Wake up – we are all Malaysians!

[The following piece was emailed to me. I do not know who is the writer. But it should be a wake-up call indeed for all Malaysians if Malaysia is to stand up and stop being overtaken and left behind by one nation after another. Kit]

This is our wake up call!!!

Indonesia is one of the world’s richest countries in terms of natural resources. God has blessed Indonesia with gold, uranium, copper, oil, timber, beaches, seas and other wealth. The land is fertile with abundant rain. Stick a twig into the ground and it grows into a tree. Yet Indonesians sleep in the streets. Food is expensive. The average Indonesian eats some rice, tempe,tauhu and may be some vegetables for breakfast, lunch and dinner everyday. An average Nasi Padang meal for four persons in a single star Indonesian restaurant can cost RM60.00 (160,000 Rupiah). This is way beyond the income of the average Joko or Ketut in Indonesia.

Why is this so? The answer is because the ruling elites in Indonesia do not care about the people. They have pillaged the country. They craft policies that only serve to keep the elites in power and the wealthly. The same thing is happening in Malaysia. There are also millions of Indonesians who go to school and university but do not learn skills that can help them survive in the real world. They are very poor in European languages like English or Dutch. All their education is in Indonesian. So they cannot keep up with the latest developments and technologies. They cannot compete. They remain poor.

The children of the elite are sent overseas for their education. An average Indonesian university graduate cannot bring world class skills to his employers. He or she therefore earns a pittance. This is happening in Malaysia. Bumiputra university graduates only strike it rich if they get Government jobs where they do not do much work but earn a good salary with a pension. In the private sector they may not get a job or earn only a pittance. That is why 100,000 graduates remain unemployed in Malaysia.

Bumiputra university graduates are turning up for interviews as taxi drivers and shop assistants. What about those who flunk out after SPM? They become Mat Rempits (Motorcycle Racers ). Last Saturday I saw another Mat Rempit get killed at the road races in Shah Alam (near Section 7).

In Malaysia, just like in Indonesia, food is getting very expensive. But the wages and salaries of the people, especially the Malays, is not keeping up with the increase in prices. Instead of developing the competitive ability of the people,the Government has been using the failed NEP to provide subsidies and dish out money on a plate. Everything is subsidised, even cooking oil, flour, rice, sugar, fuel, etc. The Government has been providing these subsidies so that the people will keep voting for the ruling party. So it has never been to the Government’s advantage to make the Malays independent. A Malay who is independent of the Government may not vote for the BN. It is therefore better to keep feeding with subsidies.. So, for the past 50 years, everything has been subsidised.

But now with 27million people in the country of which more than half are Malays, subsidies are getting more expensive. There is also much much more thievery and wastage by the elites in Malaysia. But there is no bottomless well full of money. Everything has its limits. The money will soon run out. Without the subsidies for cooking oil, sugar, flour and petrol, how are the people, especially the Malays, going to survive? Already university graduates cannot find jobs or compete in the private sector. What happens when the oil money runs out? What happens when (not if, but when) the Government cannot simply spend billions of oil money to sustain its voting base any longer? That is when we may see people sleeping in the streets, just like in Indonesia. If that happens this country will go up in flames. We will all be consumed.

In Indonesia, the Government has not mobilised its hundreds of millions of people (over 250 million Indonesians) with the competitive skills to grow enough food for themselves. Hence food is expensive. They do not even have simple survival skills like coming to work on time, organising themselves to do simple tasks, maintaining good hygiene and cleanliness and so on. They are poorly read and not informed about many things that are going on around the world. Their Government has failed in all these aspects. Hence the average Indonesian remains poor.

The same thing has happened in Malaysia. Our young people, especially the Malays, do not possess basic survival skills. We are not talking about competitive skills but just basic survival skills. The Government is not serious about giving them useful competitive skills either. The Mat Rempits are being glorified by the politicians as saviours of the nation (Mat Cemerlang). Correction. they are drug users, gang rapists, snatch thieves and street fighters.

When an efficient Policewoman called Nooriyah Anvar was appointed Chief of Traffic Police she went after the Mat Rempits with a vengeance. Does anyone remember her? She confiscated their bikes on the spot. But soon the Mat Rempits called their political muscle and Nooriyah Anvar was kicked out. To date she holds the record of being the shortest serving Traffic Police Chief in Malaysia. She has been replaced by Senior Asst Comm (II) Datuk Hamza Taib.

So the Government is not serious about improving the position of the Malays. It serves the Barisan Nasional Government to keep the Malays down and out. Then the Malays can go to the Government for crumbs. This way the ruling elites get to keep the whole loaf to themselves. Go and visit Indonesia. This is what is happening over there. It is happening over here too.

Does Malaysia have a problem? yes the Malays are not happy, the Chinese are not happy and the Indians are not happy. They spoke out at the March 2008 polls and hope things will change for the better, now they have some oppositions who promised change. The Malays are being duped by their corrupted leaders by using the religion, the Chinese and Indians are being marginalised by the ruling elites. Let us all Malaysians wake up and fight the corrupt system for the benefit of everyone. Let us all unite and stand together and change the system for once and for all.

We are not Malays, Chinese or Indians, we are Malaysians. Malaysians May End Up Sleeping in the Street like its neighbours.

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 12 October 2008, 6:41 am and is filed under
nation building
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Culture reinvestigated — or must we preserve age-old traditions?

by
Azly Rahman

The festive season brings me to this argument I am having silently with myself: Must core values of a society be preserved, through the rites and rituals and pomp and pageantry of that elusive concept called ‘culture’? Race theorists would call for a debate between the ‘Essentialist’ and the ‘Progressive’  schools of thought on culture.

In looking at the question of Cultural Essentialism, the arguments for and against it, on whether adherence to this concept divides or unites, and lastly to offer my own view on this important concept, I begin with the general statement that “Cultural Essentialism” is the belief that in every civilised society or a cultural group, exists a core culture which governs the ‘life sustaining’ forces of that particular culture.

From the core, moral or religious doctrines are derived, cosmological views or metaphysical conceptions are drawn, knowledge bases are founded, principles and ethos are constructed, and socialising agents as cultural values transmitters are established. So that the core culture can continue to be passed down from one generation to the next in order for society to be maintained of its order and harmony although technological, political, economic, and ideological winds of change may be sweeping seasonally into the core culture’s residence.

African cultural theorist Peter J. Paris called it “religious social ethics” in which whose “goal has been that of providing a framework for a moral theory that fits the relevant historical data.” In summarising his work on the core values of the African people necessary to be rediscovered by the Afro-Americans, Paris called for a systematic transference of essential ideas about the culture; ideas which fit into the definition of a moral theory:

[A] moral theory of virtue requires a set of social conditions that will facilitate the realisation of its desired ends namely, the development of morally virtuous people. In other words, moral development is dependent on a community’s capacity to facilitate it. If for any reason a community fails to provide an environment that is conducive for the development of moral virtues the converse will certainly occur. That is to say, the moral character of the community will be reflected in the moral development of its children.

We can discern through the quote above the Essential tenet of the core culture theory; a grand narrative to be passed down for cultural preservation. Paris’ illustration of the core cultural theory above can also be equated with those of Canadian philosopher of ethics Charles Taylor’s in Multiculturalism particularly in the latter’s view on the “politics of recognition” as in the case of the French Canadians.

This to a certain extent is American culturalist Harry Belafonte’s view and prevalent in the preaching of many an Afro-American religious leader as such as Marcus Garvey and Dr Martin Luther King Jr (above).

Denying essence of ethics

If we construct arguments against Cultural Essentialism, we may be faced with a problematic spin. On the one hand, by rejecting entirely the value of tradition and grand narratives sacredly guarded by the elders, we may be denying the essence of the religious social ethics inherent in them.

On the other hand, by becoming an advocate of this concept, we may deny the ability of our postmodern self to utilise the power of our mind to deconstruct the excesses of traditional values and limit our ability to create newer paradigms; designing our own history and experimenting with personal narratives of the subaltern genre.

In summary, there are positive aspects of Essentialism which can be allowed to survive as much as there are excesses which must be made to die off.

My argument against core culture theory is that whilst values such as honesty, piety, religiosity, industriousness, peacefulness, and harmony must at all cost be guarded and transmitted, the ritualistic, paganistic, and “linguistic gatekeeping’ aspects of Cultural Essentialism must be deconstructed and reconstructed in order for irrational strands in the core values be withered away.

If Cultural Essentialism means taking in faith and practice the ritualistic, ultra-denominational, racist, communitarian, and ideological aspect of religion for example to the extent of breeding hatred against others in the world we ought to share as living space, then the religious/cultural texts or doctrines of Essentialism must be re-analysed and deconstructed.

If core culture means bowing down to rulers and leaders – religious and political – however corrupted they may be, then such Essentialism must be demystified so that rulers as such can be overthrown. If Essentialism means bowing down to man-made objects mistaken as god’s representation whereas worshipping must first be made onto oneself wherein the Forces within reign, then Paganistic Essentialism as such ought to be rejected. Did not god create human beings in god’s own image which means that whatever the image we carry as human beings must contain god’s attributes to be “rediscovered”, “reconstructed, “re-destroyed” and continually reconstructed then?

In such a conception of the Self, should not the case be that one need to worship one’s Inner Self which contains Inner Beauty, Love, Harmony, Peace, and the message of Sages and prophets within culminating in the so-called Image of god? I believe in this postmodern metaphysical concept of essentialism; that there are never-ending cycles and veils of interpretation of the Essence in oneself, the Inner Conscience, beyond any cultural and archetypal symbols to be passed down from one generation to another.

Einstein’s conception

If Jesus is Love and Moses is Deliverance and Adam is the Father, how do we find meaning within these concepts and bring them “closer to our jugular vein” so that we may not merely in the pure Essentialist tradition, continue to believe that the stories in the Torah, Bible, and the Quran are stories of the peoples who live in times uncharted by modern history. We can then find the beauty in the story of Creation as it will be unveiled to us by the day in front of our eyes within our own conscious self in a subaltern narrative form – and not of one story of creation which is at odds with Einstein’s conception of the birth of the universe.

By bringing ourselves to such an understanding of Essentialism thus – one which is beyond cultural domain and ritualistic-paganistic advocacies – we may find that it ought to unite more than divide for the question then, must no longer be differences in some tribalistic “religious moral ethics” but one which is living, growing, and life-affirming within the universe of personal existence called “The Self”.

If there is the belief that we begin with Adam and Eve, we as a family of human beings must return to Perfection. Between Adam and such Perfection, in my conception of Essentialism, must lie the Evolving Self – one which lives not solely in the past nor in the future, but imperatively in the ever-changing present!

