PR can capture 8 seats in Sarawak and 8 seats in Sabah and adding these to PR’s 81 Peninsula seats in 2008, this brings the total to 97. To achieve 112 seats PR will need to capture an additional 15 seats in the Peninsula, assuming that it is able to keep all the seats captured in 2008.

From the table of BN’s marginal seats and excluding those seats in Sabah and Sarawak, we find that a 4% swing will yield PR an additional 14 seats while a 5% swing will yield another 19 seats in the Peninsula.

So 4% swing in the Peninsula is just falls short while a 5% swing will yield a total of 116 seats for PR and 106 seats for BN with a majority of 10, not great but workable giving PR time consolidate its position by making much needed changes to the police, judiciary MACC and other enforcement divisions.

A 5% swing is still significant and we must remember that this must come on the back of a 10.7% swing in 2008 in the same direction. The next question is, “Will there be enough fence sitters to execute the swing given that a large number have already swung away from BN in 2008?”

The Racial Battleground

What sort of swing in each of the three major ethnic groups is needed to obtain this 5% swing in the Peninsula? Based on past by-elections the support level of the Chinese and Indians can be predicted with some reliability but the Malay ground is very hard to read.

The Chinese community can be considered to be won by PR with up to 80% support in by-elections which has increased from 2008 where 65% of Chinese voters supported PR.  It is generally believed that the Indian community voted overwhelmingly against BN in 2008 but the numbers show that Indian support for BN was split down the middle at 48%. This was of course a huge swing from their normal 80% support level. Right now the Indian vote is still roughly split down the middle although by-elections have detected a slight drift back to BN. We should not read too much into these “buy-elections” where the poor and marginalized are most susceptible to handouts which cannot be repeated on a national scale.

Among the Malays there appear to be few fence sitters. This is why PR finds it hard to increase its Malay vote share. On the other hand even overt racism and ultra nationalism do little to enlarge Umno’s Malay base. The Malay ground is very hard to shift either way but a little means a lot due to their demography.

Analysis of BN’s Malay vote share in past general elections show 49% in 1999 due to the Anwar crisis, 59.1% in 2004 due to the new PM factor (or because Mahathir was gone) and 55% in 2008. Umno’s baseline Malay support appears to be about 55% and it can shift up or down by about 5%. This means that in 2008 it may have come down to its base support level and it possible to shift either way by a maximum of 5%.

The Critical Malay Vote

If we assume a 75% support level for PR from the Chinese and 48% support level from the Indians what sort of support level is required from Malays for an overall 5% swing to PR? The results are summarized in the table below.

Ethnic Group

PR support 2008

PR support 13th GE (assumed)

& swing within group

Demography

% overall swing

Chinese

65%

75%

10%

26%

2.6%

Indian

48%

48%

0%

8%

0%

Malay

55%

58.6%

3.6%

66%

2.4%

Total

5.0%

Hence it can be seen that a Malay swing to PR of 3.6% from the 2008 baseline is required to push PR into Putrajaya with a thin majority of 10 seats.

It is clear that the 13th general election will be a battle for the Malay vote. Only the Malays themselves can determine who governs them. There are no races acting as kingmakers.

The Road to Putrajaya

So the essential conditions for a PR victory are the capture of 8 seats each in Sabah and Sarawak, a 10% Chinese swing, no change in Indian support and critically, a 3.6% Malay swing to PR. Note that this analysis is based on national averages; it does not consider seat results due to local conditions, local demography or the popularity of a candidate.

As these conditions are within the range of possibility optimists may see this as a good chance to unseat BN. Pessimists may see it as unlikely to happen especially with the Malays reportedly drifting back to Umno.

Is there any likelihood of a cataclysmic event which will swing the Malay vote away from BN as what happened in 1999? Yes, there is – Anwar’s sodomy II which will probably end with his imprisonment and may yet yield the required Malay swing provided Umno is reckless enough to put him in jail.

Importance of a Pakatan Victory

What Malaysia badly needs is a two party system where democratic competition forces the ruling party to be more people centric and accountable. A party which has no fear of losing power invariably becomes corrupt and abusive.

Can PR function as a component of the two party system to put pressure on BN without gaining power? What if PR does not gain power but wins enough seats in the next general election to put real fear in BN and force it to reform?

But this is not likely to happen. Instead of reforming BN will take desperate measures to whip up racial sentiment, oppress the opposition and manipulate the electoral process to cement its power. A two party system will only exist in Malaysia if BN loses power at least once.

The road to Putrajaya is long and arduous so PR must stay focused and cohesive. There is no room for petty squabbling or in-fighting. Unseating BN with their absolute control of money, media and machinery is hard even with the opposition coalition at its optimum. Anything less and BN may even gain back their two-thirds majority instead of being ousted.

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 28 April 2011, 10:23 pm and is filed under
Articles
,
Election
,
Pakatan Rakyat
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


What impression have we given to Chinese Premier Wen Jiaboa – a government crazed with sex scandals than with enhancing Malaysia’s multi-racial national unity or international competitiveness?

What impression have we given to Chinese Premier Wen Jiaboa in his short visit to the country?

That we have a government crazed with sex scandals than with enhancing multi-racial national unity or Malaysia’s international competiveness?

The largest English-language circulation newspaper in the country, the MCA-owned Star, put the Carcosa sex scandal on its front page – headlined: “
Part 2 out – Another video clip on YouTube, Anwar’s family says it’s not him
” while Wen’s historic visit to University of Malaya is relegated to Page 2!

The official visit of the leader of the most important nation in the world also fought a losing battle with
“Sex video Part 2 on YouTube
” even for front-page mention, whether its News Straits Times, Berita Harian or even the “1Melayu” Utusan Malaysia.

What a national shame and disgrace!

Wen Jiaboa would have been completely horrified if during his short visit to Malaysia, he had sighted the 8pm TV3 Prime News last night, which caused me to post five  tweets in 30 minutes after I had been informed by incensed parents who were shocked and surprised by the “transformation” of TV3 into a porn channel: viz:

Horrible Disgusting Complaints from those who watched 8pm TV3 Prime News which showed latest snippet of so-called Anwar Carcosa sex video.

Ord decent Msians feel violated in their very homes w such disgusting TV fare – turning TV3 into pornographic channel. No child safe at home.

TV3 boss/all responsible 4terrible bad taste violating homes children w such disgusting snippets shd be sacked or Info Minister Rais shd go

All parents lodge police rpts agnst TV3. Lets have nation-wide campaign 2protect homes/children from such disgusting TV fare/gutter politics

Let every BN Minister Dy Min MP SA declare stand – agree w TV3?s disgusting porno? PM Najib – r u going 2draw a line on whats decent or not?

