Blogs – must reading for MPs

I fully agree with the Royal Address that national unity is  the most important issue for our country.  Whether the country has succeeded in forging greater unity among the diverse races, languages, religions and cultures in Malaysia should in fact be the primary yardstick in the assessment of the success or failure of  half-a-century of nation-building and nationhood.

Fong Po Kuan, DAP MP for Batu Gajah, has a blog she named
“Chamber of Thoughts”
.  Her latest entry is a three-part blog,
“My Friend, An American Now”
. It is  a heart-rending story in the continuing creation of a Malaysian diaspora  which has happened to more than a million Malaysians in the past four decades — whether to uproot and migrate overseas and later to take up foreign citizenship.

Although human migration is a common phenomenon in human history and prehistory, the migration of over a million Malaysians in the past four decades was  more because of push rather than pull-factors, with the country losing many of her best talents and human resources stunting and undermining Malaysia’s achievement of her full potential in national development and international competitiveness.

Malaysia on her 50th anniversary would have been a  more developed and more competitive nation if more than a million of the most talented , enterprising and resourceful Malaysians had not been driven away  from our shores in the past four decades because of unfair discriminatory nation-building policies and measures by myopic politicians.

After nearly four decades of such self-inflicted injuries, the heart-rending story which Po Kuan blogs should have come to an end with the abandonment of unfair discriminatory policies among Malaysians.

But this is not the case. It would appear that the “Good Riddance to Bad Rubbish” reflex and mentality to the problem of emigration of Malaysians, though not publicly stated as in the seventies and eighties, is still quite prevalent today.

There is not much that can be done about the pull-factors of human migration but a government which refuses to address the problem of the push factors, which are the result of the failures of just and good governance, cannot claim to be a good government.

Po Kuan’s three-part blog should be a must reading for all MPs. Her blog, and
my blog
on Sunday which had drawn attention to the heart-rending account
“My Friend, An American Now”
, elicited  many responses articulating the pain,  agony and tribulation which had driven over a million talented, creative and enterprising Malaysians away from our shores only  to benefit other countries.

In the March 2004 general election, the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi promised to lead a government which is prepared to hear the truth from the people. Parliament cannot do less to hear these genuine voices of Malaysians, for they represent not only the pain,  agony and tribulation of over a million Malaysians who had been driven from our shores in the past four decades, but also tens of millions of Malaysians who had stayed behind.

The first to comment on my blog was
“carboncopy”

who wrote:

<
strong>My uncle left Malaysia in the 1960s. He graduated from MIT and did his PhD in Yale in Computer Science. I dare say, that was when Computer Science era was just starting.

He was a very patriotic man, a King’s Scout, graduated from Royal Military College. He came back to Malaysia after his PhD to serve his country. Looked for a job in University Malaya. They told him point blank, we have openings, but its only for bumiputera.

He left for greener pastures in United States. Have been a US citizens for a few decades now. He has contributed widely to the field of Computer Science and is still doing so.

He never forgave Malaysia for turning their backs to him. And I guess he never will.

[Speech (2) on Royal Address debate in Parliament 21.3.07]

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 21 March 2007, 6:52 pm 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.


Blogs on Malaysian diaspora raised in Parliament

The second comment, by
firstMalaysian
:

My son left the country to pursue his Bachelors degree in BioMedical Engineering and is currently doing his PhD in a foreign land, without any scholarship or any recognition from his own homeland. He was given every assistance and opportunity from a foreign university to pursue his PhD and he is in the midst of a breakthrough in his research. Certainly, a Malaysian born scientist in the making and his students and professors in the foreign land called him a Malaysian and he is proud to be one but whenever he steps down at KLIA, he felt the difference, he is a second class Malaysian. There is an identity crisis back home.

In the foreign land, he has helped many Malaysians irrespective of ethnic background to excel and he loved to see Malaysians excel, whether Chinese, Indians or Malays. He was Malaysian first in a foreign land but in Malaysia, it is ethnic origin first.

This brain drain will continue

Another comment,
Cool Man
:

Reports of ethnic-minority students with near-perfect STPM results not getting a place at the local university have become the norm, and yet objections are often ignored – the government claims that it is a fair game for all.

Personally, I had no choice but to go overseas to study, and my parents had to spend their entire pension savings on financing my undergraduate degree in Australia. After graduation, most of my Malaysian classmates chose to either stay in Australia or work in Singapore, where equal opportunities and fair competitions give them better job prospects.

Before coming to the London I did my masters degree in Singapore, where I met many Chinese Malaysians in this situation. Most of us would like to return to Malaysia, but we know that research prospects for minorities are limited. No matter how talented we are, it seems we still have to travel outside our country to seek opportunities.

PWCheng
wrote:

Well you and me knows all this and so is UMNO. From my experience with them and to those who has share the same experiences, they do not care two hoots about the non-Bumis migrating. In their mind as you and me know their myopic or shortsighted thinking is less non-Bumi the better and no non Bumi is the best, so that they can have everything for themselves. That is why they will keep on their discrimination policy which is getting worse as time goes by.

Their talk of national unity and some of the plans towards this are just a cover for them to tell the outside world that we are a model of a peaceful and progressive multi racial country. Unfortunately like America where at one time the blacks were discriminated legally there will be no unity as long as the non Bumis are discriminated legally.

For all these discrimination they had done, they had created a crater and they are trying to hoodwink the world by coming up with some silly plans or ideas which makes it looks like taking some tooth picks to close the crater.