                This entry was posted on Monday, 13 October 2008, 8:12 am and is filed under
Azly Rahman
,
culture
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Parliament debate history of budget instead of  Budget for 2009

Datuk Seri Najib Razak failed his first test in Parliament as Finance Minister as he was nowhere around this morning  to present a revised 2009 Budget for debate or to explain why a revised 2009 budget is not necessary.

When the Opposition Leader Anwar Ibrahim spoke this morning, the two blocks of Cabinet benches were totally empty – not a single Cabinet Minister was present.

Not only the second Finance Minister even the two deputy Finance Ministers were absent.

Where have they gone to?  What could be more important than the start of the parliamentary debate on the 2009 Budget unless Parliament is totally unimportant in their eyes.

In fact, as I pointed out to the House, there was not a single official representative of the government who was present in the House to respond to the Pakatan Rakyat demand that the new Finance Minister should present a revised 2009 budget because the whole set of the 2009 Budget data tabled in Parliament on August 29 had been made obsolete in the past six weeks  by the worst economic crisis confronting the world in 80 years.

In fact, the Barisan Nasional government has  lost all sense of direction and is  presenting a spectacle of a “headless administration” in Parliament – may be this was why there was the need for an “agricultural” study tour of BN MPs to Taiwan last month!

Anwar said UMNO and Barisan Nasional Ministers are guilty of “arrogance of power”

They are also guilty of the  height of irresponsibility and contempt for Parliament.

Umno Ministers are more preoccupied with the Umno crisis and party elections than the world economic crisis and its impact on Malaysia – when the party crisis of Umno and other Barisan Nasional component parties after the March 8 “political tsunami” must be completely subsidiary and subordinate  to the larger economic crisis facing the country as a result of the global financial meltdown.

Sad and pathetic that Parliament will have to debate an outdated and obsolete 2009 Budget – which cannot inspire confidence in the new Finance Minister or the entire BN Cabinet.  Debating history of budget instead of budget for 2009.

                This entry was posted on Monday, 13 October 2008, 4:31 pm and is filed under
Anwar Ibrahim
,
Najib Razak
,
Parliament
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Our strong and weak economic fundamentals

Yesterday, the repetition by the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi that Malaysia will not be hit by the global financial meltdown  is most disturbing as Malaysia has both  strong and weak economic fundamentals.

Malaysia’s past economic performance was in part linked to high rates of domestic savings and FDI flows. Capital was readily available –  it was directed by the state, not necessarily into the most productive sectors.

Paul Krugman, the much-acclaimed economist now awarded the 2008 Nobel Prize for Economics, in his analysis about the Malaysian economy had drawn attention to this issue and questioned the capacity of the country to remain competitive.

It is indeed remarkable that no heed was paid this feature in government  policies. Both in the Mahathir and Abdullah eras the essential economic policies remained unchanged  — directed investments into large projects with low returns; a less than transparent and accountable use of national resources thus contributing to the growing level of corruption and abuse.

The exploitation of oil and gas resources in an unaccountable manner led markets to recognize the unsustainable nature of the Malaysian development pattern. Malaysia has in this regard adopted some of the first possible features of the Latin American economic development path. It would appear that no account is being taken of the changed circumstances.

The Second Finance Minister  must take responsibility for much of the  preparation of the gravely-flawed 2009 budget. It is indeed most troubling that despite the catastrophic developments in the global economic scene in recent weeks, he  continues to mouth statements that Malaysia’s economic fundamentals remain strong; that Malaysian growth rates will be only marginally lower in the year ahead; inward FDI flows remain high; foreign exchange levels are sufficient to finance 9 months of imports and thus Malaysia will not feel the full impact of the ongoing crisis.

These and similar statements have also  been articulated by the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister. These statements are greeted  with a degree of disbelief by investors,  the markets and rating agencies as they do not deal with the fundamental weaknesses associated with high inflation, a unsustainable budget deficit, outflows of capital and a mountain of contingent liabilities made up of guarantees that have been signed as part of the various toll and other concessions.

This  is a serious  state of denial and Ministers appear to operate under the assumption that markets and the private sector will accept Ministerial pontifications as the true elaboration of the current economic scene. Further, they assume that upbeat and fanciful statements are sufficient to lull markets. If anything these statements have the opposite effect.

It is patently clear to all and sundry that Malaysia is a small economy, open and therefore vulnerable to developments in the global economy. It is not insulated or protected; it is dependent on inflows of FDI; its growth and prosperity are linked to exports of commodities and manufactures; demand and price developments in the global markets have a direct impact on output growth, employment and prosperity.

Given these circumstances, the current global crisis will inevitably impact on the flows of FDI, the demand for its exports ( both manufactures and commodities), a deterioration in export prices. These externally generated impulses will inevitably be transmitted into the domestic economy and result in lower growth, a worsened labor market and a decline in consumption.

In brief, Malaysia faces a severe and bleak economic outlook.

The danger to the economy is even greater when account is taken of the already poor economic fundamentals represented by:

•	The highest rate of inflation experienced (8.5%) over the past quarter century;

•	An unsustainable fiscal deficit projected at 4.8% this year and 3.6 next year ;

•	Billions of dollars of hidden contingent liabilities — akin to IOUs written to GLCs, crony corporations; an unendingly flow of subsidies to private entities that believe in the notion that profits can be privatized while losses are to be nationalized.

•	An interest policy that has been irresponsible and largely favored to help over-leveraged “friends” of the BN and to keep Government borrowing costs low;

•	A manipulated and less than transparent exchange rate policy that has contributed to imported inflation;

•	The policy of “no bid” award of tenders and projects to BN connected companies and contractors that has contributed to increased project costs

•	The loss of competitiveness through corruption and poor governance.

•	Credit rating agencies had lowered Malaysia’s ratings

This list is not exhaustive but indicative of how the economic fundamentals have deteriorated in the recent past.

.

(Speech on the 2009 Budget in Parliament on 14.10.08)

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 14 October 2008, 5:53 pm and is filed under
Economics
,
Parliament
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Parliament 13 October 2008 – Revise 2009 Budget

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 14 October 2008, 12:13 pm and is filed under
Economics
,
Parliament
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Short story on killing of Teresa Kok

Mingguan Malaysia

12.10.08

Politik baru YB J

Sastera

CERPEN

Oleh Chamil Wariya

PAGI itu resah YB Josephine, yang lebih mesra dengan panggilan YB J sukar dikawal. Sepanjang perjalanan menuju ke Dewan Perhimpunan Warga Cha di ibu kota, fikirannya terganggu. Tuduhan bahawa dia anti-Islam dan anti-Melayu sungguh-sungguh menghantui perasaannya sejak malam tadi lagi. Entah mengapa baru sekarang dia begitu, dia sendiri tidak tahu. Dia juga tidak pasti sama ada pemandunya, Ahmad, menyedari gelora jiwanya ketika itu. Kalau dia tahu pun, peduli apa, YB Josephine berbisik sendirian.

Pemandu itu memang sedia maklum pendirian politiknya tentang kepentingan kaumnya vis a vis orang Melayu. Dan dia tahu Ahmad menghormati pendiriannya, walaupun dilihat anti- Melayu, anti-Islam sebagai hak asasi tinggal dalam sebuah negara demokrasi. Bukankah kebebasan asasi itu dijamin oleh Perkara 5 hingga Perkara 13 Perlembagaan Persekutuan. Tetapi YB J akui demokrasi ada yang tidak sempurna dan kerap disalahgunakan oleh pihak yang berkuasa. Tetapi hakikat itu tidak menghalang rakyat menempatkan pembangkang di Dewan Rakyat. YB Josephine adalah salah seorang daripadanya.

Ah, tudahan dia anti-Islam, anti-Melayu tuduhan yang melulu bentak YB J seolah-olah mahu menyedapkan dirinya.. Ia juga tuduhan yang tidak berasas, hati kecilnya bersuara lagi. Dia meyakinkan dirinya bahawa kenyataankenyataan yang dibuatnya atas nama pelbagai kaum untuk memperjuangkan kepentingan kaumnya, bukan sesuatu yang rasis. Amensty International, organisasi hak asasi antarabangsa akan menyetujuinya. Begitu juga dengan Bangsa-Bangsa Bersatu. Ketua Pembangkang, di Parlimen pun tidak pernah menganggapnya rasis. Yang menganggapnya rasis hanya orang Melayu di dalam Parti Orang Melayu (POM).

“Aku juga bukan anti-Islam. Aku bukan anti Melayu,” pujuk hati YB J yang sudah dua penggal bergelar YB itu, mewakili Parti Bertindak Rakyat. Parti itu dianggotainya sejak berada di kampus lagi, walaupun Akta Universiti dan Kolej Universiti melarang para siswa membabitkan diri secara langsung dalam mana-mana organisasi siasah. Lagi pun penguatkuasaan undang-undang itu sekadar melepas batuk di tangga. Lebih dari itu, ia adalah satu lagi undang-undang lapuk, kata YB J.

Kata hatinya lagi: “Aku sekadar memperjuangkan kepentingan kaum aku, sama seperti pemimpin Melayu dalam POM memperjuangkan kepentingan bangsanya, sama seperti pemimpin Parti Orang Islam (POI) berjuang untuk bangsa menggunakan wajah Islamnya.”

Malah YB J berasakan kelantangannya memperjuangkan kepentingan kaumnya itulah yang telah membantunya menang kali kedua kerusi Parlimennya. Kali ini dengan majoriti yang lebih besar lagi. Apa yang membanggakan dia adalah perjuangan yang dianggap anti-Melayu dan anti-Islam itu kini turut disokong pengundi-pengundi Melayu di kawasan pilihan rayanya itu. Pada mulanya dia sendiri terkejut apabila dimaklumkan sebahagian besar pengundi Melayu yang merupakan 20 peratus keseluruhan pemilihan berdaftar dalam kawasan Parlimen Alam Maya telah memangkahnya.

Ini satu perkembangan luar biasa. Tidak mungkin mereka menyokong aku, bisik hatinya. Tetapi apabila dimaklumkan oleh para pekerja parti bahawa pengundi Melayu di semua peti undi telah beralih arah mendokongnya, dia menerimanya dengan fikiran terbuka. Baguslah kalau orang Melayu menerima perjuangan Malaysia Barunya.

Tidak puas hati bermonolog dengan perasaannya, YB J secara spontan berpaling kepada Ahmad, pemandunya yang sejak tadi tekun dengan tugasnya.

“Kamu fakir saya anti-Islam, anti-Melayu?”