Clearly the condemnation and strictures of the  earlier TV3 show of the first snippet of the Carcosa sex video, which the President of the Catholic Bishops Conference of Malaysia and head of the Melaka-Johore Catholic diocese, Dr Paul Tan Chee Ing had denounced as “an inexcusable outrage”, had completely fallen on deaf ears.

Paul Tan had warned: “No person of conscience can fail to deplore this permissiveness, this inaction in the face of a puerile voyeurism that has now reached a nadir.”

Would Najib undo this great national shame and disgrace by convening a round-table conference of political parties, NGOs and NGIs to draw up a clear guideline to stop the abuse of media and  broadcasting channels to, in the words of Art Harun on my tweet,  “defame others and to uphold morality and good values” and to take the first tentative step to end gutter politics and restore decency to public life?

Would the Prime Minister table the latest  TV3 Prime News sacrilege of public morals and decency as priority agenda in the next Cabinet meeting to ensure that there is no such despicable recurrence?

Would the Information Minister Datuk Seri Dr. Rais Yatim and all those responsible in TV3 be hauled up for such grave public indecency and immorality?

The Police have denied that it is responsible for the surfacing of the second snippet of the Carcosa sex video.  This was exactly what the police claimed when the first snippet of the sex video surfaced during the Sarawak state general election campaign. Will there be a third, fourth, fifth and even sixth snippets surfacing on YouTube and TV3 in the coming days?

The infamous trio of Datuk T – former Malacca Chief Minister, Tan Sri Rahim Noor, Datuk Shazryl EskayAbdullah and Datuk Shuib Lazim have claimed many a time that they are in possession of the only original copy of the Carcosa sex video and that this sole original copy had  been surrendered to the police.

How then could two snippets of the Carcosa sex video surface on YouTube and the Umno blogs in a matter of three weeks?

Have the Carcosa sex video leaked from police custody and possession or is this proof of higher powers involved in the manipulation of the Carcosa sex video to character-assassinate Anwar Ibrahim?

As the possibility of  the Carcosa video tape leaking from police possession and custody to surface in two snippets on YouTube cannot be ruled out, the Inspector-General of Police Tan Sri Ismail Omar should direct that an official police report be lodged and a completely separate investigation team commissioned to investigate the matter. Police credibility, integrity, professionalism and reputation are at stake!

Has the second snippet succeeded in convincing Malaysians that it is Anwar in the Carcosa sex video?

I agree with the following reaction posted on my blog to the second snippet of the Carcosa sex video :

When that man bend down and wear his pants..freeze the picture.. and you can clearly see…..it is not Anwar.

I am sure anyone can see it is not Anwar.

Are Najib and IGP blind?

Anyway…it is good this second part released…to completely prove Anwar is telling the truth all along.

What kind of creatures are these worms…..keep using sex to bring down Anwar?

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 28 April 2011, 2:39 pm and is filed under
Foreign
,
Media
,
Najib Razak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


“WE HAVE BETTER STUFF TO DO”

by
Goh Keat Peng

“… the top anchors at all the networks had scurried into the briefing room. Once there, they received a presidential scolding for their concern with ‘silliness.’ Obama began his five-minute statement with the complaint that he wouldn’t be able to get the networks to break into their regularly scheduled programming for a speech on policy proposals. “I know that there is going to be a segment of people for which no matter what we put out, this issue will not be put to rest,” Obama said. “But I am speaking for the vast majority of the American people as well as for the press. We do not have time for this kind of silliness. We have better stuff to do. I have got better stuff to do. We have got big problems to solve. We are not going to be able to do it if we are distracted, we are not going to be able to do it if we spend time vilifying each other … if we just make stuff up and pretend that facts are not facts, we are not going to be able to solve our problems if we get distracted by side shows and carnival barkers.”

The New York Times editorial on this press conference was entitled, “A Certificate of embarrassment”. It says in part:

“With sardonic resignation, President Obama, an eminently rational man, stared directly into political irrationality on Wednesday and released his birth certificate to history. More than halfway through his term, the president felt obliged to prove that he was a legitimate occupant of the Oval Office. It was a profoundly low and debasing moment in American political life… It was particularly galling to us that it was in answer to a baseless attack with heavy racial undertones. Mr. Obama practically begged the public to set aside these distractions, expressing hope that his gesture would end the “silliness” and allow a national debate about budget priorities. It won’t, of course.”

Sounds familiar?

In today’s Malaysia, there seems to be a parallel situation and the above words of an American president and an editorial from an American leading newspaper could in fact just as well be describing a prominent news report in our own country about something rather similar in terms of the degree of its silliness. Except for the fact that in the Malaysian context it is not the sitting government leadership who are needing to get their citizens and politicians off silly things. Believe it or not, the twist here in the Malaysian story is that many seem to think that it is the sitting government itself who is putting these silly things on show to distract the populace from more important issues which impact everyday life and the long-term prospect of the nation!

How else are Malaysians (not to mention visitors to our country) to think when so many incongruous things have happened (or not happened) in the drag out case of a certain video?

Granted that there may be several targets and several layers of motives which this low-class strategy and methodology is serving, just as there may be several layers of perpetrators behind this evil scheme. But as a country we deserve better and we can surely do better.

From experience we know that those who are responsible will never voluntarily or sensibly stop. The media can choose not to carry or deliver such sordid, low-class products and stop giving space and credence to the crude works of evil doers. But even if the media, like the shameless perpetrators, would not stop, we the public can stop reading and watching what they put before us. As consumers, we control the market, we can send a signal to the supply and demand chain. The heads of our collective religious communities can warn the autorities as well as those responsible that “Enough is enough!”

In the words of Bishop Dr Paul Tan, SJ:

“No person of conscience can fail to deplore this permissiveness, this inaction in the face of a puerile voyeurism that has now reached a nadir.”

We as a nation will be examined and graded according to how we deal with this wicked episode: as government and enforcement officers, as politicians across the board, as media, as religious heads and communities, as people and citizens.

NB. Of course (in a lighter vein) it is foolish of me to post this article today of all the days! Why so? Because no one will read it. And why not? Because half way across the world, two young people are getting married and practically the whole world would be watching the event live on TV. Talk about distraction! But at least this live coverage will be for General Audience, and seriously, marriage is never trivial or insignificant. May God bless this matrimony.

                This entry was posted on Friday, 29 April 2011, 6:42 pm and is filed under
Articles
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Kit Siang: Soi Lek killing the people’s hope for change

By
 Clara Chooi

The Malaysian Insider

Apr 29, 2011

KUALA LUMPUR, April 29 — Lim Kit Siang accused Datuk Seri Dr Chua Soi Lek today of destroying the people’s hopes by dictating that they had no choice but to accept the status quo in the present administration under Barisan Nasional (BN).