Another posting, by
Godfather
:

My son was a straight A student, but when he applied for a scholarship, they didn’t even bother to reply. A foreign government gave him a scholarship and he went. Now I tell him not to come home because the unlevel playing field doesn’t look like it ever will be levelled.

Another posting, by
Careena6
 :

remember martin luther king ‘s speech? ” i had a dream”? Well we all have dreams and hopes for the future.. but unfortunately the chances of our growth in this nation is very much questionable and vague.. my sis who is a biotech graduate was previously excited because of the 8th malaysian plan.. biovalley by TDM.. whatever happen to that?? ” apa jadi..?? Even if you guys google on that issue it brings u back to the date of 2003?? Ini manar boleh??? I was watching CNN and they were broadcasting the issue on India’s next generation, Vikram akula the founder and ceo of sks microfinance was one of the main speakers .. India being the next big thing .. what about Malaysia??

Which is why youngsters nowadays wanna leave this country ASAP.. there is a proverb “Dont keep a dog and bark your self” we have so many intelligent, creative and innovative Malaysians, and yet some creatures insist on doing things their way.. don blame the rakyat for brain drain then.. Graduates.. they want to be recognised in some way.. they wanna succeed.. they want a job that reflects their education… and all the hardwork and sacrifices that they put into in getting the scroll.. should be appreciated .. FACT: the minorities are being discriminated.. we are still known as non-bumi,or pendatang..?? Precisely this is why the bird leaves the nest and migrates.. i’ve had friends who have personally told me that the only way they would ever bother to come back to MAlaysia is for weddings and funerals…  as cynical as this might sound i don’t blame them.. i share their sentiments.. and that’s the FACT..

Richard Teo
had this to say:

I dont see any hope for the B.N changing its policies in the near future.As long as MCA, MIC and Gerakan keep on propping this corrupt govt status quo will remain.And most likely B.N will just lose only a few seats. The rural malays although similarly marginalise will continue to support B.N because the latter will continue to play the race and religious card to win votes.Yes the future for all Malaysians are very dim, not only for the chinese and indians but also for the malays.At the moment the N.E.P only help the elite UMNO cronies and they are the sole beneficiaries of the NEP policy.

[Speech (3) on Royal Address debate in Parliament 21.3.07]

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 21 March 2007, 7:08 pm 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.


Million-Malaysian brain-drain – a national disaster

I have quoted extensively because the brain drain in the past four decades of over a million talented, creative and enterprising people — although there are those who would say it is double this figure — must be regarded as a national disaster and not just a personal or family tragedy.

The world has moved into the knowledge economy where the foundation of a nation’s power are more likely to rest on brains rather than brawn, on the creativity, energy and talent of its people rather than on the size of its population and the extent of its territory.

I submit that it is the  brain drain of Malaysia’s precious human capital in the past four decades which had been the principal reason why the nation had failed to achieve the full potential of our excellent economic advantages and rich resource endowments at Independence.

Malaysia achieved independence in 1957 at the same time as Ghana, when both countries were almost on par economically. Both countries are celebrating their golden jubilee of national independence this year, but Ghana is a failure in economic development, with its per capita income only about one-tenth that of Malaysia.

Should Malaysia feel proud that we are now ten times better off than Ghana, as had been suggested by a Barisan Nasional MP in the last parliamentary meeting?

This depends on whether we want to compare with the best or with the worst.  There is no point in talking about”excellence, glory and distinction” if we  are only proud to be compared with failed states and not prepared to compete with our equals.

Malaysia was No. 2 in  Asia after Japan in terms of prosperity and income when it achieved independence in 1957, despite having a per capita income of only US$200 per year.  However, South Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong and Singapore have caught up with us and gone ahead.

Although during independence Malaysia led the other Asian nations, apart from Japan, in per capita GNP, it had started trailing behind Hong Kong and Singapore in the first decade of nationhood. This trailing behind multiplied many-fold after the launching of the New Economic Policy in 1970.

Although Malaysia’s per capita GNP had started to trail behind Hong Kong and Singapore  in the first decade after independence, we were  still ahead of South Korea and Taiwan. Malaysia’s per capita GNP in 1967 stood at US$290 as compared to Taiwan’s US$250 and South Korea’s US$160.

In 1967, Singapore’s per capita GNP was US$600 while Hong Kong US$620.

In 38 years from 1967, Singapore and and Hong Kong have  shot to register a 2005 per capita income  of US$26,836 and US$25,493 respectively, South Korea to US$16,308 and  Taiwan US$15,203,  as compared to Malaysia’s US$5,042.

In the past four decades, South Korea’s per capita income multiplied about a hundred-fold, Taiwan by some 60-fold, Singapore by 45-fold, Hong Kong by some 40-fold with Malaysia lagging with an increase of only some 17 fold.

The brain drain of over a million talented, creative and enterprising Malaysians in the past four decades must bear primary responsibility for Malaysia trailing so behind Singapore, Hong Kong, Taiwan and South Korea.

I am not interested in any finger-pointing exercise. Let us own up to our mistakes and have the courage to correct them in the best interests of the nation and future generations.

[Speech (5) on Royal Address debate in Parliament 21.3.07]

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 21 March 2007, 7:26 pm 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.


More blog wisdom on Malaysian diaspora for MPs

Po Kuan’s blog also evoked responses about real life trials and tribulations such as the posting by
Taja Enjok
:

I know Mr. A for the past 9 years. He was a clerk and his wife is a general worker. They have 2 sons. It was around that time their eldest son failed to make it into any of the IPTA. His eldest son decided to join a private college for a twinning programme. Meanwhile he worked part-time to finance his studies. Then came the final year. Both father and son couldn’t save enough for the overseas fees and expenses. The father remembers what he learned during his school days.