Pertanyaan

Ahmad yang sudah menghampiri usia bersara itu tidak menjawab, seolah-olah dia tidak mendengar pertanyaan itu. Matanya tertumpu ke jalan raya. Tugasnya adalah untuk mempastikan YB J selamat ke majlis yang ingin dihadirinya. Dan tiba tepat pada waktunya. Majlis itu penting kerana YB J akan mengadakan dialog dengan generasi muda seketurunan dengannya yang belajar di luar negara tetapi kebetulan berada di tanah air kerana bercuti. Ahmad sendiri tidak pasti sama ada pelajar yang pernah mempersendakan lagu Negara Ku sewaktu menuntut di sebuah universiti di Seberang Laut turut berada dalam kelompok itu. Kalau pun ada, pemandu YB J tidak ambil pusing. Budak itu memang kurang ajar. Ada ke patut Malaysia dianggap sebagai Negara Kuku (ejaan Inggerisnya cuckoo) yang bermaksud gila. Dan kreativiti digunakan untuk menghalalkan perbuatan biadapnya itu. Cuma Ahmad berfikir kalau semua orang dibiarkan menghina lagu Kebangsaan dengan lirik yang memperlekehkan kehidupan orang Islam, dan atas nama kreativiti, maka kesannya terhadap perhubungan kaum adalah negatif.

Ahmad tidak tahu apakah yang sebenarnya mengganggu bosnya itu sejak dari tadi lagi. Dia jarang begitu. Ahmad dapat mengesan YB J lain macam sahaja pagi itu. Dia dapat membaca keresahan dan kegelisahan YB J. Seolah-olah ada sesuatu yang tidak kena walaupun apa yang sebenarnya berkocak di dalam diri YB J dia tidak pasti. Sepanjang ingatan Ahmad, YB J juga tidak pernah berbual dengannya tentang politik, apa lagi tentang isu-isu semasa – kecuali memberi arahan yang ada kaitan dengan perjalanan atau jadual kerja. YB J juga tidak bertanya sama ada dia mengundi pom atau parti apa pada pilihan raya yang lalu.

Lazimnya, sepanjang perjalanan, baik ke pejabat atau majlis-majlis rasmi dan tidak rasmi yang lain, YB J akan menghabiskan masa membaca akhbar atau membelek-belek fail. Tetapi pagi itu YB J lain macam sahaja. Dia kelihatan resah. Gelisah. Fikirannya juga seolah-olah tidak menentu. Apa yang dibuat serba tak kena. Sekejap dia membelek ucapan utama yang akan disampaikan sebentar lagi menghuraikan gagasan Politik Baru Malaysia Baru yang dipeloporinya. Sekejap dia membelek akhbar-akhbar yang memang menemani YB J ke mana juga dia pergi.

Ahmad cuba mencongak mungkin keresahan YB J ada kaitan dengan suhu politik negara sedang panas ketika itu. Bahangnya terasa di mana-mana. POM sendiri sedang menghadapi pergolakan yang hebat berkait dengan kepimpinannya. Pertarungan kepentingan puak-puak di dalam parti sedang mengambil tempatnya. Kalaulah tidak kerana kedudukan politik kerajaan agak lemah selepas kehilangan majoriti dua pertiga, sudah lama Operasi Lalang, seperti yang pernah dibuat pada 1987, dilaksanakan, agaknya. Mungkin juga tidak kerana di bawah kepimpinan sekarang, kerajaan mengambil sikap yang lebih liberal terhadap para pengkritiknya.

Ahmad juga terfikir mungkin perasaan YB J terganggu dengan tindakan kalangan yang tidak diketahui siapa mereka melempar bom petrol ke rumah keluarga ahli Parlimen Sepohon Beringin, Su Lan. Barangkali, fikir Ahmad, YB J, bimbang kejadian yang sama boleh menimpa diri atau keluarganya.

Mana tahu selepas keluarga Su Lan, bosnya YB J pula yang menjadi mangsa. Dan yang dilempar itu bom betul-betul. Meletup pula. Tidakkah nahas YB J. Sekonyong-konyong Ahmad terbayang kejadian letupan bom berani mati yang berlaku di Damsyik, Syria yang ditonton menerusi Buletin Utama di TV3 beberapa hari lalu. Kalau kejadian yang sudah menghiasi kehidupan harian di Iraq, Israel, Tebing Barat, Gaza atau Afghanistan itu menular di negara ini, alangkah malangnya bumi bertuah ini. Minta disimpang malaikat 44, Ahmad berkata sendirian di dalam hatinya.

Tetapi fikir Ahmad, amaran kalau tidak diendahkan berbahaya. Dia teringat apa yang diceritakan berlaku pada 13 Mei 1969. Bapanya menceritakan dalam tragedi selepas pilihan raya umum pada 10 Mei itu, orang Cina dan Melayu berbunuh-bunuhan. Perjuangan yang mahu menafikan hak-hak istimewa orang Melayu dan kaum bumiputera lain yang dijamin oleh Perlembagaan Persekutuan, tidak dapat diterima oleh mereka. Kata-kata kesat dan menghina orang Melayu oleh para penyokong parti-parti pembangkang sewaktu berarak meraikan kemenangan besar di Kuala Lumpur dan bandar-bandar utama lain pada pilihan raya 1969 itu tidak dapat ditelan oleh orang Melayu. Parang yang terbiar tumpul selama ini diasah tajam. Dalam keadaan itu tercetuslah pergaduhan yang dahsyat menyebabkan Parlimen digantung dan pemerintahan darurat diisytiharkan. Negara diletakkan di bawah perintah berkurung. Ahmad sendiri belum lahir ketika itu. Tidak lama selepas itu, peralihan kuasa berlaku daripada Tunku Abdul Rahman kepada timbalannya, Tun Abdul Razak.

“Mat, saya ni anti-Melayu dan anti-Islam ke?,” YB J secara mendadak mengulang semula pertanyaannya apabila tiada jawapan daripada pemandunya.

Ahmad, yang sejak tadi membisu seribu bahasa selamba menjawab: “Mungkin tidak YB.” Dia memberi jawapan berlapik. Maksudnya: Mungkin tidak, mungkin ya bergantung pada mata yang menilai.

“Apa maksud kamu mungkin tidak.”

” Ini soal persepsi YB. Persepsinya begitulah. Hakikatnya YB tidak membenci Melayu tidak juga membenci Islam. YB sekadar memperjuangkan kepentingan kaum YB. Tidak salah YB berbuat demikian. Kalau YB tidak memperjuangkan kepentingan kaum YB sendiri, siapa lagi. Tetapi cara YB itu barangkali disalahertikannya.”

“Maksud kamu?” Tanya YB J yang masih belum jelas lagi.

Bergantung

“Yalah, ia bergantung pada mata yang memandang. Bukan sahaja di kalangan orang Melayu, tetapi di kalangan bukan Melayu. YB kena ingat di kalangan bukan Melayu pun bukan semuanya menerima politik baru Malaysia baru YB. Kalau tidak masakan parti satu kaum seperti Parti Orang Cina (POC) masih boleh bertahan.”

“Apa maksud kamu. Saya tidak begitu jelas?”

“Yalah bagi YB perjuangan YB adalah pelbagai kaum. Tetapi dalam tindak tanduk, perjuangan pelbagai kaum YB itu tidak tertonjol. YB mahu menghapuskan tulisan jawi dan ganti dengan tulisan Cina . Bagi mereka itu bukan perjuangan pelbagai kaum. Ia perjuangan satu kaum. Kalau benar pelbagai kaum, YB patut mempertahankan tulisan jawi.” Ahmad memberanikan diri untuk memberikan pandangannya.

Mengesan bosnya ingin mendengar pandangannya lagi, Ahmad berkata: “Patutnya kalau YB benar-benar ingin menjadi pejuang pelbagai kaum, kepentingan orang Melayu jangan diketepikan sewaktu mengetengahkan kepentingan kaum Cina. YB perjuangkan kepentingan kedua-duanya sekali. Penerimaannya saya pasti berbeza. YB akan dilihat sebagai mahu menjaga kepentingan kaum YB, tetapi pada waktu yang sama tidak menafikan hak orang Melayu.”

Itu perjuangan POM dan POC, dengus YB J di dalam hatinya. Bosan aku dengan Si Ahmad ini, dia berkata sendirian. Aku penganjur politik baru dan tidak mahu terikat dengan kerangka politik lama, katanya lagi kepada dirinya.

Perbualan YB J dengan pemandunya habis di situ sahaja. Dia tidak mahu lagi mendengar pandangan karut pemandunya. Dia mahu terus melayan perasaan: Aku percaya pada Politik Baru Malaysia Baru, tegas YB J pada dirinya. Setiap warganegara, tanpa mengira apa keturunan mereka patut diberi hak yang sama mengikut undang-undang. Tidak ada bangsa yang patut diberi layanan istimewa. Tidak ada warga yang patut diberi darjat atau kelas kedua. Kita semua orang Malaysia.

YB J enggan melayan Ahmad lagi. Sebaliknya, dia membelek akhbar Utusan Malaysia yang secara rasmi diboikot oleh partinya. Perhatiannya tertumpu pada artikel berjudul Jangan Padam Rekod Negara yang ditulis oleh seorang generasi muda Cina yang menolak tesis politik baru Malaysia baru.

Ah, satu lagi propaganda yang memperlekehkan kaum aku, dengus hati YB J. Jangan-

jangan yang menulis artikel ini orang Melayu. Mereka masih menganggap kaum aku sebagai berketurunan pendatang. Tidak guna punya generasi baru. Dengus YB J. Bisik hatinya lagi: Betullah dulu nenek moyang aku berhijrah ke bumi bertuah ini untuk mencari kekayaan, membebaskan diri mereka daripada kemiskinan dan keperitan hidup di China. Itu dulu. Generasi Cina sekarang sudah menjadi warganegara Malaysia dan mereka hendaklah dilayan seperti warganegara Malaysia..

Dikejutkan

Sedang YB J asyik dengan lamunannya, dia dikejutkan dengan suara pemandunya yang memaklumkan, “Kita sudah sampai YB.”

Menunggu dia di luar ialah para penganjur dialog yang bakal berlangsung. Salah seorang daripada mereka membuka pintu kereta YB J, bersalaman dengannya dan memperkenalkannya dengan ahli jawatankuasa penganjur yang lain. Diiringi oleh mereka, YB J dibawa ke pentas. Menurut kiraannya ada 500 orang di dalam dewan pagi itu. Dia bangga dengan kehadiran begitu ramai anak bangsanya yang ingin bertemu dengannya. Apa yang lebih membanggakan YB J ialah mereka belajar luar negara dengan biayai sendiri, bukannya bantuan kerajaan.