This, said the DAP adviser, was reflected in Dr Chua’s recent reminder to the Chinese community that their hopes should be based on the political realities in Malaysia.

Lim insisted that the MCA president had missed the point when he challenged PKR to abolish Malay privileges, pointing out that the opposition had never argued over the special position of the Malays as enshrined under Article 153 of the Federal Constitution.

The point of contention, said Lim, was the BN government’s “blatant abuse” of the New Economic Policy (NEP) and refusal to implement needs-based affirmative action policies.

“His (Dr Chua’s) theatrics interest no one. Article 153 is not an article of controversy… it does not arise. The point of controversy is that the NEP must go.

“Dr Chua is just trying to create something out of nothing so that the people are distracted from the focal issues.

“Now that the people have some hope that for the first time, they have a proper alternative, he is trying to quash that hope,” Lim told The Malaysian Insider today.

He said Dr Chua should stop avoiding the reasons behind the “political awakening” of Malaysians across creed and colour, which was mirrored in the just-concluded Sarawak polls.

In the April 16 election, the DAP caused an electoral upset when it doubled its seat representation in the BN fortress of Sarawak by clinching 12 of the 15 seats it contested, most of them Chinese-majority areas.

Collectively, Pakatan Rakyat (PR) managed to capture 15 seats in the 71-seat assembly and garnered an impressive 45.5 per cent of popular votes.

Lim said the significant vote swing for the opposition proved that Malaysians were ready for change and have spotted “the light at the end of the tunnel, the glimmer of hope that there can be changes and improvements in the country’s political and economic climate”.

“So I think that what Dr Chua is trying to do is to distract attention from the real issues… portraying that there is no hope and telling the people to give up hope.

“He is saying that the people should be resigned to the injustices and corruption in the country,” he said.

Lim was responding to Dr Chua’s message in a video uploaded by the MCA on broadcast site YouTube.com recently in which the party president declared that he would be the “first to raise my hands to vote for PKR” if the party “dares to amend the constitution and cancel Malay privileges”.

In the 84-second clip, the former health minister appeared to suggest that the Chinese community should accept the current political scenario dominated by Umno and BN as the promises propagated by the opposition created a false sense of hope.

“I admit that the opposition’s words reflect the wishes of the younger generation because they create a sense of hope. But over time people will see that it is a lie.

“So you can have your hope but the hope should be based on the political realities in the country,” Dr Chua had said.

Lim said that Dr Chua’s words appeared to suggest that those who were not willing to accept the status quo or who saw no future in a nation under BN’s rule were welcome to leave the country.

“It means that those who want to migrate should migrate and those who see no future can leave so that the present government can continue unchecked,” he said.

According to a World Bank report yesterday, more than one million Malaysians currently live abroad.

The report stated that policies favouring the majority Malays were contributing to the country’s brain drain while holding back its economy and limiting foreign investment.

“I think it is necessary to put right all these wrongs for the benefit of Malaysians so that everyone, regardless of race, can look forward to justice and equality.

“The poor Malays, for instance, will be able to get affirmative assistance on the basis of need and the non-Malays will be able to feel that they have a rightful place under the Malaysian sun,” said Lim.

He pointed out that this formula was outlined in the Najib administration’s New Economic Model but the government had failed to see its reforms through.

                This entry was posted on Friday, 29 April 2011, 6:23 pm and is filed under
Brain drain
,
Corruption
,
MCA
,
NEP
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Longing For A Free Mind (Part 8 of 14)

By
M. Bakri Musa

The Mind of A Future Leader

It is within us to topple our personal as well as collective coconut shell.  Of course, with enlightened leadership the process would be greatly facilitated. With skills and ingenuity we could leverage the very elements of our culture that had imprisoned us to instead free us.

            Consider our excessive deference and unquestioning loyalty to authority figures.  If perchance we were to be miraculously endowed with an enlightened leader, someone with an open mind and a growth mindset, who accepts and indeed encourages criticism of her leadership, then we would readily emulate her and our society would be transformed in short order.

            Consider China; it long endured the stifling rule of communism under Chairman Mao who led that huge nation from one giant leap after another into the abyss.  It took the diminutive and uninspiring leader in the person of Deng Xiaoping with a different mindset and a free mind to change direction, and the whole nation followed through, in their Confucian tradition of “follow the leader.”  In one generation, that nation was transformed.

            This “follow the leader” mentality is typical not just of China but of all developing societies, Malay society included.  I go further and posit that this blindly follow-the-leader mindset is what keeps those societies behind.  It is also precisely with such societies that the role of leaders is crucial in emancipating the people.

            If we were leaderless but yearn to topple our coconut shell, that would still be achievable but the path would be less smooth and take longer.  We would also have to endure uncertainties and possible turmoil.  This is where Tunisia and Egypt are now.  They will eventually reach their goal, but the journey will be long and the views not very scenic.

            With a competent leader, the transition would be faster, smoother, less traumatic and more likely to be successful, as with the Irish and Quebec’s “Quiet Revolutions” of the 1960s and 70s respectively.  Malaysia is a democracy; we can choose our leaders.  The electoral process may not be pristine but then politics even in the most mature democracies never is.

            Leaders cannot be leaders without followers; thus the leader-follower dynamics is equally crucial.  We can intuitively appreciate that the talents required to be a platoon leader is very different from that of an academic physics department.  Even for the same organization, you can have many successful personality types and leadership styles.  A leader who is excellent during a certain period of time would be downright dangerous in another.  Winston Churchill was a great leader of wartime Britain.  Come peace however, the people rightly rejected him.  Had he continued to lead Britain after World War II, the ensuing Cold War would not have remained cold.  Churchill’s uncompromising stand against communism, reflected in his haughty Iron Curtain speech, would have plunged the world into another great war.

            Leaders must have a free mind and growth mindset to adapt, grow and learn with the inevitable changes in society.  This is particularly true with a plural society, or one rapidly changing as a consequence of urbanization and globalization.  And Malaysian society is all that.

            A leader is to an organization what wings are to a plane.  Wings define the limits of performance of the plane, so too is a leader to her organization.  The earliest plane had double wings – the biplanes – to give the greatest lift at the low speed that their small engine could deliver.  Later with powerful engines and consequent greater speed, that wing design exerted too much drag and soon yielded to single wings fitted with slats, slots and ailerons to adjust the shape to be more curved for maximal lift at low speed and then retracted for less drag at cruising speed.  With even more powerful jet engines and faster speed that design again proved inadequate and gave way to backswept wings.  Supersonic rockets need only winglets.