? ? ? ? ? ?

? ? ? ? ? ?

Others give son chest full of gold.

I teach son only one classic.

Classic given a modern interpretation:

People give their children wealth.

I can only afford to give them education.

Mr. A went for optional retirement. This enabled him to obtain his gratuity and thus finance the eldest son’s final year. As he is still strong, he took up part-time job to support his younger son’s secondary education. Fortunately the younger son got a place in the IPTA. Otherwise it could have been his wife’s turn to make the sacrifice.

And this posting from
K.S.Ong
:

Malaysia’s loss is US’s gain. Not many people have the stamina to struggle against an entrenched system of discrimination. Yet, I believe there are growing number of people, especially young citizens of all races who are growing weary of our racially based political parties and the discrimination in the name of helping the majority race.

Weaker economically is highly debatable these days, depending on methodology used, yet supremacy is claimed, quite rightly when they are the only ones calling the shots.

Thanks to the internet, we have alternative sources of information which we can use to form our own opinions and decide on the future of our nation.

These Malaysian diaspora blogs led to another heart-rending tale in
Lucia Lai’s blog
, from a Chinese Malaysian woman living in  Washington, as follows:

I finished STPM with outstanding results from the prestigious St George’s Girls School in Penang. Did I get a university place from the Malaysian government? Nothing. With near perfect scores, I had nothing, while my malay friends were getting offers to go overseas.

Even those with 2As got into university. I was so depressed. I was my parents last hope for getting the family out of poverty and at 18, I thought I had failed my parents. Today, I understand it was the Malaysian government that had failed me and my family because of its discriminatory policies.

Fortunately, I did not give up and immediately did research at the Malaysian American Commission on Education Exchange (MACEE) to find a university in the US that would accept me and provide all the finances. My family and friends thought I was crazy, being the youngest of nine children of a very poor carpenter. Anything that required a fee was out of our reach.

Based on merit and my extracurricular activities of community service in secondary school, I received full tuition scholarship, work study, and grants to cover the four years at a highly competitive US university.

Often, I took 21 credits each semester, 15 credits each term while working 20 hours each week and maintaining a 3.5 CGPA. A couple of semesters, I also received division scholarships and worked as a TA (teaching assistant) on top of everything else.

For the work study, I worked as a custodian (yes, cleaning toilets), carpet layer, computer lab assistant, grounds keeping, librarian, painter, tour guide, etc. If you understand the US credit system, you will understand this is a heavy load.

Why did I do it? This is because I learnt as a young child from my parents that hard work is an opportunity, to give my best in everything, and to take pride in the work I do. I walked away with a double major and a minor with honours but most of all a great lesson in humility and a great respect for those who are forced to labour in so-called ‘blue collar’ positions.

Those of you who think you know all about Australia, US, or the West, think again. Unless you have really lived in these countries, i.e. paid a mortgage, paid taxes, taken part in elections, you do not understand the level of commitment and hard work it takes to be successful in these countries, not just for immigrants but for people who have lived here for generations.

These people are where they are today because of hard work. (Of course, I am not saying everyone in the US is hardworking. There is always the lazy lot which lives off of someone else’s hard work. Fortunately, they are the minority.)

Every single person, anywhere, should have the opportunity to succeed if they want to put in the effort and be accountable for their own actions. In the end, they should be able to reap what they sow.

It is bearable that opportunities are limited depending on how well-off financially one’s family is but when higher education opportunities are race-based, like it is in Malaysia; it is downright cruel for those who see education as the only way out of poverty.

If you want to say discrimination is here in the US, yes, of course it is. Can you name a country where it doesn’t happen? But let me tell you one thing – if you go looking for it, you will find it. But in Malaysia, you don’t have to go look for it because it seeks you out, slaps you in your face every which way you turn, and is sanctioned by law!

Here in the US, my children have the same opportunity to go to school and learn just like their black, white, and immigrant friends. At school, they eat the same food, play the same games, are taught the same classes and when they are 18, they will still have the same opportunities.

Why would I want to bring my children back to Malaysia? So they can suffer the state-sanctioned discrimination as the non-malays have for over 30 years?

[Speech (4) on Royal Address debate in Parliament 21.3.07]

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 21 March 2007, 7:22 pm 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.


Royal Address and Cabinet ignorance

I rise to express appreciation of the Yang di Pertuan Agong for his maiden Royal Address to the joint session of both Houses of Parliament yesterday.

In keeping with the conventions of the Malaysian constitution and constitutional monarchy, the Royal Address is not the personal speech of the Yang di Pertuan Agong but the policy presentation of the government-of-the-day for the next 12 months — and this is illustrated by the formal presentation of the government policy speech by the Prime Minister  to the Yang di Pertuan Agong before the delivery of the Royal Address.

This is why an amendment to the Motion of Thanks for the Royal Address — which is very common and frequent in other  Commonwealth Parliaments whether in the United Kingdom, Australia or India –  is not a personal slight or attack on the person or office of Yang di Pertuan Agong but a proposal of amendment to the government’s policy presentation contained in the Royal Address.

This is also why two days have been set aside in the 10-day debate for Ministers in the winding-up stage to defend the different aspects of the government policy presentation contained in the Royal Address.