Selepas ucapan-ucapan aluan oleh pengerusi penganjur selesai, YB J dijemput untuk memberi ucapannya. Inilah detik-detik yang ditunggu-tunggu oleh YB J. Gagasan politik baru Malaysia barunya akan dihebahkan kepada dunia bebas. Dia teringat buku Kee Thuan Chye yang berjudul 8 Mac The Day Malaysian Woke Up. Momentum rakyat Malaysia atau lebih tepat lagi warga bukan Melayu Malaysia yang sudah jaga dari lena itu mesti ditingkatkan. Pagi itu dia berazam untuk berbuat demikian.

Tetapi tanpa diketahui oleh YB J, di kalangan 500 orang generasi muda yang hadir pada pagi itu ada yang tidak setuju dengan pandangan politiknya itu. Salah seorang daripada mereka berazam untuk membetulkan penyimpangan politik YB J dengan caranya yang tersendiri.

Apabila YB J bangun untuk menuju ke rostrum ucapan, seorang anak muda dari belakang pentas berjalan tenang menuju ke arahnya. YB J tersenyum kepadanya. Dia menyangka anak muda seketurunan dengannya ingin mengiringinya ke rostrum atau bersalaman dengannya.

YB J menghulurkan tangan. Tiba-tiba YB J tergaman dan berdiri kaku. Dia tidak percaya dengan apa yang dilihatnya. Tergenggam erat pada tangan anak muda yang seolah-olah mahu membalas salam tangan yang dihulur itu ialah sepucuk pistol jenis Revolver yang betul-betul diajukan ke arah dada YB J.

Tanpa berkata apa-apa, anak muda itu melepaskan beberapa das tembakan. Salah satu daripadanya tepat mengenai jantung YB J. Dia rebah ke lantai.

Para hadirin menjadi panik. Mereka yang berada di atas pentas turut tergamam melihat apa yang berlaku. Kejadian menjadi hiruk-pikuk dan tidak terkawal. Pihak penganjur yang tidak menduga kejadian malang itu berlaku, tidak tahu berbuat apa-apa. Beberapa orang anggota polis berpakaian preman yang menjadi tetamu yang tidak diundang dalam majlis itu, meluru ke arah pentas. Rakan-rakan mereka yang berpakaian seragam yang berkawal di luar juga bergegas masuk ke dewan.

Tetapi belum sempat mereka berbuat apa-apa, kedengaran beberapa das tembakan lagi. Kali ini yang rebah adalah anak muda itu sendiri.

Apabila pihak polis tiba di tempat kejadian, kedua-dua mereka – YB J dan anak muda yang berpakaian kemas itu, sudah tidak lagi bernyawa.

Sewaktu pemeriksaan dibuat ke atas mayat anak muda yang tidak dikenali itu, terselit sehelai nota yang ditaip rapi, ditulis dalam bahasa Kebangsaan.

Ia berbunyi: YB Josephine adalah ancaman terhadap keharmonian. Lebih baik riwayatnya ditamatkan supaya masyarakat berbilang kaum boleh tinggal aman damai di negara bertuah ini. Saya berkorban untuk masa depan.

(I lambasted Mingguan Malaysia and Datuk Chamil Wariya for this irresponsible piece of literary licence for inciting the killing of Teresa Kok during my budget speech in Parliament today.

(I asked what would be the reaction of UMNO and BN MPs if the Prime Minister or Deputy Prime Minister had been similarly targetted like Teresa in a cerpen like in Chamil’s irresponsible short story.)

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 14 October 2008, 6:17 pm and is filed under
Kee Thuan Chye
,
Parliament
,
Teresa Kok
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


The RM 2.4 billion Telecom HSBB (High Speed Broadband) subsidy

Why is Telekom subsidised with RM2.4 billion of tax payer’s money for the HSBB project when an alternative proposal do not require subsidy?

Why wasn’t there an open tender to choose the best proposal?  Why does the government think Telekom is the best company to role out HSBB in spite of the fact that Telekom failed to achieve the national objective of high internet penetration after more than 10 years?

 Simple economics will tell that a competitive environment will produce the results the country wants.

 Besides failure to deliver the numbers (high internet and broadband penetration) and despite the fact that Telekom is a laughing stock because TMnet is well known for bad quality of service, the government persist to award the next generation broadband project to Telekom.

HSBT (High Speed Broadband Technology Sdn Bhd) has offered to build a similar network without subsidy.  Even if the government deems HSBT inexperienced to carry out such a large project, wouldn’t the fact that their not requiring a subsidy tell them a subsidy may not be required?

Why then does the government need to provide public funds especially in this financially troubled time?  The money will be better spent on the rakyat.

 Since public money is involved, why wasn’t there an open tender?  The govt should justify the rationale and provide details.

To make it worse, Telekom’s HSBB network is only a partially open network when it is known globally that such an infrastructure should be open and accessible to other broadband providers such as in S’pore.

Furthermore, the government did not have specific terms for the sharing of the HSBB network with other service providers.

Telekom has said screening will be done to allow competition that adds value to the industry, country and consumer.  The term ’screening’ is bad enough while the part on adding value is open to interpretation.

A similar initiative, “Equal access plan for fixed line phone” introduced a decade ago supposedly to encourage competition in the ISP industry failed miserably.  It played to Telekom’s hand to stunt the rise of serious competitors.

It is amazing that the government continued to allow Telekom to use vague words when Telekom has shown this bad faith previously.  Doesn’t the government learn?

In spite of openly talking about increasing internet penetration and quality, the failure of Telekom to deliver still encourages the government to dish out the same and to support Telekom further.

There is no real competition for broadband in the country.  Can anyone say that Telekom’s 95% share of the market shows Malaysia has liberalised the broadband service provider industry effectively?

What the country needs to propel itself forward in the information age is true liberalisation and not simply pay lip service to it.  The HSBB project awarded to Telekom will only strengthen their already dominant position.

Will the government force Telekom to adopt open access where any service provider can use the HSBB network to reach their customers when it is constructed?  This is the way to create competition to provide the best service at reasonable prices, vital in order to develop the content and IT industry here.

 A few questions to conclude:

•	Isn’t the RM2.4 billion subsidy unfair, Telekom is already too dominant?

•	Why allow Telekom to defer third party full access to the HSBB network for 7 years when Telekom is already the dominant player?  It will be their right if they funded it 100%  themselves but with public funds, there should be no delay at all.

•	Will the government listen to all stakeholders – the public, IT industry and broadband industry as to the best way forward for the HSBB project through a study because it is now a public project with public funds involved?

•	Why is the government protecting the revenue of one entity Telekom when true liberalisation will develop the industry, potentially returning revenue many times more for the country?

•	Will the government put in a proviso in the agreement with Telekom HSBB project to ensure open access to all service providers at reasonable price that includes annual audit by a third party?  Failing this, will the govt ensure since there is interest, for at least one more HSSB provider within a year?

 Competition must be created

(Speech 2 on the 2009 Budget in Parliament on Tuesday, 14.10.08)

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 14 October 2008, 6:01 pm and is filed under
IT
,
Parliament
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Hindraf ban – retrogressive/vindictive hampering nation-building healing process

The
banning of Hindraf
 by the Home Minister, Datuk Seri Hamid Albar must be deplored  in the strongest possible terms.

It is a retrogressive, vindictive and petty step which will hamper the nation-building healing process vital for Malaysians to feel one and united people again.

Instead of reaching out to the Malaysian Indian community to resolve the root political, socio-economic, cultural and religious causes which have made Malaysian Indians an alienated and aggrieved community as the new underclass in the country, ham-fisted measures to ban Hindraf will only aggravate the disaffection among the Indian community.

Coming in his last five months as Prime Minister, the ban on Hindraf is also testimony to the failure of Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi to take  nation-building to a new and more mature level.

DAP MPs will raise in Parliament the undemocratic and myopic ban on Hindraf.

After the March 8 general election, BN MPs from all the BN component parties pledged to be more outspoken to protect the rights and interests of all communiies.

I invite MPs from all the BN component parties to join with Pakatan Rakyat MPs to take a common stand – to demand that the Home Minister revoke the ban on Hindraf and to call on Abdullah to give top priority in his last five months as Prime Minister to end the polarisation process by heading an all-party parliamentary committee to address the long-standing and legitimate grievances of the Malaysian Indians.

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 15 October 2008, 7:07 pm and is filed under
Hindraf
,
Parliament
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Parliament 14 October 2008 – 2009 Budget Debate

Junket to Taiwan, what have BN BBC learned?

Revise the obsolete 2009 Budget

(
Post and Video
)

HSBB – High Speed BroadBand, why subsidy to Tm Net? Why no open access?

(
Post and video
)

Eurocopter adding to the collection of defense purchase scandals; Scorpene Submarine, Sukhoi Jet

(
post and video
)

Police Helicopter Purchase and E-Police

(
Post and Video
)

Utusan again

(
Post and Video
)

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 15 October 2008, 3:14 pm and is filed under
Budget Debate
,
Economics
,
Parliament
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Salahlaku Ketua Polis Negara

1.
Sewaan Helikopter.
 Pada pertengahan tahun 2007, Kementerian Keselamatan Dalam Negeri telah diarahkan oleh Perdana Menteri merangkap Menteri Keselamatan Dalam Negeri untuk menyewa 34 buah helikopter daripada syarikat Asiacopter selama 30 tahun.

Anggaran kos penyewaan ini ialah RM20 billion. Cadangan PDRM kepada kerajaan di bawah Rancangan Malaysia Ke-9 ialah membeli 8 buah helikopter dengan peruntukan sebanyak RM272 juta, dan saya difahamkan 8 helikopter adalah jauh lebih dan mencukupi untuk kegunaan PDRM.

Soalan saya ialah, apakah perlunya PDRM menyewa 34 buah helikopter daripada Asiacopter Sdn Bhd walhal cadangan PDRM kepada kerajaan pada asalnya hanya membeli 8 helikopter sahaja?

Apakah perlunya PDRM menggunakan wang sebanyak RM20 billion untuk menyewa 34 buah helikopter ini?

Kenapakah PDRM tidak menggunakan peruntukan ini dalam usaha pembasmian jenayah dan peningkatan gaji dan elaun anggota polis, tetapi ia disalurkan untuk menyewa 34 buah helikopter?

Kenapakah pihak KPN bersungguh-sungguh dengan projek ini sehingga menghantar surat bertarikh 12hb Febrari 2007 terus kepada Menteri Kewangan 2 untuk memohon kelulusan rundingan terus untuk perlaksanaan projek ini.