            Likewise with society; it requires different leaders depending on the stage of development.  It is the rare individual who could successfully make the transition from one pattern of leadership to another.  Most stay put long after their leadership style has proven no longer effective with the changed circumstances.

            In my book Towards A Competitive Malaysia I describe three patterns of leadership.  One is the pyramid-type or military style, with one commanding general at the top, followed by a few subordinate generals, then many colonels and many more majors, and sergeants, finally ending with the enlisted soldiers.  This is strictly a top-down, command-and-control organization.

            This leadership is best suited for an emerging society where its members are not sophisticated or well educated, or one long oppressed through colonialisms.  This was MacArthur’s leadership of Japan right after the humiliation of World War II; it was remarkably effective and efficient.

            In a developed society this leadership is needed during times of crisis, as in America in the aftermath of 9-11 terrorists’ attack of 2001.  This should be the leadership during the Katrina hurricane devastation of New Orleans in 2005.  That it was not contributed to the widespread and prolonged anarchy following that tragedy.

            This was the leadership of Tun Razak following the May 1969 race riots; it was highly effective.  In the annals of civil disturbances and racial conflicts, that incident was mercifully brief.  This fact is greatly underappreciated.  For perspective, compare the Catholic-Protestant “troubles” of Northern Ireland; it is still going to this day.  Then there is the sectarian violence in nearby Sri Lanka.

            The second style is the coaching model.  The coach has almost absolute power over his players.  He is not answerable to them rather to forces outside the team:  the owners and fans.  If the team does not perform, it is the coach who will get fired.

            While the coach is the most powerful person in the team, he (or she) is not the most well known or even the highest paid.  The players often get star billing and paid many times more.  The skill of a coach leader lies in her ability to merge the various talents in her team towards a common goal:  beating the opposing team.  Where the military model of leadership is pyramidal, the coaching style is more like a school house block, with a long one or two storey blocks on either side of a central administrative tower only a few stories higher.  It is flat and efficient.

            The third model is that of a symphony conductor.  Like the sports team, here too you are dealing with a group of talented and accomplished individuals, the musicians.  As leader you do need to shout in order to be heard; your followers will hear you loud and clear through your performance as leader.

            While an orchestra can perform without a conductor, in order for it to shine it needs a skillful conductor.  The pattern is akin to the Ferris wheel, with the conductor in the center connected by spokes to the musicians in the periphery.  They in turn are connected to each other via the rim.  Those musicians have to communicate not only with the conductor but also with each other.  With a Ferris wheel, if the load is not balanced there will be considerable vibrations when the wheel rotates.  Uncorrected it could make the wheel explode; likewise with an orchestra.

            This orchestra style of leadership is seen in think tanks, academic departments, and research laboratories.  All the participants (followers) are like the musicians – talented and skillful in their own right, and could perform on their own without a leader.

            Malaysians have long emerged from our feudal ways although especially for Malays we are still entrapped by their many elements, as for example, our excessive deference to authority figures.  We are also better educated and more informed today.  We are definitely more open to the world, actively engaged in foreign trade and exchanges.  The authoritarian military style of leadership would definitely push us back.

            It is questionable whether are ready for the symphony or coaching model of leadership.  We are in a transition mode; we need to be pushed away from the top-down command-and-control military leadership towards a flatter coaching or symphony model.

            My preference is for the orchestra model.  For that to be effective we need to make our citizens better informed and more critical.  I would accept an authoritarian coach model provided that the leader acknowledges and respects our individuality and utilizes and channels our talents towards an agreed goal.  My acceptance of an authoritarian streak in a leader carries a major – and very major – caveat.  That is, if she fails us in our common mission, she ought to be fired right away.  Therein lies the difficulty!

            A leader is not a zookeeper, content with keeping his animals healthy, well fed and able to procreate.  A lion penned and has be fed is no lion no matter how loud its roar is; a pampered overgrown pussy, maybe.

            Each of us is a leader and a follower at the same time.  I am leader of my family and of my surgical team, while I am a follower in the greater scheme of things.  Today you are a follower; some of you are already leaders of your fellow students.  All of you are leaders, for now only to your younger siblings, cousins and nephews.  With Allah’s blessings, you too will some day be parents and leaders of your family.

            As leaders you should encourage your followers to be critical and unafraid to challenge your views.  You should go beyond merely tolerating to actively encouraging and embracing criticisms.  You should never equate questioning and criticism with impudence or disloyalty.  Likewise, as followers you should never hesitate to criticize your leaders.  Do not seek refuge behind some misguided notion of loyalty, politeness, or patriotism.

            Today Malaysians are plagued with leaders who are determined to outmatch their predecessors in cronyism, corruption and nepotism, quite apart from sheer incompetence.  Einstein observed that doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result is insanity.  He was partly right; it would be insanity only if you were to ask the same individuals to do it repeatedly.  Incidentally, that insanity applies both ways; to you as well as those you tasked with the job.  However, if you were to ask someone else more competent, the results may well surprise you, and it would be far from insanity.

            The New Economic Policy, the National Development Policy, and now The New Economic Model; they are all essentially the same and executed by the same cast of incompetent characters.  And we expect a different result.  Now that’s insanity!

            As alluded earlier and not to be unnecessarily Pollyannaish, our very weakness – lacking a free mind and tendency to follow our leaders blindly – could be ingenuously harnessed as a potential strength.  Imagine if we were to be blessed with a competent and enlightened leader, one self-confident enough to welcome criticisms and appreciate our individuality.  That is a tall order; nonetheless imagine if we were to be so blessed.  Then with our cultural propensity to follow the leader, our society would be transformed in short order:  free minded and open to criticisms.  Wouldn’t that be wonderful!

            Just to show you that I am not day dreaming or been smoking something illegal, I will cite examples from our legends and history of such individuals, and how they have transformed our society.

Next:   Free Minds in Our Legends and History

[
Presented at the Fifth Annual Alif Ba Ta Conference at Stevens Institute of Technology, Hoboken, NJ, organized by UMNO Club of New York-New Jersey, January 29, 2011.
]

                This entry was posted on Friday, 29 April 2011, 5:00 am and is filed under
Bakri Musa
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Malaysia’s brain drain getting worse, says World Bank

By
Lee Wei Lian

The Malaysian Insider

Apr 28, 2011

KUALA LUMPUR, April 28 — World Bank senior economist Philip Schellekens painted a gloomy picture of the Malaysian brain drain situation today saying that it not only grew rapidly but is likely to intensify, further eroding the country’s already narrow skills base.

Schellekens said that the number of skilled Malaysians living abroad has tripled in the last two decades with two out of every 10 Malaysians with tertiary education opting to leave for either OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development) countries or Singapore.

“Brain drain from Malaysia is likely to intensify in the absence of mitigating actions,” he said at the launch of the World Bank report titled “Malaysia Economic Monitor: Brain Drain”.