As the Royal Address is the government’s policy speech for the coming year, it is most extraordinary for Cabinet Ministers to be indulging in self-praise and self-flattery in giving glowing tribute to the Royal Address after its delivery, as if Cabinet Ministers are ignorant about the constitutional convention of the Royal Address being the government policy presentation for the year.

Deputy Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak for instance commended  the Royal Address as “a comprehensive speech which reflects the aspiration and agenda of the government”, the  Housing and Local Government Minister Datuk Seri Ong Ka Ting said the Yang di-Pertuan Agong’s speech is a reminder to everyone to continue to enhance to provide a more transparent public delivery system” while Works Minister Datuk Seri S. Samy Vellu said Yang di-Pertuan Agong’s suggestion that the drainage and irrigation system be upgraded to prevent a recurrence of the monster floods in Johore  reflected the government’s aspiration in improving the standard of living of the rakyat.

I am not saying that the Royal Address cannot or should not be praised, but when Cabinet Ministers praised it, it is either self-praise or stems from ignorance of  the Royal Address as the government’s annual policy presentation to Parliament.

[Speech (1) on Royal Address debate in Parliament 21.3.07]

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 21 March 2007, 6:41 pm 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.


Should I continue to serve on PSCI?

The Sun’s
front page headlined it:
“On/off/on/off — INTEGRITY PANEL SHIES AWAY FROM GRAFT INQUIRY”
while
Malaysiakini’s
 heading  for its report yesterday was  “
Committee  cancels ‘ACA hearing’ again”
with the following story:

The Parliamentary Select Committee on Integrity today voted to call off a hearing involving Anti-Corruption Agency (ACA) director-general Zulkipli Mat Noor and whistleblower Mohamad Ramli Manan.

Explaining the decision, committee chairperson Bernard Dompok told reporters after a 40-minute meeting with committee members that it was due to “new circumstances” surrounding the issue.

The 12-member committee, by a majority vote, decided not to hear Zulkipli and Ramli for the time being until the pending court cases are disposed of.

Ramli recently filed a suit against several relevant parties for back payments of his wages and pension.

Dompok said the committee also took into consideration the issue raised by lawyer Muhammad Shafee Abdullah, who is representing former land and cooperative minister Kasitah Gaddam.

“The committee also took into account the concerns raised by the defence counsel for Kasitah Gaddam where the said counsel is contemplating citing Ramli for contempt,” he added.

Last week, Shafee told the Kuala Lumur High Court that the statements made by Ramli, who is the former ACA Sabah director, in his exclusive interview with malaysiakini could potentially prejudice his client’s corruption trial.

Last Monday, the committee had deliberated on the matter and the majority of its members were of the view that the hearing would not be considered subjudice.

Asked as to why the sudden about-turn, Dompok said he received requests from six members of Parliament to discuss further on this matter.

“The committee members have discussed further with their friends in the legal fraternity that this may be a case of subjudice. They went back and had more time to discuss with their lawyers.

“Some of them expressed there were new developments in this case (that needs discussion) so I therefore called for a meeting today,” he explained.

Dompok pointed out that it may not be in the best interest of the committee to call the two individuals at the moment until Ramli and Kasitah’s cases are settled.

This is not the first time that Dompok has called off a meeting with Zulkipli and Ramli. On March 8, Dompok cancelled a scheduled meeting but was forced to put it to a vote after a few members complained that they were not consulted.

Four days later, Dompok convened a meeting where members were said to have voted 8-3 in favour of calling in both Zulkipli and Ramli. It is not clear what the vote was like in today’s meeting.

Of the 12 members in the committee, only two are from the opposition.

I am prevented from Parliamentary Standing Orders from disclosing what transpired at the  Parliamentary Select Committee on Integrity (PSCI)   meeting yesterday.

I am very disappointed by the new turn of events and mulling over whether I should continue to sit on the PSCI.

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 21 March 2007, 7:10 am and is filed under
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.


Who is more unpatriotic, disloyal and anti-national?

I am very concerned that in Paragraph 15 of the Royal Address, the government regards “excellence” as a goal to be achieved in 13 years’ time in 2020, when it should have been a constant  and unbroken standard of both public and private service from Independence half-a-century ago.

The most meaningful way for the nation to celebrate our   50th Merdeka Anniversary is for the  government to end the denial complex and recognise  that driving over a million talented, creative and enterprising Malaysians from our shores in the past four decades because of discriminatory policies is  one of our greatest nation-building failures  and   to summon a  national resolve to end the root causes of such continuing brain drain.

Let no one stand up to say that the over a million talented, creative and enterprising Malaysians who had been driven from our shores in the past four decades because of discriminatory policies are unpatriotic, disloyal and anti-national, for if such an argument is to be accepted, then those who had been responsible for the discriminatory policies which caused such a costly brain drain to  the country would be even more unpatriotic, disloyal and anti-national.

This brain drain problem must be given utmost importance and priority to stem a new exodus of emigration of Malaysian talents, both Malay and non-Malay.

I had warned immediately after the Umno general assemblies last November  that a new exodus of emigration of Malaysian talents, both Malay and non-Malay, would be triggered by the rise of racial extremism and religious intolerance like the “fire and brimstone” Umno assemblies with keris-wielding and May 13 threats of bloodshed, amok and riots, with the biggest casualties being Malaysia’s global competitiveness, the success of the Visit Malaysia Year 2007 and the 50th Merdeka Day celebrations.