Selepas pilihanraya umum yang lalu, menteri KDN telah bertukar dan telah mengemukakan cadangan tersebut ke kabinet dan kabinet telah menolaknya dalam bulai Mei yang lalu.

Sekali lagi, kami dimaklumkan bahawa KPN tanpa segan silu telah menulis surat secara terus kepada Perdana Menteri untuk membuat pembelian helikopter sebanyak 8 unit ini secara rundingan terus dengan syarikat Asiacopter.

Untuk makluman, pembelian helikopter 8 unit ini telah diluluskan dalam Kajian Separuh Penggal RMK9 oleh pihak EPU dengan anggaran kos RM272 juta tetapi cadangan syarikat Asiakopter yang disokong oleh KPN mencadangkan harga RM350 juta.

2.
“E-Police Force Solution”
 merupakan satu rangkaian sistem wireless digital sepenuhnya yang berasaskan teknologi informasi dan komunikasi (ICT) yang canggih dengan litupan seluruh negara. Sistem ini berupaya menyalurkan suara, data, video, grafik dan maklumat biometrics dan DNA secara serentak dan tanpa batasan. Kertas cadangan perlaksanaan projek ini bernilai RM4.2 billion. PDRM berminat dengan sistem ini kerana mereka percaya ia dapat membantu pihak polis dalam siasatan dan membanteras jenayah.

Tan Sri Yang Di Pertua, saya tidak ada masalah dengan keinginan PDRM untuk membeli sistem teknologi yang boleh membantu mereka menjalankan siasatan jenayah ini, tetapi apa yang tidak faham dalam urusniaga ini ialah:

i) Kenapakah Ketua Polis Negara boleh menghantar memohon dikeluarkan surat ‘letter of intent’ dan ‘letter of award’ kepada syarikat Web Power Sdn Bhd terus kepada Perdana Menteri dan tidak melalui Ketua Setiausaha Kementerian Keselamatan Dalam Negeri? Prosedur yang patut dilakukan dalam apa-apa pembelian sepatutnya ialah Ketua Polis Negara harus menulis surat kepada Ketua Setiausaha Kementerian, Ketua Setiausaha kemudian menulis surat kepada Kementerian Kewangan, selepas diluluskan oleh Kementerian Kewangan, barulah Kementerian Keselamatan Dalam Negeri memanggil tender. Tetapi sekarang, Ketua Polis Negara terus ‘bypass’ Ketua Setiausaha Kementerian dan memohon dikeluarkan surat “letter of intent”nya terus kepada Perdana Menteri. Kenapakah ini berlaku? Kita dapati pihak KPN telah melanggar ‘standard operating procedure (SOP)” iaitu “go direct to minister by-pass your immediate boss

(KSU)”

ii) Kertas cadangan “E-Police Force Solution” dikemukakan oleh WebPower Sdn Bhd kepada PDRM? Soalan saya ialah, kenapakah Ketua Polis Negara begitu gigih untuk meminta kerajaan mengeluarkan peruntukan untuk membeli “E-Police Force Solution” daripada sebuah syarikat yang dipunyai oleh bekas seorang anggota Suruhanjaya Pasukan Polis yang juga bekas seorang Pengarah 3 bintang PDRM? Kenapa beliau boleh bersetuju dengan harga yang ditawarkan iaitu RM4.2B?

Tan Sri Yang Di Pertua, saya ingin minta Kementerian Dalam Negeri boleh memberitahu dewan yang mulia ini, penjelasan hubungan KPN dengan syarikat Asiacopter dan WebPower Sdn Bhd . ini adalah penting untuk rakyat mengetahui mengapa seorang KPN terlibat secara langsung dengan aktiviti perniagaan sedangkan sekarang ini:

1. Index jenayah berat makin meningkat dan banyak kes-kes serius yang berprofail tinggi tidak dapat diselesaikan seperti kehilangan cip komputer di Pulau Pinang, pembunuhan kejam adik Sharlinie, pembunuhan pemimpin politik di Johor dan lain-lain lagi.

2. Kegiatan rasuah dan salahguna kuasa dikalangan pegawai kanan dan anggota polis makin meningkat. Banyak kes yang tergantung tanpa tindakan seperti kes tatatertib Pengarah Logistik PDRM hingga kini senyap tanpa tindakan sedangkan kes tersebut telah menjadi buah mulut dikalangan pasukan PDRM dan orang ramai. Adakah kerana Pengarah tersebut orang kepercayaan KPN maka tindakan tidak boleh diambil??? Dimana intergriti pasukan PDRM???

3. 2 Kenyataan akhbar beliau dalam akhbar pada bulan ogos dahulu juga (berkaitan penglibatan sebuah syarikat IT dengan negara Israel dan pembelian helikopter untuk kegunaan PDRM) amat memalukan kerana kedua-dua kenyatan akhbar beliau itu telah dinafikan kebenarannya oleh Menteri Dalam Negeri. Bagaimana perkara ini boleh berlaku???

4. Penglibatan KPN dengan sindiket judi dan kongsi Gelap. Sehingga kini pihak KPN tidak pernah mengambil tindakan yang bersungguh-sungguh tentang hubungkait beliau dengan kumpulan tersebut yang diketuai oleh BK Tan dan Goh Cheng Poh (dikenali sebagai Tengku Goh). Ia tidak sepertimana tindakan saman beliau kepada Datuk Sen Anwar Ibrahim yang dituduh menfitnahnya. Tetapi dalam kes ini, walaupun Raja Petra telah membongkar cerita ini sejak tahun 2007, hingga kini tiada apa-apa tindakan yang diambil. Apakah tuduhan-tuduhan ini benar?

Dengan contoh dua perkara tersebut kami dapati KPN telah tidak menjalankan tugasnya dengan bersungguh-sungguh dan kelihatan beliau hilang keupayaan melaksanakan tugas dan amat jelas kelihatan beliau seorang yang ‘bangkrap idea’ untuk bertugas sebagai KPN. Sebagai seorang penjawat awam beliau tidak sepatutnya terlibat dengan perniagaan malah patut menumpukan dengan tugas hakiki beliau. Oleh itu, saya mencadangkan demi integriti dan keselamatan negara ini adalah dicadangkan KPN meletakkan jawatan secara SERTA MERTA!!!

(Speech 4 on the 2009 Budget in Parliament on Tuesday, 14th October 2008)

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 15 October 2008, 3:22 pm and is filed under
Parliament
,
Police
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


The Myth of The Islamic State

M. Bakri Musa

Book Review:
Islam And The Secular State:  Negotiating The Future of Shari’a,
 by Abdullahi Ahmed An-Naim

Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA

324 pp, Indexed, US $35.00, 2008.

Every so often I would read a book that would profoundly affect me.  I have yet however, to get two such books written by the same author, that is, until now.

            In 1990 I came across a paperback,
 Toward an Islamic Reformation:  Civil Liberties, Human Rights, and International Law
,” by Abdullahi A. An-Naim.  I do not remember what prompted me to browse through let alone buy the book.  Its cover design was nondescript, and neither its author nor publisher (University of Syracuse Press) was exactly well known.  But bought the book I did, after scanning only a few pages.

            Despite being only 255 pages, it took me awhile to finish it.  I have read it over many times since.  It is not that An-Naim’s prose is dense (far from it!) rather that the ideas he expounds are breathtakingly refreshing.  They also appeal to my intellectual understanding of my faith.

            That book resurrected my faith in Islam.  Brought up under the traditional teachings of my village Imam, I had difficulty reconciling that with the worldview inculcated in me through my Western liberal education.  The certitudes that had comforted me as a youngster were becoming increasingly less so as an adult.

            I knew however, a religion that gave my parents and grandparents (as well as millions of others) their anchoring stability despite the terrible turbulences in their life must have something substantive to offer.  I took that as a matter of faith.  It was just that I was not getting the message, until I read An-Naim’s book.

            I discovered that many of the issues I had wrestled with were shared with and have been dissected by many great minds in Islam of the past.  This realization reassured me.  Far from weakening my faith, those doubts ironically strengthened it.

Shari’a:  A Human Endeavor

In that earlier book, An-Naim developed further the thesis of his mentor, Sudanese reformer Mahmoud Mohamad Taha, that while the Shari’a was based on the Quran and the Sunnah (sayings and practices of the prophet), nonetheless it remains the works of mortals.  As such the Shari’a suffers from all the limitations inherent in such endeavors.  It is time to revisit it using the same rigorous intellectual tools used by our earlier scholars, while cognizant of today’s universally accepted norms of constitutionalism, gender equality, and human rights, among others.

            That is exactly what An-Naim has been doing with his “The Future of Shari’a Project” at Emory University, Atlanta, where he is the Charles Howard Candler Professor of Law.
 Islam And The Secular State:  Negotiating The Future of Shari’a
 is the culmination of his scholarly effort.

            Like that earlier book, this one is also a slow read despite being written in highly readable prose.  The book is packed with substantive and innovative ideas that require some digesting and much contemplation.  An-Naim’s writing is also precise and concise; he conveys in one sentence what others would take two or three, or even a paragraph.

            An-Naim is a solid scholar but the book is written for a general audience, Muslims and non-Muslims alike.  He uses Arabic phrases sparingly, and there are adequate references in English, Arabic, and other traditionally native Islamic languages including Bahasa (Indonesia).

            An-Naim asserts, “The historical reality is that there has never been an Islamic state, from the state of Abu Bakr, the first caliph in Medina, to Iran, Saudi Arabia, and any other state that claims to be Islamic today.  This obvious reality is due to the incoherence of the idea itself and the practical impossibility of realizing it, not simply to bad experiments that can be rectified in the future.”

            The immediate rebuttal by many Muslims is that there is historical precedent – and a very excellent one – of an Islamic state, that of the first Muslim community in Medinah.  Muslims rightly hold that as the ideal, but it cannot possibly be replicated, led as it was by Prophet Muhammad, s.a.w.  He was both spiritual and political leader.  To have a similar state today would require us to be endowed with another prophet, a blasphemous assumption in Islam.

            Not only is an Islamic state not achievable, it is also not desirable.  The very idea of an Islamic state, according to An-Naim, is based on later European concept of the nation-state and the law, not on Shari’a or Islamic tradition.

            Throughout Islamic (indeed, world) history, there has always been tension between ulamas (and religious establishment generally) versus the state and its rulers, with each trying to use the other to further their own ends.  Caliphs and sultans have co-opted ulamas to justify their (rulers’) power, while ulamas are not shy in maximizing the bounty they get from the state from such collaborations.  In Malaysia for example, they vie with ministers and mandarins for government-issued worldly trinkets as the plushest bungalows, sleekest sedans, and most exalted royal titles.