The report defined brain drain as the outflow of those with tertiary-level education.

The economist said Malaysian migration was increasingly becoming a skills migration with one-third of the one million-strong Malaysian diaspora now consisting of the tertiary educated.

“Expect the trend to continue,” he said.

He added that the outflow of talent was not being replaced with inflows, thus damaging the quality of Malaysia’s “narrow” skills base, noting that 60 per cent of immigration into Malaysia had only primary education or less, even as the number of skilled expatriates declined by 25 per cent since 2004.

The report also noted that there was a geographic and ethnic component to the brain drain, with about 88 per cent of the Malaysian diaspora in Singapore being of ethnic Chinese origin.

“The numbers for US and Australia are similar,” said Schellekens.

Report figures also show that 54 per cent of the Malaysian brain drain went to Singapore while 15 per cent went to Australia, 10 per cent to the US and 5 per cent to the UK.

The top three drivers for brain drain identified by the report were career prospects, compensation and social justice.

“(Lack of) Meritocracy and unequal access to scholarships are significant push factors and a deterrent to coming back,” said Schellekens. “Non-Bumiputeras are over-represented in the brain drain.”

He suggested that Malaysia implement important structural reforms in tandem with introducing targeted measures such as income tax incentives to reverse the brain drain.

“Once the highway is built, you must compete for traffic,” he said. “One suggestion is to hold a competition among members of the diaspora to get ideas on what can be done to attract them home.”

He added that while this report estimated the Malaysian diaspora at one million compared with about 1.4 million in a previous World Bank report, it was due to the lack of Singapore government information on the breakdown of its non-resident population.

“This is a conservative estimate and the diaspora could well be larger,” he said.

                This entry was posted on Friday, 29 April 2011, 7:24 am and is filed under
Brain drain
,
Economics
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


NEP, brain drain holding back Malaysia, says World Bank

The Malaysian Insider

Apr 28, 2011

KUALA LUMPUR, April 28 — More than one million Malaysians live abroad, the World Bank said today, adding that policies favouring Malays are holding back the economy, causing a brain drain and limiting foreign investment.

In a Bloomberg news service report today, World Bank senior economist Philip Schellekens was also quoted as saying that foreign investment could be five times the current levels if the country had Singapore’s talent base.

“Migration is very much an ethnic phenomenon in Malaysia, mostly Chinese but also Indian,” Schellekens told Bloomberg in Kuala Lumpur on Tuesday ahead of the report’s release today.

Governance issues and lack of meritocracy are “fundamental constraints” to Malaysia’s expansion because “competition is what drives innovation,” he said.

Malaysia’s growth fell to an average 4.6 per cent a year in the past decade, from 7.2 per cent the previous period.

Singapore, which quit Malaysia in 1965, expanded 5.7 per cent in the past decade and has attracted more than half of its neighbour’s overseas citizens, according to the World Bank.

Malaysia has in recent years unveiled plans to improve skills and attract higher value-added industries.

The World Bank conducted an online survey in February of 200 Malaysians living abroad in conjunction with the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University.

They cited better career prospects, social injustice and higher wages as their main reasons for leaving, the Washington-based lender said in the Bloomberg report.

Singapore has absorbed 57 per cent of Malaysia’s overseas citizens, with almost 90 per cent of those crossing the border ethnic Chinese, the World Bank said.

“If Malaysia has the investment environment of Singapore and also had the innovation and skills environment of Singapore, then foreign direct investment inflows into Malaysia could be about five times larger,” Schellekens said in the Bloomberg report.

“They need to boost productivity and strengthen inclusiveness.”

Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak has pledged to roll back the country’s NEP-style policies but he also told the Umno assembly last year that the government’s social contract of providing benefits to Bumiputeras cannot be repealed.

According to the Bloomberg report, Najib has eased some rules to woo funds, including scrapping a requirement that foreign companies investing in Malaysia and locally listed businesses set aside 30 per cent of their Malaysian equity for indigenous investors. Last year, he unveiled an economic transformation programme under which the government identified US$444 billion (RM1.3 trillion) of projects from mass rail transit to nuclear power that it would promote in the current decade.

“If everything is implemented as they say, Malaysia is going to be a star economy,” Schellekens told Bloomberg. “The problem is implementation.”

                This entry was posted on Friday, 29 April 2011, 7:15 am and is filed under
Brain drain
,
Economics
,
Najib Razak
,
NEM
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Nothing for Abu Kassim to gloat about as public stocks of two-year-old MACC lower than ever plumbed by its predecessor ACA in 41 years

In the past two days, the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) Chief Commissioner had been bragging about the achievements of the MACC since its establishment on January 1, 2009.

On Wednesday, at the
 “Corruption Destroyer of Civilisations” forum
 in Shah Alam, he claimed that MACC investigations are above board and that it did not take sides  where political parties were concerned when it came to corruption investigations.

He said: “For us, fighting corruption is in the interest of the people. Political affiliations are of no consequence.”

Abu Kassim can tell it to the marines!

Yesterday, when presenting the MACC 2010 Annual Report, Abu Kassim was preening for praise when he rattled out the MACC’s “achievements” – 944 people arrested and 381 charged last year with a 119% increase in success rate in securing conviction as compared to 2009, when MACC made only 500 arrests and 174 cases brought to court.

In actual fact, there is nothing for Abu Kassim to gloat about as  public stocks of two-year-old MACC is  lower than the worst level ever plumbed by  its predecessor ACA in 41 years from 1967 to 2008.

The whole objective of establishing MACC is to make a complete break from ACA which had failed to command public confidence as an efficient, independent, professional and world-class “without fear or favour” anti-corruption agency and to be modeled after Hong Kong’s renowned  Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC).

This is not the first time that Hong Kong’s ICAC had been held up as an example for our anti-corruption agency.

The ICAC became such  an example for the ACA to model after when a new Anti-Corruption Act was enacted by Parliament in 1997. At that time, ICAC experts were invited to impart expertise and advice on  how the ACA could become an ICAC but all these efforts came to nought because of the lack of political will to launch an all-out war against corruption in the country.

My judgment may be harsh but it is the truth. Despite Parliament approving more powers, a bigger budget (MACC’s budget is now over RM200 a year when it was only RM70 million in 2004) and more staff ( some 3,000-strong as compared to 1,200 manpower in 2004), public confidence in MACC today is at an all-time low, taken into consideration the 41 years of  ACA.

Has the MACC made any attempt to find out why public confidence in MACC is even worse than that of ACA – which is its greatest failure in the past two years?