This was why immediately after the Umno general assemblies, I had introduced an emergency motion in Parliament on November 21, 2006 to debate the “fire and brimstone” Umno general assemblies, which I had described as “a most serious blot on Malaysian nation-building for over three decades” for three reasons:

	undermining national unity and the Vision 2020 objective of achieving a Bangsa Malaysia;

	undermining international competitiveness scaring away foreign investment; and

	raising the question whether the 50th anniversary celebration for half-a-century of nationhood could be meaningful for all Malaysians.

Unfortunately, my motion was not allowed. My worst fears have now come to pass. There was a 2,000 per cent jump in inquries about emigration by Malaysians in the week of the “fire and brimstone” Umno general assemblies.

A migration agent in Kuala Lumpur  had told the New Sunday Times  that from an average of between 15 and 20 inquiries for migration a day, the phones have been “ringing non-stop” in the  two weeks after the “fire-and brimstone” and “keris-wielding” Umno general assemblies last November.

For the week between Nov. 14 and Nov. 19 (the week of the “fire and brimstone” Umno general assemblies), there were about 6,500 enquiries for migration to Australia, 5,500 enquiries for New Zealand, 4,000 for Canada, about 3,500 enquiries for other countries, including Norway and Switzerland.

This works out to a total of 19,500 inquiries or 3,250 inquries a day for the six-day period — or some 2,000 per cent jump.

The callers were of all races — Malays, Indians, Chinese and others.

Malaysians would like to know whether the Cabinet had ever discussed this problem of brain drain and a new exodus of Malaysian talents emigrating abroad — and whether it has come up with any counter-strategy not only to stem any new brain drain  to allay widespread  concerns and fears about the nation and the future so that Malaysian talents will  remain in the country but to reverse the earlier brain drain to help Malaysia achieve the transition to a knowledge-based economy.

[Speech (6) on Royal Address debate in Parliament 21.3.07]

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 21 March 2007, 7:30 pm 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.


40 months as PM – Malaysians even more unsafe from crime

The second front where I had hoped there new policy initiatives would be announced in the Royal Address is on police reform and in particular to establish the Independent Police Complaints and Misconduct Commission (IPCMC) with the announcement that the bill for its formation would be taken through all three readings in the current meeting of Parliament in view of the worsening crime index as well as repeated blows to public confidence in the ability of the police to implement the 125 recommendations of the Royal Police Commission to become an efficient, incorruptible, professional world-class police service to combat crime, uphold law and order and respect human rights.

The crime index in the country has worsened from 156,315 cases in 2003 to 226,836 cases in 2006 — a sharp rise of 45.1% in the past three years when the police force had set the target of reducing the crime index by five per cent each year!

In the past three years, violent crime had skyrocketed by 85.8 per cent from 22,790 cases in 2003 to 42,343 cases in 2006, with rape cases registering the highest increase of 65.5 per cent — reaching an average of 6.7 women raped daily in 2006 compared to an average of four women raped daily in 2003. In 2003, an average of 1.5 persons were murdered daily; but in 2006, this has increased to an average of 1.65 persons murdered daily.

I want to remind the Prime Minister of his pledge 40 months ago that one of his top priorities would be to reduce crime to restore to Malaysians their fundamental right to be free from crime and the fear of crime, whether in the streets, public places or the privacy of their homes? Today, Malaysians feel even more unsafe from crime than when he became Prime Minister.

Abdullah had been the Minister in charge of police for the past seven years and it is time he take full personal responsibility for the worsening crime situation in the country by providing personal leadership in the campaign to reduce crime — starting by ending all the procrastinations in the establishment of the IPCMC to create an efficient, incorruptible, professional and world-class Police Service.

The police’s losing war against crime was  vividly highlighted last month  by the killing of the former top crime buster, former Penang Chief Police Officer, Datuk Albert Mah and the burglary of  the house of former CID director Datuk Fauzi Shaari in Shah Alam.

Mah, former Member of Parliament,  82,  would have lived a fit and active life for at least another ten years if he had not been mown down last month as the latest victim of an escalating crime wave in the country.

It is tragic that the former top crime-buster should end his life as the latest statistic as a victim of crime.

This was not the way for a former top-crime buster and former CPO to die — making a mockery of his commitment and dedication at the prime of his life to combat crime and make the country safe for all Malaysians.

The clear message of Mah’s tragic and senseless killing is that no one, , whether ordinary Malaysian, VIP or VVIP,  is safe in Malaysia anymore, whether in the streets, public places or the privacy of the home. If a former top crime buster and ex-CPO could killed so senselessly in the privacy of his home, who is safe in Malaysia?

The Inspector-General of Police, Tan Sri Musa Hassan, who said Mah was his former boss and mentor, had announced that a task force had been formed to hunt down the five assailants believed to be foreigners.  What had the task force achieved?

Malaysians want the killers of Mah to be hunted down and brought to justice. But they also want all the criminals responsible for the 604 cases of murder, 2,435 cases of rape, 68 cases of armed gang robbery, 2,658 cases unarmed gang robbery, 247 cases of armed robbery and 18,446 cases of unarmed robbery last year to be hunted down and brought to justice. Will there be a task force each to solve these grave violent crimes?

The Royal Police Commission in its report in May 2005 said that the Royal Malaysian Police had been unsuccessful in projecting a positive image of itself to the people, describing public confidence in the police as “very low”.

It said: “The qualities many in the public and business see in the PDRM are the antithesis of all that PDRM aspires to be. PDRM is generally viewed as inefficient, uncaring, unable to prevent or check crime and corruption to a significant degree. Concerns regarding infringements and abuse of human rights are extensive, and PDRM is not seen as being transparent or accountable to the public.”