            A few ulamas have been known to leave their
mimbar
 (pulpit) for political office.  Some like Kelantan’s Nik Aziz do not even bother to separate their roles.  Islam is actively being subjugated by political rulers while religious functionaries eagerly prostituted themselves to the state.

            “As a Muslim, I need a secular state in order to live in accordance with Shari’a out of my own genuine conviction and free choice,” An-Naim declares, “… which is the only valid and legitimate way of being a Muslim.  Belief in Islam, or any other religion, logically requires the possibility of disbelief, because belief has no value if it is coerced.”

            He goes on, “Maintaining institutional separation between Islam and the state while regulating the permanent connection of Islam and politics is a necessary condition for achieving the positive role of the Shari’a now and in the future.”

            Caution here, before hurling the epithets!  An-Naim’s “secular” state does not mean the atheistic communist regime of the Soviet Empire where religion is completely vanished from public sphere, rather one where the state is “morally neutral” with respect to religion.

            America proudly cites its “strict” separation of state and church.  The reality is far different.  Prayers are regularly offered at opening sessions of Congress, and as the current presidential campaign demonstrates, religion is never far from voters’ considerations.

            Muslims yearn for an Islamic state without having the foggiest idea of what that would entail, except for some vague mumbling about it being based on the Quran, Sunnah, and Shari’a.  The reason for the longing is obvious; most so-called Muslim states today fail miserably in the basic task of governing.  Worse, they regularly trample with impunity on the basic rights of their citizens.

            Perversely, this obsession with the Islamic state detracts these leaders from their basic task of governing, and citizens from taking their leaders to task for this elemental failure.  Such fundamental and pressing needs as providing heath care, housing, education, development, and a modicum of freedom are best handled less by fussing over the Shari’a or the Islamic state and more with acquiring the skills of modern management. Today’s Islamists would get closer to achieving their vision of an Islamic state if they would first learn how to build effective and enduring institutions of governance.

Negotiations, Not Religious Fiat

While An-Naim advocates the separation of Islam and Shari’a on one hand from the politics and the state on the other, nonetheless he actively encourages nurturing the relationship between the two, including the state’s regulating the public role of Islam.

            This would first involve reexamining the Shari’a.  “For Muslims, Shari’a should be known and experienced as a source of liberation and self realization,” writes An-Naim, “not a heavy burden of oppressive restriction and harsh punishment.  No action or omission is valid from a Shari’a perspective unless it is completely voluntary, and
 there is no religious merit in coercive compliance.
”  The emphasis is mine, and I would have it in huge fonts framed in every JAKIM office!

            In its time the Shari’a represented a quantum leap in intellectual as well as juridical achievements.  It emancipated women.  Whereas before, women were part of her husband’s inheritance, to be disposed off like the rest of his estate; under the Shari’a they were entitled to their own rightful shares.

            As that other law professor, Harvard’s Noah Feldman, wrote in his Fall and Rise of the Islamic State, ” … for most of its history, Islamic law offered the most liberal and humane legal principles available anywhere in the world.”

            Feldman notes further that with Shari’a the scholars provided the crucial and fundamental checks and balances on the powers of the rulers.  This is exactly what is glaringly absent in many Muslim countries today.  Consequently, self-professed Islamic states like Iran and Saudi Arabia have more in common with fascist Germany and totalitarian Russia, both in the traits of the regimes as well as the tendencies of their leaders.

            It was the genius of those early scholars to be able to reconcile the apparent contradictions in the Quran and Sunnah by resorting to “abrogation,” where certain verses of the Quran “override” earlier ones.  With that they formulated a coherent body of laws that had served the community well for centuries.  They successfully reconciled the earlier Meccan verses that there be no compulsion in matters of faith to the latter Medinah ones relating to apostasy.  Likewise, the latter verses relating to the differential treatment of inheritance between sons and daughters to the earlier verses that declare everyone is equal in the eyes of Allah.

            Abrogation was the tool devised by the ancient scholars; it was not a divine mandate.  Today’s scholars should likewise use their insights and intellectual prowess to formulate a new Shari’a which should also be based on the Quran and the Sunnah.  This is the only basis to make it acceptable to Muslims and not violate our basic beliefs and traditions.  Such an exercise must be inclusive, with engagement of the entire community, utilizing the insights from various disciplines.

            If we were to incorporate the Shari’a into the laws of our country, the objective of advocates of an Islamic state, such “negotiations,” as An-Naim puts it, must necessarily also include non-Muslims, especially for a plural society like Malaysia.  The consequence of this is that the Shari’a formulated for Malaysia would necessarily be different from those for homogenously Muslim countries like Saudi Arabia, just like there are significant variations in the Shari’a in the various fighs (jurisprudence) in Islam.

            In short, An-Naim separates the
concept
 versus
content
 of Shari’a.  The concept is readily apparent:  a body of just laws applicable to all based on divine revelations (Quran) and the sunnahs.  All Muslims agree to that, while most non-Muslims could be readily persuaded to the viewpoint of “just laws applicable to all.”  The content however, must necessarily vary with time, place, and culture.  That is An-Naim’s central message.

            The central enduring values of the concept of the Shari’a are regularly missed and often confused by Muslims and non-Muslims alike.  In the West, as Feldman noted, the Shari’a is caricatured by such odious
hudud
 laws as stoning to death for adultery while ignoring the Shari’a stringent standards for conviction.  Contrast that to the gross perversion of justice in many capital convictions in America today, as revealed by the Innocence Project.

            The central premise of the Shari’a is that all – ruler and ruled alike – are subject to its rule.  That is the rule of law at its most fundamental level.  That is a novel concept in the West for most of its history (the prince being above law) as well as in today’s self-professed Islamic states.  Malaysia amended its constitution removing the sultans’ immunity with respect to their personal conduct only in 1993.

            An-Naim has advanced and elevated the debate on the Shari’a and the Islamic state by a quantum leap.  His is a much-needed intellectual antidote to those who would mindlessly exhort “Islam is the answer!” to every political problem, as well as those who delude themselves that the myriad problems facing Muslims today would magically disappear once we establish an Islamic state or a caliphate.

            This book will be widely read in the West.  I hope it will also reach a wide audience in the Islamic world.  Muslims – especially leaders – would do well to expend the necessary intellectual diligence to ponder the totality of the ideas and concepts presented in this book.  We should not dismiss them because they challenge our comfortable assumptions.

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 15 October 2008, 3:07 pm and is filed under
Bakri Musa
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


The RM2.3 billion Eurocopter fiasco – suspend Letter of Intent

The first thing  Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi did as Defence Minister was to announce on 26th September that the Defence Ministry has agreed to acquire new helicopters from European helicopter manufacturer, the Eurocopter,  to replace the Nuri.

This RM2 billion deal lacks accountability and integrity.

Four helicopters had been “short-listed” by the Ministry of Defence to replace the fleet of Sikorsky S61-A4 Sea Kings better known as the Nuri.

The four are the Eurocopter Cougar EC725, Sikorsky S92, Agusta Westland EH-101 Merlin and the Russian-made Mil Mi-17 Hip.

However, Abdullah shocked everyone with his announcement as the “short-listing” had not been completed and the pricing of the EC725 is not competitive compared with the other helicopters.

The pricing offered by the “short-listed” helicopters are:

Eurocopter Cougar EC 725 – Euro 463.44 juta (RM2.317 billion);

Sikorsky                               – US$427.20 juta (RM1.45 billion)

Canadian Kelowna Flightcraft Ltd. Model Kazan MI-172 buatan Russia

–	US$312 juta (RM1.061 billion)

This means that there is a difference of RM1.256 billion between Eurocopter Cougar EC 725 with the lowest bidder, the Kazan MI-172 KF – in other words, with US$600 million the Royal Malaysian Air Force can buy 26 units of Kazan helicopters and not just 12 Cougar helicopters.

In his speech yesterday, the Opposition Leader, Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim referred to the complaint by the Chairman of Mentari Services Sdn. Bhd. Kapt (B) Dato’ Zahar Hashim about the irregularity of the Eurocopter decision, and this is not just confined to the Kelowna Flightcraft Limited, Canada which submitted the bid for the Russian helicopter but also the other “short-listed” bidders as well, viz:

•	Proses penilaian belum selesai tetapi dengan secara tiba-tiba arahan diberi oleh pihak tertentu supaya Letter of Intent (LOI) dikeluarkan kepada Eurocopter. LOI tersebut ditandatangan oleh seorang pegawai paras menengah di Kementerian Pertahanan dan bertarikh 15th Septmber 2008 iaitu dua hari sebelum Datuk Seri Najib Razak berpindah dari  Kementerian Pertahanan ke Kementerian Kewangan.

•	Kerja yang sudah selesai adalah penelitian dokumen-dokumen tender yang dikemukakan oleh penender-penender. Penilaian fizikal  iaitu memeriksa permis dan kilang penender-penender dan melakukan penerbangan ujian (test flights) belum dilakukan oleh kerana kebenaran dari pihak atasan di Kementerian Pertahanan dan Kementerian Kewangan untuk berbuat demikian belum diperolehi. Sewajarnya, penilaian fizikal adalah lebih mustahak dari penilaian dokumen-dokumen (documentary evaluation) dan anggota-anggota yang terlibat berasa hairan apabila mengetahui bahawa LOI telah dikeluarkan sebelum penilaian fizikal dilakukan.

•	Proses pengeluaran LOI kepada Eurocopter agak luar biasa dan bertentangan dengan prosedur yang telah diamalkan selama ini. Biasanya LOI dikeluarkan setelah proses penilaian secara menyeluruh selesai dan sebuah jawatankuasa yang dianggotai oleh wakil-wakil dari Kementerian Kewangan dan Kementerian Pertahanan capai kata sepakat tentang produk yang terbaik bersesuaian dengan belanjawan yang telah diperuntukkan. Mereka turut berpendapat bahawa adalah menakjubkan bahawa LOI bagi kontrak yang bernilai melebihi Dua Bilion Ringgit ditandatangan oleh seorang pegawai Kerajaan bertaraf Setiausaha Bahagian dan bukan seorang yang bertaraf sekurang-kurangnya Timbalan Ketua Setiausaha.

The following are therefore the issues and questions:-

•	Technical evaluation process did not follow standard international practice and was not transparent.

•	Short-listing of the aircraft not as normally practiced in such tender process.

•	What is the criteria for evaluating these aircraft. Is it following standard evaluation process in technical terms. Has it carried out any flight evaluation of all the aircraft.