There is a long list of reasons for MACC’s singular failure despite more powers, more funds and  increased staffing but the following are some of them, viz:

The failure and inability of MACC to deal with “grand corruption” involving “sharks” as compared to “ikan bilis” most notably in the states of Sarawak and Sabah;

The illegal “political role” of MACC, arising from its lack of independence, professionalism and integrity allowing MACC to be dragooned to serve the partisan, selfish and undemocratic agenda of Umno/Barisan Nasional as in their illegal, unconstitutional and undemocratic power seizure of Perak state government from Pakatan Rakyat and in the Barisan Nasional-Pakatan Rakyat political contest;

the mysterious and tragic death of Teoh Beng Hock falling from the 14th floor of MACC headquarters in Shah Alam on July 16, 2009;

The latest case of mysterious death from a fall from height, customs officer Ahmad Sarbani Mohamed  from the third floor of the MACC office in Jalan Cochkrane Kuala Lumpur on April 6, 2011; and

The lies and falsehoods by MACC officers at the Teoh Beng Hock inquest as well as the ongoing Royal Commission of Inquiry into Teoh Beng Hock’s death.

Has Abu Kassim addressed this important question in the 2010 MACC Annual Report – why MACC’s public stocks are even worse than the lowest ever plumbed by ACA in 41 years despite having vastly more powers, funds and staffing?

Furthermore, what is the MACC doing to command  greater public confidence as compared to ACA, before it could even take the first step to try to become another ICAC?  Is there any such realization and strategy for MACC at present?

                This entry was posted on Friday, 29 April 2011, 3:10 pm and is filed under
Corruption
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


To explore further the idea of a DAP-SNAP merger in  my three days in Kuching, Sibu and Miri starting tomorrow

In my three days of visit to Kuching, Sibu and Miri beginning tomorrow, I will also take the opportunity to explore further the idea of a DAP-SNAP merger as a follow-up to the 416 political awakening in the recent Sarawak state general elections with the twin objectives to accelerate greater political awakening among Sarawakians of all ethnic groups and deepen and strengthen DAP and  Pakatan Rakyat political support in the state.

This will be in line with the decision of the DAP Sarawak State Committee at its meeting in Sibu last Sunday to give the nod to explore further the idea of a possible DAP-SNAP merger.

I propose not only to meet SNAP leaders and veterans but also to discuss the post-416 political scenario and challenges with a whole spectrum of Sarawakians.

The suggestion of a possible DAP-SNAP merger has come as a great surprise to all quarters, both inside and outside the DAP, Pakatan Rakyat as well as the larger political scene.

We are in new and challenging times and we must be prepared to think the unthinkable and do what previously was thought undoable. What must remain constant and consistent are our political commitment and principles of justice, equality, freedom, accountability, integrity and good governance to serve the people of Sarawak and Malaysia.

One of our  greatest post-416 challenges is to completely demolish the myths  that the Sarawak state general elections are solely the political awakening of the Chinese voters and in the urban areas – when the statistics are crystal clear that firstly, it is not  just the Chinese, but the Iban, Dayak, Bidayuh, Malay and Melanau voters who had also given us their support to ensure DAP victory in 12 constituencies and that the political swing of Sarawak voters to Pakatan Rakyat   are even stronger outside the urban areas than in the cities and towns.

But it takes both hands to clap. If the SNAP leadership objects  to the merger idea, then it cannot be taken further.  DAP however will not compete with Barisan Nasional to woo SNAP or anyone for that matter, for we operate in completely different terrains – as BN offers “wealth, position and status”  for a select few while DAP can only offer “blood, sweat and tears” to work for the betterment of future generations.

                This entry was posted on Friday, 29 April 2011, 4:44 pm and is filed under
DAP
,
Elections
,
Pakatan Rakyat
,
Sarawak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


When even Chinese PM  could give full praise to Najib’s 1Malaysia concept, when will DPM Muhyiddin give unreserved support to PM’s signature policy, declare that he is “Malaysian first, Malay second” and repudiate Utusan Melayu’s “1Melayu” call?

One of the headlines in today’s New Straits Times coverage of the Chinese Prime Minister Wen Jiabao’s visit to Malaysia reads:
“Chinese prime minister all praise for Najib’s 1Malaysia”
, reporting that Wen Jiabao was “full of praise for Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak for coming up with the 1Malaysia concept” when meeting Malaysian Chinese businessmen in Kuala Lumpur yesterday.

This report immediately triggers the question:

When even the Chinese Prime Minister could give full praise to Najib’s 1Malaysia concept, when will Deputy Prime Minister Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin give unreserved support to the Prime Minister’s signature policy, declare that he is “Malaysian first, Malay second” and repudiate Utusan Malaysia’s “1Melayu” call?

The declared objectives of 1Malaysia concept are indeed most laudable and praiseworthy – to create a more vibrant, more productive and more competitive Malaysian nation “where every Malaysian perceives himself or herself as Malaysian first, and by race, religion, geographical region or socio-economic background second and where the principles of 1Malaysia are woven into the economic, political and social fabric of society”.

Going by this official definition, given by the official document “1Malaysia Government Transformation Programme”, I am the first MP to demonstrate support for Najib’s 1Malaysia concept by  declaring in Parliament  on March 18, 2009 that  I am Malaysian first and  Chinese second – when I also invited all the Barisan Nasional Ministers to make the same declaration that they are Malaysian first, race second to demonstrate their support and fealty to the Prime Minister’s 1Malaysia concept.

But no Barisan Nasional Minister dared to take the floor of Parliament to respond to my challenge to declare their allegiance to the 1Malaysia concept – and when I continued to pursue the matter, the Deputy Prime Minister retorted outside Parliament that he is Malay first and Malaysian second!

What is worse, Muhyiddin has now given his blessings to the communal and racist “1Melayu, 1Bumi” call by Utusan Malaysia, the official organ of Umno, which makes a complete mockery of Najib’s inclusive 1Malaysia concept.

Let me ask Muhyiddin when he is going to follow my example and declare that he is Malaysian first and race second to eradicate all doubts not only about his loyalty to Najib’s 1Malaysia policy but to Najib’s Prime Ministership?

If a visiting foreign dignitary like the Chinese Prime Minister can be full of praise for Najib’s 1Malaysia policy, it is real shame when the Deputy Prime Minister and the entire Najib Cabinet are not prepared to declare that they are “Malaysian first, and by race, religion, geographical region or socio-economic background second” in line with the 1Malaysia concept.

It is more than two years since Najib became the sixth Prime Minister with his signature 1Malaysia policy.

Isn’t it time he demand the full support and commitment of his Cabinet to the 1Malaysia policy by asking Ministers – even the DPM – to leave his government if any Cabinet Minister is not prepared to publicly declare that he or she is “Malaysian first and by race, religion, geographical region or socio-economic background second”?