Nothing has changed. If anything, public perception and confidence of the police have reached an all-time low.

The Police Royal Commission called for the highest priority to be given to a campaign against crime until crime levels have reached a point considered no longer alarming. It recommended “as an immediate measure, the PDRM should target a minimum of 20 per cent decrease in the number of crimes committed for each category within 12 months of this Report’s acceptance and implementation” — i.e. by May 2006.

Instead of a 20 per cent decrease in the crime index in the first 12 months of the Royal Police Commission Report, there was a 85.8 per cent increase of violent crime in the past three years, from 22,790 cases in 2003 to 42,343 cases in 2006!

Last August, the former and longest-serving Inspector-General of Police, Tun Hanif Omar who held the top police post for two decades from June 1974 — January 1994, in his Sunday Star column “Point of View” on “Crime and our guality of life”, wrote about what has become commonplace in Malaysia — the prevalent fear about personal safety whether of oneself or one’s loved ones in the streets and public places. He described how he and his family were also afraid of their personal safety in the streets and public places.

Do we need to have another VIP and VVIP death whether in government or police, as a result of being victim of crime, before the police is momentarily stirred into action, only to be quickly forgotten shortly after?

What Malaysians want is a comprehensive plan for an efficient, incorruptible, professional world-class police service committed to reduce crime and make the streets, public places and homes safe again for Malaysians, visitors and investors — as recommended by the Royal Police Commission.

Is the Police and Government prepared to find the political will to ensure that Mah’s death marks the lowest point of police credibility in the battle against crime?

Let Mah not die in vain. Let Mah’s death stir the Prime Minister and the Police out of the inertia of the former and the opposition of the latter to establish the IPCMC as the key proposal to create a world-class police service with the triple objectives of reducing crime, root out corruption and respect human rights in Malaysia.

The RM5.5 million EO “Freedom for Sale” scandal involving the Deputy Internal Security Minister, Datuk Johari Baharom, has brought public credibility of the Police and the Internal Security Minister to a new low.

The public reprimand of Johari by Abdullah, who is also the Internal Security Minister, telling the latter that he  should just answer the allegations of bribery without accusing or blaming others has come as another blow to public confidence in the efficiency, effectiveness, professionalism and integrity of  the forces with the responsibility  to maintain law and order.

Abdullah’s response – “Now that there are allegations, answer the allegations one by one. No need to accuse other people. Just answer all the questions.” — when asked to comment on the ACA investigation into allegations that Johari had received more than RM5mil to release at least three suspects arrested under the Emergency Ordinance raises many questions, including:

Firstly, why has Abdullah taken two long weeks to come out with such a response, which should have been made at most after 24 hours.

Secondly, Abdullah’s unusual comment testifies to the unsatisfactory nature of Johari’s response to the allegations on Internet websites implicating him in a RM5.5 million “freedom for sale” scandal involving Emergency Ordinance (EO) detentions.

There was clearly a finger-pointing exercise between Johari and the police, with Johari loudly proclaiming his innocence while accusing the police of being sloppy, slipshod and using the EO as a “short cut to detain suspects who have insufficient incriminating evidence against them”.

As even the Prime Minister-cum-Internal Security Minister is not satisfied with Johari’s public response, the Deputy Internal Security Minister should present a ministerial statement to  Parliament to give a full and satisfactory accounting of his rebuttal of the RM5.5 million “freedom for sale” allegations. It is clearly invidious and untenable for Johari to continue a single day as Deputy Internal Security  Minister when the Prime Minister is not satisfied with his public explanation.

[Speech (9) on Royal Address debate in Parliament 21.3.07]

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 22 March 2007, 4:50 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.


Abdullah govt’s anti-blog and anti-Internet Portals mindset/culture

I know I am going against the grain of government thinking in asking Parliament to give serious attention to blogs by Malaysians, especially  when the Internal Security Ministry has just warned the mainstream newspapers in the country against quoting and publishing “anti-government articles” from online portals and blogs.

The clarification by the Internal Security Ministry’s Publications Control and Al-Quran Texts Unit senior officer Che Din Yusof who sent out the warning to mainstream newspapers that his letter was a “request” and not a “directive” does not wash, when newspapers were also reminded that condition 11 of their publishing permit required them to “follow and not act against” such directives issued by the ministry.

Che Din has said that the Internal Security Ministry does not want the newspapers to get the people to believe everything that comes from blogs and the Internet portals.

Is  it the business of the Internal Security Ministry to get the people to believe mainstream media and disbelieve blogs and Internet portals? Isn’t this a violation of the Bill of Guarantees proclaimed to the world  by the Malaysian Government when launching the Multi-Media Super Corridor in 1996 — in trying to influence the mainstream media and the people at large to disbelieve blogs and Internet portals?

In fact, isn’t the government turning its back to the knowledge-based economy and the information and communication technology in adopting such an anti-blog and anti-Internet portals mindset and culture?

Will the government support efforts of blogs and Internet portals to expose the lies and falsehoods in the mainstream media — particularly against Opposition and dissenting groups and Malaysians?

Is the Internal Security Ministry standing up for truth and diversity of opinions and views or is it just a mere  instrument of government parties  to suppress dissent and muzzle  information unfavourable to the ruling coalition although this is good for the promotion of an information society and knowledge economy?

The government-controlled mainstream media had often been guilty of misinformation and disinformation about the Opposition, especially during general election campaigns.