There have been cases where manufacturers have not been able to prove what they  have written in paper when flight test was carried out.  There has also been instances where the manufacturers had used a different and higher performance aircraft than was specified in the written technical paper during flight test.  This is why it is VERY important that a flight test valuation is carried out to ensure they comply with the specs given in the written documents.

I understand that the EC725 selected is a 40-year old aircraft, certified in the 60s and 70s. It has been modified and upgraded all these while and given a new name and term. Can this EC 725 be guaranteed to last another 40 more years with all the modifications and upgrading anticipated?

If RMAF is buying this 40-yr old aircraft, then it might as well keep the Nuris, modify and upgrade them now. It will cost only a fraction of a new aircraft, especially taking into account the Sikorsky offer had reported by Berita Minggu of 1st June 2008, viz:

Syarikat pengeluar helikopter terkemuka dunia, Sikorsky Aircroft Corporation (Sikorsky) membuat tawaran kepada Kementerian Pertahanan untuk membeli kembali 29 helikopter Nuri atau Sikorsky S-61-A4 Sea Kings, jika Malaysia membuat keputusan membeli helicopter barunya, Superhawks S-92 untuk kegunaan Angkatan Tentera Malaysia (ATM).

Eksekutif Jualan Serantau Sikorsky bagi Asia, Scott Pierce, berkata tawaran itu dibuat melalui bida dikemukakan syarikatnya kepada kementerian berkenaan, selepas Malaysia mengumumkan tawaran tender terbuka antarabangsa berhubung pembelian helicopter baru bagi pasukan itu.

Katanya, jika Malaysia memutuskan terus menggunakan Nuri bersama helicopter terbarunya, Sikorsky yang juga anak syarikat United Technologies Corporation (UTC), menyatakan komitmen membaik pulih atau meningkatkan khidmat Nuri di Negara ini.

“Sikorsky sedia membeli semua baki Nuri daripada TUDM untuk dijual kepada mana-mana pihak yang berminat, tetapi juga TUDM masih mahu menggunakan Nuri bersama helicopter S-92, kita sanggup membaik pulih dan meningkatkan helicopter berusia lebih 40 tahun itu, termasuk menukar daripada kokpit konvensional kepada kokpit kaca (digital).

“Tugas balik pulih Nuri akan membabitkan pemindahan teknologi terkini dan kepakaran kepada orang tempatan”, katanya kepada Berita Minggu pada temu bual di sini, baru-baru ini.

I am not a spokesman for Sikorsky, but this offer warrants an explanation from the Ministry of Defence as to the critera for the final selection of Eurocopter among the four “short-listed” bids.

The  government had allocated US$600 million (RM1.93 billion) to buy an initial fleet of 12 helicopters, which will be in service until 2050.

Last year, the government cancelled a  defence deal with the European aerospace giant EADS (European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company) for 197 helicopters to the country’s army following adverse observations by Indian watchdog authorities over alleged irregularities in the defence bidding process.

According to published reports, Eurocopter allegedly used a local firm, Global Vectra Helicorp, to help broker the deal despite a ban in India on the use of middlemen in defence deal.

Eurocopter was also accused of presenting a civilian helicopter instead of a military version for statutory field trials by the Indian army.

But what should attract the attention and concern of Parliament is that the EADS deal to sell 197 Eucopters to the Indian government was a US$600 million  which the Indian government subsequently cancelled.

Parliament and the nation are entitled to know why for the same amount of US$600 million, the Indian government was offered 197 Eurocopters as compared to 12 Eurocopters to Malaysia.

In the name of accountability, transparency, integrity and good governance, I call for the immediate suspension of the RMAF helicopter award to subject it to  a proper and above-board procurement process.

(Speech 3 on the 2009 Budget in Dewan Rakyat on Tuesday, 14.10.08)

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 15 October 2008, 5:12 pm and is filed under
Abdullah Ahmad Badawi
,
Defence
,
Good Governance
,
Najib Razak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Crisis of Confidence – AG

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 16 October 2008, 11:13 am and is filed under
Parliament
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Crisis of Confidence – IGP

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 16 October 2008, 12:06 pm and is filed under
Parliament
,
Police
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Crisis of Confidence – PM in waiting

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 16 October 2008, 11:00 am and is filed under
Najib Razak
,
Parliament
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Crisis of Confidence – PM

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 16 October 2008, 10:58 am and is filed under
Abdullah Ahmad Badawi
,
Budget Debate
,
Parliament
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


RCI to clear Najib of swirling allegations – why silence from DPM?

Firstly, let me praise the new de facto Law Minister, Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz for his prompt seven-hour
response
 to my parliamentary speech on the 2009 budget yesterday on the outcome of investigations into Anwar Ibrahim’s police report against the Attorney-General Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail for fabricating evidence over his “black eye” incident ten years ago.

Nazri’s prompt response should be an example to all Ministers with regard to serious allegations whether made in or outside Parliament if the government is serious about accountability, transparency, integrity and good governance.

I raised many issues in my 2009 budget speech in the past two days which have caused a tsunami of crisis of confidence affecting the Prime Minister, the Prime Minister-in-waiting, the Attorney-General, the Inspector-General, the judiciary on a whole spectrum of issues whether on anti-corruption, human rights or nation-building.

For instance, I had called for the immediate resignation of the Inspector-General of Police, Tan Sri Musa Hassan for failing in his most important task to reduce crime and make Malaysians, investors and tourists feel safe again in the country, and instead, he appeared to be more interested in being a lobbyist or canvasser for mega police projects like the mega police helicopter and the RM4.2 billion wireless digital “E-Police Force Solution”.

I have also given other reasons for my call on Musa Hassan to resign as IGP to allow the Deputy Inspector-General Police to take over in order to boost the service morale of the police rank-and-file.

Why has there been no equally prompt response like my call for the resignation of Gani Patail to resign as Attorney-General in Parliament yesterday?

Similarly, I had called for a Royal Commission of Inquiry to clear the Prime Minister-in-waiting, Datuk Seri Najib Razak from all the allegations and innuendos haunting and hounding him, including the C4-murder of Mongolian Altantunya Shariibuu, defence commissions for the French Scorpion submarines and the Russian Sukhoi jetfighters so that Malaysians, regardless of political differences, can feel proud of him as the nation’s sixth Prime Minister next March with regard to his undoubted honesty, reputation and integrity, why is there no prompt or instant response?

It has been reported from Barisan Nasional backbencher sources that Najib has this morning again denied any abuse of power in the Altantunya murder case – referring in particular to the exchange of SMS messages between him and Abdul Razak Baginda’s lawyer, Datuk Shafee Abdullah – the facts of which have not been denied by Najib.

Why then is Najib not prepared to take up the challenge to set up a Royal Commission of Inquiry to categorically clear  him of  all the allegations swirling around him – it is no exaggeration to say that no top political leader in the country in the nation’s 51-year-history had been haunted and hounded by so many allegations and all very serious ones as now the case with Najib?

If Najib has nothing to hide – and he has been making such an assertion – why is he  not accepting the opportunity of a Royal Commission of Inquiry which would clearly him categorically and definitively, not only in the eyes of Malaysians but the international community?

Let me come now to Nazri’s response.

I said in Parliament yesterday that I have been informed that the Solicitor-General has come to the finding that the Attorney-General had abused his powers in the fabrication of evidence in Anwar’s “black eye” incident ten years ago.

Nazri denied and said that the Anti-Corruption Agency (ACA) is still investigating Anwar’s police reports on the matter against the Attorney-General and the Inspector-General of Police.

What is pertinent is Nazri’s
admission
that he had not contacted the Solicitor-General.

Unless there is a stronger rebuttal, I stand by what I said in Parliament.

What is of public interest is why the authorities are taking so long to complete investigations into Anwar’s report against the Attorney-General and the outcome.

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 16 October 2008, 3:42 pm and is filed under
Anwar Ibrahim
,
Najib Razak
,
Police
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Crisis of confidence – Anti-corruption

                This entry was posted on Friday, 17 October 2008, 10:40 am and is filed under
Abdullah Ahmad Badawi
,
Corruption
,
Parliament
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Crisis of confidence – Judiciary

                This entry was posted on Friday, 17 October 2008, 10:37 am and is filed under
Judiciary
,
Parliament
,
UMNO
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


I think, therefore I perish

by Azly Rahman

Cogito ergo, sum

            – Rene Descartes

Rene Descartes the 17th century French philosopher and mathematician, in his most famous essay Meditations and A Treatise on Methods proposed the separation of mind and body in our conceptualisation of human nature paving way for the evolution of scientific method in the way we study phenomena.

Sense perception alone is not capable of understanding Nature, thought process separate from the physical entity of the self make understanding Reality complete, according to Descartes.

The ideology of thinking is now known as Cartesian paradigm.

From Cartesian paradigm the idea of falsification and determining of truth-ness of a study evolve, later known as the Scientific Method.

Cogito Ergo Sum, or “I think therefore I exist”, according to Descartes. For the layperson this may mean that it is the independence of thought that determine the nature of existence.

It is through the encouragement of thinking that human existence is celebrated. It is through doubting and dissenting that human beings will be defined as thinking beings.

I perish

We have our own Cartesian philosophy that governs the way we separate the individual from society.

We call it “I think therefore I perish”. It permeates not only at the top level of political management but also universities, high schools, religious and social institutions and even our homes.

In the case of those who think for society and suggest for the betterment of the largest number of people, in a Utilitarian way, we see out government applying our own Cartesian principal of existence: we banish the thinkers and incarcerate them — so that they will not become, like Socrates, Gandhi, or Mandela, an irritant to the rakyat and an agitator to the ruler or the State.

We see them taken away, put in solitary confinement, brainwashed, and indoctrinated with a new consciousness that will make them most subdued and lose their critical sensibility.

This is the Orwellian world we have allowed to evolve – the world in which the British writer George Orwell (pen name of Eric Blair) described in his famous work, 1984 — in which “truth is power” and “war is peace” and the Ministry of Truth produces Official Knowledge to be filter funneled into the mind of the citizens of Oceania.

We are all guilty of being happily amused by the goodies and the candies we deserve as a result of our own surrender to this technopoly we let this Third World capitalist state establish.

We have allowed the Malaysian corporatist developmentalist agenda dictate our economic condition and elect leaders amongst those who have a warped view of human nature, capitalism, and industrialisation.

As in the case of Raja Petra Kamaruddin, we let our leaders jail those who show their rage against the machine; those who dissent and present powerful arguments for an alternative society that champions equality for all and punishes the corrupt and powerful few.