Is Najib prepared  make this item the main subject of the next Cabinet meeting to show that he is really committed to the 1Malaysia concept and policy?

                This entry was posted on Friday, 29 April 2011, 10:23 am and is filed under
1Malaysia
,
Muhyiddin Yassin
,
Najib Razak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Chua SoiLek should not have too inflated an ego about himself or MCA

It should be the front-page headline news of the MCA newspaper The Star today, but it was tucked away in page 4, regarded as less newsworthy than Prince William and Kate Middleton’s wedding (entire front page with pic and headline‘You look beautiful’),
“PM – Innovate to compete: Relying on foreign labour a threat to economy, SMEs told”
 (p 2),
“A sea tunnel, after two bridges – Penang’s proposed third link in the pipeline”
 and
 “Hostile witnesses an obstacle, says MACC panel”
 (p 3).

It finally appears in p 4 of Star
 “Party will give up posts – MCA presidential council backs Chua’s stand”
 beneath another Chua SoiLek story
“Stop fanning racial flame, SoiLek warns opposition”.

This is what even journalists in MCA’s own newspaper, the Star, think of the newsworthiness and importance of Chua’s “shock announcement”.

Many Malaysians thought that MCA leaders are finally taking a political stand because they are moved by the latest World Bank report entitled “Malaysia Economic Monitor: Brain Drain” and adverse news headlines like “Malaysia’s brain drain getting worse, says World Bank” and “NEP, brain drain holding back Malaysia, says World Bank” which said among other things:

– more than one million Malaysians live abroad and that policies favouring Malays are holding back the economy, causing a brain drain and limiting foreign investment.

– a gloomy picture of the Malaysian brain drain situation today saying that it not only grew rapidly but is likely to intensify, further eroding the country’s already narrow skills base.

– that the number of skilled Malaysians living abroad has tripled in the last two decades with two out of every 10 Malaysians with tertiary education opting to leave for either OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development) countries or Singapore.

– foreign investment could be five times the current levels if the country had Singapore’s talent base.

– Migration is very much an ethnic phenomenon in Malaysia, mostly Chinese but also Indian.

– Governance issues and lack of meritocracy are “fundamental constraints” to Malaysia’s expansion because “competition is what drives innovation”.

Are the MCA leaders finally telling the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak and the Umno leadership that unless Umno and Barisan Nasional government walk the talk of the “New Economic Model” and genuinely introduces 1Malaysia transformation in all aspects, government, economic as well as political, including denouncing Utusan Malaysia’s latest “1Melayu, 1Bumi” call,  they see no purpose in MCA continuing in the Barisan Nasional Government?

But this is not the case.

Chua announced that MCA would give up all government posts if the MCA’s performance in the next general election is “dismal” but that it will continue to be in the BarisanNasional.

He declared: “Our stand is to be with Barisan through thick and thin. We are also very confident in our Prime Minister Datuk Seri NajibTunRazak’s leadership.”

Chua has gone out of his way to demonstrate that the MCA’s latest decision is not to be construed as a threat or pressure to Umno but he has no qualms whatsoever about threatening the Chinese electorate!

Chua should not have too inflated an ego about himself or MCA. For instance, in the other Star report today “lambasting” DAP for “playing up racial issues detrimental to a multi-racial nation like Malaysia”, he mentioned about his online posting about meeting Facebook fans in Johor Baru which was “taken out of context by DAP leaders”.

For the record, I do not know what Chua is talking about as I have never visited his Facebook. For that matter, I believe I can speak for the other DAP leaders and I will be very surprised if there is a single DAP leader who had ever visited Chua’s Facebook.

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 30 April 2011, 10:16 am and is filed under
1Malaysia
,
MCA
,
NEP
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


If Allah is the name of God in Islam, can Christians also call their God Allah?

By
N H Chan

The nomenclature of God

If you look up the word “Allah” in any English dictionary you will find this definition: Allah noun the name of God among Muslims; or Allah n. the principle Muslim name for God. In fact all English dictionaries are definite about the meaning of the word Allah; it is the name of God in Islam. Surprisingly the dictionary does not say that it is an Arabic word. Actually it is not strange at all. As I have already explained before, this Arabic word has become an English word since the sixteenth century when it was spelt using the English alphabet to represent the speech sounds of the Arabic word. It is only an Arabic word if it is written in the original Arabic text as distinct from the phonetic spelling in English.

If Allah is the Islamic God then, since Christians are not Muslims, could or should Christians call their God Allah?

The answer will depend on whether, as a fact, Allah in Arabic was first coined by the founder of Islam or that this Arabic word Allah had predated Islam and had been in existence as a name for “The God” – “The” meaning “the only one of its kind”, as in “the only God” – long before Prophet Mohammed’s Call, the legendary revelation of Allah in 611 AD.  As a matter of fact, even before there was Jesus Christ, “Allah” meaning “the only God” was already a word in Arabic a Semitic language spoken by the ancient Arabs who belonged to the ethnic group of peoples known as the Semites.

Historically, therefore, the Arabic word Allah was not coined by Islam’s founder at all. According to the Bible, God made Abraham, his two sons Ishmael and Isaac and their descendants His people. Since then monotheism – a religious belief that there is only one God – was founded. The descendants of Abraham from the line of Ishmael (the Arabs) and Isaac (the Jews) worshipped the only God named Allah in Arabic and Eloah in Hebrew. In Arabic, Allah was derived from Al – Ilah meaning Al (The) + Ilah (God). In Hebrew God was Eloah with a capital E.

Muslims worship the same God that Abraham, his two sons and their descendants had first worshipped more than 2000 years before Islam was founded and more than 1500 years before Jesus Christ was born.

Before Abraham there was god and there were gods without a capital G. For example: “elohim” means “gods” in Hebrew and “ilah” means “god” in Arabic. Since Abraham, after God made him and his two sons and their descendants His people, God is called Allah in Arabic and Eloah in Hebrew and they mean “The only God”.

So that the Arabs and the Jews, and after the founding of Christianity and Islam, Christians and Muslims throughout the world worship the same God that Abraham, his two sons and their descendants first worshipped in biblical times thousands of years before there were Christians and Muslims.

Allah was the Arabic name for the only God long before Islam was founded. Abraham worshipped the only God whose name even then was Allah in Arabic and Eloah in Hebrew. Before Abraham there were also those who worshipped the only God. In biblical times English was not then spoken yet, so the Deity was not called God in English. But Arabic was already a spoken language in ancient times and Allah in Arabic was worshipped by those who believed in the only God even then.