There is no need to open this dark  and shameful chapter of mainstream media in Malaysia as there are ample examples of  the mainstream media not being a paragon of truth and virtue.

Early this month,  the Inspector-General of Police Tan Sri Musa Hassan issued   a bald denial that he had made a statement as published in a front-page  Utusan Malaysia lead story, “Saya mahu BPR siasat Johari” on 5th Marc h 2007.

In a statement published only by Bernama, Musa said he had neither been interviewed nor had he issued a statement as published.

The Utusan Malaysia story, by-lined Ruhaidini Abd. Kadir,  had reported that Musa had said he did not want to enter into a polemic with the Deputy Internal Security Minister, Datuk Mohd Johari Baharom over the RM5.5 million Emergency Ordinance (EO)  “freedom for sale” scandal and Johari’s  claim that the police failed to provide sufficient evidence and did not investigate properly criminals referred to under the Emergency Ordinance.

Musa was reported to have called for a fair investigation to be conducted by the Anti-Corruption Agency (ACA) to determine who was right or who was wrong in the allegation that Johari received RM5.5 million bribes for releasing criminal suspects under the Emergency Ordinance.

Who to believe — the Utusan Malaysia journalist Ruhaidini Abd. Kadir whose byline appeared next to the report or IGP Musa?

I would tend to believe  Rahaidini for two reasons:

Firstly, the Utusan Malaysia front-page report carried a Q & A transcript of the interview with Musa — something which could not be concocted from thin air. Clearly Rahadidini had the interview with Musa on tape.

Secondly, if Rahaidini had concocted the interview in the  Utusan Malaysia, Musa should have declared him a “persona non grata” and ban him from all police interviews and contacts.

But no, Musa continued to entertain Rahaidini, resulting in another front-page by-line story in the Utusan Malaysia, “Polis siasat suspek — Kenal pasti tahan bawah Ordinan Darurat boleh bebas — Musa” the very next day.

Was the Internal Security Ministry  Publications Control  Unit  really concerned whether the truth or falsehoods are published in mainstream media, or is it only concerned about  the growing influence of blogs and Internet portals?

The Internal Security Ministry’s attempt to muzzle and shackle the mainstream media, with the Deputy Internal Security Minister Fu Ah Kiow often calling up Chinese newspaper editors by playing the self-admitted role of “super media editor”, must be deplored, and such practices must be stopped — starting with the retraction of the directive to the mainstream newspapers by Che Din.

[Speech (7) on Royal Address debate in Parliament 21.3.07]

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 22 March 2007, 12:19 am 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.


Neither  new policy initiative nor legislative programe for the new year

As the third annual policy speech of the Abdullah premiership, the Royal Address is a disappointment as it offered neither new policy initiatives nor any legislative programme for the delivery of the  Prime Minister’s pledges of an efficient, clean, incorruptible, accountable, transparent, just, democratic and progressive administration which is overdue by 40 months.

Last week, I had publicly urged the Prime Minister to come personally  to Parliament on Question Time yesterday to answer the question asking him “to give a progress report on  his reform pledges in the past 40 months, highlighting the reasons for the failures/shortfalls and how he could assure Malaysians disappointed that he had failed to ‘walk the talk’ on his reform agenda”.

This is because of the widespread and deep disappointments among Malaysians at the failure of the Prime Minister  to live up to the high hopes of Malaysians to “walk the talk” to honour the pledges of reform agenda he had made when coming into office.

This question was “personal to holder” and could only be answered by the Prime Minister himself, as it concerns the pledges he had made when he became Prime Minister and during the 2004 general election for which he won an unprecedented 91% parliamentary majority. It could not be delegated to another Cabinet Minister, whether the Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, Datuk Nazri Aziz or even the Deputy Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak.

But this was not to be.  Although Abdullah urged Barisan Nasional Backbenchers Club (BNBBC) members on Monday  to perform “something extraordinary” to bring back the glory days of parliamentarians in line with the country’s 50th anniversary celebrations this year, no return of such “glory days” is conceivable firstly,  when the Barisan Nasional has a suffocating 91% parliamentary majority and secondly, the Prime Minister stays away from Parliament even on questions directed at him personally.

I believe that the four previous Prime Ministers, from Tunku Abdul Rahman, Tun Razak, Tun Hussein Onn and Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad would not have stayed away from Parliament and delegated away the answer to such a “personal to holder” question.

The Prime Minister’s absence is most telling — for it is as good as an admission that he has very little  to show to Parliament and the nation about honouring his reform pledges and agenda in the past 40 months — or he would not have allowed any other Minister to answer the question.

When the Prime Minister absents himself from Parliament on such a specific question, it is an indication that no satisfactory answer is forthcoming. But the answer by the Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, Datuk Nazri Aziz, is even more disappointing in totally ignoring the specific  reform pledges and agenda promised by Abdullah when he became Prime Minister and during the 2004 general election — as if they simply did not exist.

This was why I had protested during my supplementary question that Nazri could not just wish away Abdullah’s reform pledges and agenda as if they do not exist, likening Nazri’s attempt to do akin to that of a political  David Copperfield — but which was misunderstood by Nazri and some media as referring to the Prime Minister.

Last week, the Prime Minister emerged from a meeting of the Barisan Nasional Supreme council and announced  “Mission 2057” to ensure continued development in all aspects since independence and after Vision 2020 had been achieved.     He said “Mission 2057” (Misi 2057) would become the development guideline for another 50 years.