We let the media evolve into a powerful instrument of mental colonisation — letting television become babysitters to our children so that when they grow older they will become not only good consumers of artifacts produced by the Malaysian culture industry but become good and obedient followers of the ideology of communalism – ideology that thrives on the playing of religious and race sentimentalities.

We have consumed too much the State-controlled newspapers, entertained by nice stories of the myth of our own Horatio Alger and the self-made urban legends of our Warren Buffets, Bill Gates, Vanderbilts and Rockefellers.

Unbeknownst to us the complex interlocking directorates and proxies involved in the propping up of our rich and famous.

Understandably the lower the socio-economic class the rakyat is in, the more they are attracted to the bonfire of race and religious vanities.

Perhaps it is to the advantage of the ruling class that the philosophy of education for critical consciousness is to be silently murdered — so that we will have generations after generation of Malaysians that are hegemonised and “neutralised” by a system that gives them Prozac and Valiums as they travel through the conveyer belt of education – from kindergarten to even graduate school.

Championing ketuanan

We see Acts such as the University and University Colleges Act of 1971 being jealously guarded by those in power; the part that disallow students to be involved in political parties are still kept intact — in fear that the students will be free to work for parties that fit their liking for idealism and to ensure that corrupt parties will be legally challenged by an even larger number of students.

We are allowing irrational patronage system to dictate how our students should behave. While many of the vice chancellors are former leaders of communal parties championing ketuanan this or that.

While many now are chairmen and chairwomen of alumni of those race-based parties, the students are not allowed to join any.

The argument that that students will not be able to focus on their studies if they join political parties is a lame one.

It is like a bad tune on a broken record or a badly-scratched CD – students leaders, like athlete-scholars, can perform brilliantly when their focus is to enrich their experience with the philosophy and practice of establishing republics of virtue.

Each student must be given the freedom and opportunity to decide the kind of government they want.

Each generation must be allowed to evolve into ethical beings that will remove any government that has become corrupted and intoxicated with power and no longer serve the rakyat.

In our age, the governing Cartesian philosophy is “they think, therefore they will perish” Or more accurately, if they think and act, we will make sure they perish – seems to be the way the present regime modus operandi.

In universities, we see the separation of mind and the social self in the way our students are encouraged to think. Of course we see students protesting here and there but there is still a sense of emptiness in the content.

The sense of critical sensibility does not seem to have permeated in their consciousness; as the curriculum that structure their mind is still watered down of its critical components.

Over the past few years cases of students and faculty dismissed for speaking up against the government and the university’s governance abound. Many are not yet resolved, waiting to be argued in courts.

Violations of fundamental rights to speak up and to dissent are at the heart of these cases. They reflect the inability of our universities to respect the rights of individuals to be intelligent.

One-dimensional

We saw in the case of University Teknologi Mara the Cartesian principle applied.

Why would those thousands of students embarrass themselves by championing for their rights to be chained and caged by the comfort of one-dimensional race-based thinking when their counterparts globally pride themselves with how diverse their campuses are?

We saw the dangerous concept of Ketuanan Melayu funnelled into the mind of the students.

Our bright young learners who ought to be socialised into a world of meritocracy and cultural democracy that values not only hard work and cognition but also inter-cultural understanding and collaboration.

We should have not allowed institutions such as the prime minister’s Biro Tata Negara to set foot on our campuses and force our children to learn its version of “citizenship”.

One that is not only based on a truncated and warped history of Malaysia but also one that closes the mind of the Malays into evolving into brave souls that values multiculturalism and champions the idea of “world citizens”; a noble concept that sees poverty and dehumanisation as a problem of humanity to be solved peacefully and collectively.

We think, therefore we perish.

What then must we do?

                This entry was posted on Friday, 17 October 2008, 5:24 pm and is filed under
Azly Rahman
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Incitement is not press freedom

(Bravo Terence of the Sun, the first journalist to speak up against the irresponsible incitement for a culture of hatred, violence and terrorism in Malaysian politics – Chamil Wariya’s inexcusable, intolerable and unacceptable attack on MP for Seputeh and Selangor Senior Exco
Teresa Kok
in Chamil’s cerpen
Politik baru YB J
 published in  Mingguan Malaysia on Sunday.  Terence has given me hope that all is not lost among Malaysian journalists, that there are still many honest and honourable newspaper men and women in the country)

Incitement is not press freedom

The Sun

Friday October 17 2008

by
Terence Fernandez

IT IS uncommon for newspapers, media organisations as well as their journalists to criticise one another’s editorial policies or reports. Call it journalistic etiquette if you want.

However, there are the few but significant times when this decorum is disregarded. And this usually occurs when a member of the Fourth Estate breaches the norms and values of responsible journalism and risks bringing acceptable standards of reporting down to the recesses of gutter journalism. Thus when this happens, it is incumbent upon the press fraternity to speak up.

If we don’t do our house-cleaning, we are seen as condoning and even supporting the words and writings of those who use “freedom of the press” and their media tag as a façade to incite, provoke and inflame.

It does not take a heart surgeon to draw parallels between the main character in Chamil Wariya’s short story in Mingguan Malaysia on Sunday to a very real and sitting Member of Parliament. He wrote about a fictional controversial Member of Parliament who meets her end at the hand of an assassin. The events leading to her murder is eye-brow-raising similar to those experienced by the real MP. The similarities are too uncanny not to be deliberate. If anyone denies this, it is just a pitiable and cowardly attempt to hide from the truth.

The story depicts one YB J (Josephine), second term MP for the fictional constituency of Alam Maya and her push for non-race based politics which makes her out to be a chauvinist and racist who is against a certain community.

While being driven to a function where she is to meet 500 fellow young countrymen who had studied abroad, she has a monologue on the perception that she is a racist and seeks clarification from her driver Ahmad. He tells her that she “may or may not” be one, leaving her even more confused. Ahmad has his own monologue, which are imbued with images of suicide bombers and angels.

At the function, YB J is approached by a participant who assassinates her and takes his own life. On the assassin’s body is a note that reads it is better to end YB J’s life to ensure that this multiracial country continues to experience the peace and harmony it has enjoyed for so long.

Drawing parallels again, the story mentions the ruling coalition losing its two-thirds majority, ISA detentions, Molotov cocktail attacks and changing of street signs. Sheer coincidence? You’ve got to be kidding!

While we are all allowed (and in some cases guilty of using) creative licence, there are boundaries to observe – what with sedition laws, defamation suits and show-cause letters. Even so, I have yet to come across a journalist who in all sense of the word incites murder! This is definitely deliberate and deserves the highest condemnation from all members of the press and decent Malaysians who strive for peace and harmony.

And to think that this comes from someone with more than 35 years in the media business, having held key positions in media organisations and press groups is a stain on the journalistic community.

If Chamil Wariya wants to use his position to curry favour with certain individuals or groups or to push a certain agenda, that is his business. But when one uses his pen to even suggest taking a life, this brings us to a whole new level of sewer journalism – the likes which we have not yet seen in this country.

The biggest tragedy of all is that he is the CEO of the Malaysian Press Institute (MPI) – an organisation which among others preaches responsible journalism as an integral component of press freedom.

Apart from awarding the nation’s highest annual journalism honours, it also conducts courses for journalists young and old. So is this the kind of journalism espoused by the MPI to cadet reporters other media organisations entrust it to train and develop?

The MPI has often been accused of being partisan and a retirement home for out-of-work editors.

It is thus incumbent on the institute to ensure the reputation it has built (and salvaged) is not further tarnished by one of its highest office-bearers. What it should do now is to deliberate on Chamil Wariya’s association with the MPI. Turning a deaf ear or blind eye is merely sending the message that the country’s highest media establishment condones incitement to murder.

(Terence, who has just taken down his MPI award from the mantlepiece, hopes he will once again be able to display it proudly.)

                This entry was posted on Friday, 17 October 2008, 11:40 am and is filed under
Media
,
Teresa Kok
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Is M orchestrating Abdullah’s earlier exit as PM?

At the DAP Bagan 6,000-People Solidarity Dinner in Penang last night, I said I did not know whether Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi will continue to be Prime Minister by next March, although Abdullah has said that he wanted to devote his last five months as Malaysia’s fifth Prime Minister to accomplish some of the reforms which he had failed to honour – in particular, the judiciary, anti-corruption and the police.

I told the dinner crowd that a campaign was  afoot inside Umno to force Abdullah to leave the Putrajaya corridors of power earlier than the March deadline.

This pressure has now surfaced publicly  with UMNO Vice President Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin again playing the “stalking horse”  in suggesting a
scenario
 which will see another modification of Abdullah’s original but tattered mid-2010 power transition power and his earlier exit as Prime Minister in December this year.

Muhyiddin’s call is deliberately timed so that it could be endorsed by the Umno divisions holding their meetings this weekend as to create a “popular” momentum which could justify a further UMNO Supreme Council modification of the power transition plan.

The question that is uppermost in many minds is whether former Prime Minister Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad is now back “in the saddle”, although he has quit Umno and has not returned to it for the second time, and orchestrating Abdullah’s earlier  exit in December?

Mahathir had denied that he will be the
“de facto” PM
and the power behind the throne when Datuk Seri Najib Razak becomes the sixth Prime Minister, dismissing as nonsense  talk that Najib was his man and that he (Mahathir) could influence Najib.

But who would believe Mahathir? It would be interesting to put this question to a public opinion survey and see the results.

What Malaysians are interested in hearing from Abdullah tomorrow in his last official opening of the MCA General Assembly as Barisan Nasional Chairman is how he proposes to fend off mounting pressures in UMNO  for his earlier exit as Prime Minister than next March and  how he can definitely ensure that he could salvage and implement his minimal reform programme before he steps down as Prime Minister.

Surely the question as to when the Prime Minister should retire from office should not be the sole prerogative of Umno, with all the other Barisan Nasional component parties completely excluded from the decision-making process – as Abdullah is the Barisan Nasional Prime Minister and not just Umno Prime Minister!

It is most regrettable that no single MCA leader, regardless of whether incumbents or contestants for high MCA office – and this goes for all the other Barisan Nasional component parties whether Gerakan, MIC or  SUPP –  had dared to say  a single word on the issue of the tenure and appointment of a Prime Minister as well as how they could provide support to Abdullah to ensure that his final minimal reform programme could be salvaged and implemented before Najib takes over as the sixth Prime Minister.

                This entry was posted on Friday, 17 October 2008, 1:30 pm and is filed under
Abdullah Ahmad Badawi
,
Najib Razak
,
UMNO
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Nation building a million times shame, Barisan National!

                This entry was posted on Friday, 17 October 2008, 10:42 am and is filed under
nation building
,
Parliament
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.