But even in ancient times there were those who worshipped other god or gods and the true God was displeased with them (see the Quran) and they were punished. The Quran acknowledged and confirmed the biblical story of Noah (Nur), Surah 71, Abraham (Ibrahim), Surah 14 where Moses was also referred to. The Quran has also confirmed that even in the days of Noah, Abraham and Moses, Allah meaning the only God had been worshipped thousands of years before Islam was founded. That being the case, it has been established beyond peradventure that there were believers who had been worshipping Allah the only God so many thousands of years before Islam was founded in 611 AD.

Therefore, it is dishonest for those narrow-minded politicians and clerics to claim that only Muslims can use the word Allah when before Islam was founded others had been worshipping Allah, meaning the only God, for thousands of years by the Arabs and the Jews. In biblical times Allah was not worshipped by Muslims because Islam had not been founded yet.

That being so, I have often wondered why some people in our government today are so obsessed with the view that only Muslims can use the word Allah. Why should human beings prevent others from worshipping God according to their faiths by decreeing that those who worship the God of Abraham, as Christians do, are not allowed to call their God Allah? God never said His name Allah is for Malay Muslims only! God is never a racist. Only the misinformed are the racists. However, Muslims elsewhere do not mind Christians calling their God by the name Allah because God can be addressed in any language. For example, why should anyone be upset if a Chinese Christian addressed the only God as their God or Allah without using any Chinese word? For that matter, should a sensible Arab Muslim or Christian be upset when an Indian Christian addressed his only God in English or in Arabic, by calling Him God or Allah instead of using Hindi or Tamil?

The etymology of the Arabic and Hebrew languages for God

The Semites or Shemites are an ethnic group of peoples who speak a Semitic language, including the Jews and Arabs as well as the ancient Babylonians, Assyrians and Phoenicians. Of these peoples who came from the same national or cultural background only the Arabs and the Jews still exist today.

Of the Semitic or Shemitic languages that include Arabic, Hebrew, Aramaic, Amharic, and such ancient languages as Arkadian and Phoenician, only Arabic and Hebrew are still spoken.

In the Semitic languages, God is ‘Allah’ in Arabic, ‘Eloah’ in Hebrew and ‘Elah’ in Aramaic – these words, signifying God, are being pronounced according to their phonetic spelling in English as most, if not all, of us do not speak or write any of the aforesaid Semitic languages. Why do the mentioned languages sound so much alike? They sound similar because the Arabs and the Jews belong to the same ethnic group of peoples called Semites who shared and speak the same genus of Semitic languages. By the same token  the Chinese people even though they speak different dialects like Hokkien, Cantonese, Teochew, Hakka, etc their language is written in Chinese characters which an educated Chinese can read irrespective of his spoken dialect. Similarly a scholar of any of the ancient Semitic language could decipher and read another language of the same Semitic genus.

To find out when Allah became the name of God to his people, we have to go back in time to ancient biblical history. We start with Shem who was the eldest of Noah’s three sons: see Genesis 10:21 in the Old Testament. The descendants of Shem were the Shemites or Semites, hence the name of this ethnic group of peoples. The ancient Babylonians, Assyrians and Phoenicians, including the Jews and Arabs were regarded as descendants of Shem:
see The Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology.

The phases of God: from making Abraham and his descendants His people to being worshipped throughout the world from the teachings of Jesus Christ and Prophet Mohammed

According to the Old Testament of the Bible, Abraham was the first of the patriarchs and the founder of the Hebrew people (Genesis 11 – 25). Ishmael, the son of Abraham and Hagar who was Sarah’s maidservant, was the ancestor of 12 Arabian tribes (Genesis 21: 8 – 21; 25: 12 – 18). Isaac was the younger son of Abraham and Sarah (Genesis 17:  21 – 27).

In
How to Judge the Judges
 I wrote, pages xxix, xxx:

Abraham was the founder of the Hebrew people. According to the Old Testament, Abram (later Abraham) at God’s call abandoned civilization, his father’s household and his people to wander in the desert as a nomad. His wife Sarai (later Sarah) had borne him no children. So Sarai took her Egyptian maidservant Hagar and gave her to her husband to be his wife. Hagar soon conceived with Abram’s child. But Sarai mistreated Hagar and heavy with child she ran away. According to the Old Testament, the angel of God found Hagar and told her to return to Abram and added, “I will so increase your descendants that they will be too numerous to count.” God also told Hagar that she shall name her son Ishmael for God has heard of her misery at the hands of Sarai. Ishmael means God hears. So Hagar bore Abram a son and he gave him the name of Ishmael. According to the Old Testament, Abram was 86 years old when Hagar bore him Ishmael. When Abram was 99 years old, God said to Abram that no longer will he be called Abram (it means exalted father); your name will be Abraham (it means father of many) for you will be the father of many nations – he will be fruitful and kings will come from him. In return, Abraham and his descendants will worship the God of Abraham who will be the God of his descendants for generations to come and the Covenant (agreement) they are to keep were; Every male among him shall be circumcised. For the generations to come every male who is eight days old must be circumcised, including those born in the household or bought with money from a foreigner – those who are not their offspring. Those who are not circumcised will be cut off from his people. As for Sarai, her name will be Sarah and she will be blessed and she will be the mother of nations; kings of peoples will come from her. A son will be born of her. His name will be called Isaac. Abraham said to God, “If only Ishmael might live under your blessing!”

As for Ismael, God said he had heard Abraham: “I will surely bless him; I will make him fruitful and will greatly increase his numbers. He will be the father of twelve rulers, and I will make him into a great nation.”

And so on that very day, so the story goes in the Old Testament, Abraham took his son Ishmael and all those born in his household, and circumcised them. Abraham was 99 years old when he was circumcised, and his son Ishmael was 13. And every male in Abraham’s household, including those born in his household or bought from a foreigner, was circumcised with him. Abraham was 100 years old when Isaac was born to him by Sarah, and he was circumcised.

And at page xxxi:

So now we know that the Arabs and the Jews were descended from Ishmael and Isaac whose father was Abraham (Ibrahim); and the God of them is the same God. And God has marked them as His people by circumcision.

Those events took place some two millennia before Jesus Christ was born, and before Prophet Mohammed founded Islam some 600 years after the birth of Jesus Christ.

After Abraham, with the advent of Christianity and Islam the worship of the only God extended to worshipping Him throughout the world. Monotheism, the religion of worshipping only One God, has become a world religion.

I ask, because I am unable to understand, why our government is trying so hard to separate the inseparable, that is, the people who believe in worshipping the same God to demean another of the same faith by decreeing that Christians are not allowed to call their God Allah and desecrating their Bible just because Christians call Allah their God. But the Quran had accepted Jesus Christ as being sent by God (Allah) to deliver the teachings of Allah (God).

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 30 April 2011, 7:33 pm and is filed under
NH Chan
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.