It sounded a rather tall tale that the BN Supreme Council could meet to  take the policy decision to formulate Mission 2057, when  it is not only  dubious that Vision 2020 could be achieved but very clear that Abdullah’s Mission 2004 is heading towards a big flop.

Before Abdullah trots out Mission 2057 about Malaysia in another half-a-century, he should deliver Mission 2004 which he had promised in the 2004 general election to lead an efficient, clean,  incorruptible, accountable, transparent, just, democratic and progressive administration which is prepared to hear the truth from the people.

I had hoped that three areas would be top priority in the government’ policy initiatives and legislation programme for the coming year if Abdullah is to redeem his failures in the past 40 months to “walk the talk” of reform agenda and to  retain credibility and even legitimacy for his unprecedented 91% parliamentary majority in the March 2004 general election.

Firstly, on the anti-corruption.front.

When he became the fifth Prime Minister in November 2003, Abdullah pledged to make anti-corruption the top agenda and proclaimed  “zero tolerance for corruption”.

To mark the first three months of his premiership, Abdullah reiterated in an interview with senior editors of major newspapers his  priority commitment to change the mindset of Malaysians to match the country’s first-class infrastructure with a first-class mentality, including the eradication of public and private sector corruption.

On his first 100 days as Prime Minister, Abdullah declared in his address to the Cambridge Foundation on 10th February 2004:  “My first 100 days was my statement of intent. Now we get to work and walk the talk.”

However, after the unprecedented 91% parliamentary majority victory in the March 2004 general election, Abdullah had  forgotten his declaration of “zero tolerance for corruption” or his pledge to make the fight against corruption as the top priority of his administration, as his “statement of intent” of his first 100 days remained mere “statement of intent” for the next 1,136 days till today without any “walk the talk” whatsoever.

[Speech (8) on Royal Address debate in Parliament 21.3.07]

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 22 March 2007, 4:36 pm and is filed under
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.


Royal Commission of Inquiry on Corruption and ACA

Some 40 months after Abdullah’s pledge to “walk the talk” to eradicate corruption, Malaysia is faced with the worst crisis of national integrity in the 40-year history of the Anti-Corruption Agency and 50-year history of the nation, with a spate of corruption scandals in the past two weeks, viz:

	Serious corruption allegations against the Anti-Corruption Agency director-general Datuk Zulkipli Mat Noor;

	Serious corruption allegations against the Deputy Internal Security Minister, Datuk Mohd Johari Baharun; in the Emergency Ordinance (EO)  “freedom for sale” scandal; and

	Serious allegation by the Chief Justice, Tun Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim of judges who accept bribes.

Internationally, Malaysia’s anti-corruption perception had been on a downward spiral ever since Abdullah’s takeover as Prime Minister.

Only last week, there was more bad news for Malaysia and Abdullah’s 40-month premiership.

The Hong Kong-based Political and Economic Risk Consultancy (PERC) 2007 corruption table in Asia,  which is released every year based on a poll of expatriates working in Asia on their perceptions on corruption, is bad and grim news for all Malaysians concerned about national integrity, good governance and international competitiveness.

In a grading system with zero as the best possible score and 10 as the worst, Malaysia was ranked sixth in Asia with a score of 6.25 by PERC Corruption Asia 2007.

In 1996, Malaysia was ranked No. 4 with a score of 5, a reflection of the relentless deterioration of the corruption problem in the country over the years.

As the PERC annual corruption ranking is one of the polls used by Transparency International (TI) for its annual Corruption Perception Index (CPI), this is very bad news as the PERC 2007 Corruption Table is a forewarning that Malaysia is heading south towards No. 50 placing in TI CPI 2007 on the occasion of Malaysia’s 50th Merdeka anniversary this year.

In the past four years, Malaysia’s ranking on the TI CPI had already dropped seven places from No. 37 in 2003 to No. 44 in 2006 — making nonsense of the National Integrity Plan launched by Abdullah in May 2004 with its objective for Malaysia to achieve at least No. 30 ranking within five years, i.e. by next year 2008!

There are many grim warnings from the 2007 PERC Corruption Table (Asia) that Malaysia is losing out in our international competitiveness because of  our failure to enhance our good governance indicators, particularly in the war against corruption.

It will not be long before Malaysia slips further in the Asian and international corruption rankings, as we are also losing out to China and India.

In 1996, China was ranked the No.12 in Asia with a score of  8, but it has now leapt to No. 7,  breathing down the neck of Malaysia, with a score of 6.29, only 0.04 marginally less than Malaysia’s score of 6.25. India was ranked No. 8 with a score of 6.86 in 1996, and although it is ranked No. 9,  its score has improved to 6.67, or 0.42 behind Malaysia.

If Malaysia does not pull up our bootstraps in the fight against corruption, we will soon be losing out to China and India — and it must be regarded as a national shame and tragedy if in any  future international corruption ranking, Malaysia is regarded as so corrupt as even to lose out to China and India!

Parliament must seriously address and debate  the worst corruption crisis in the nation’s history, eroding public confidence in the integrity of institutions mandated  to fight corruption, like the ACA.

In the past 39 years, the ACA had been regarded as a “paper tiger”, with  only power to go after  the “ikan bilis” but not after  the “ikan yu’s”even in the Abdullah administration as proven  by the disappearance of the 18 “big fishes” which had escaped into the “high seas”.

A fundamental line has now been crossed by the ACA, when public doubts and skepticism are no more confined to its effectiveness or impotence to deal with the “high-profile”corrupt despite the worsening corruption problem in the country as reflected by the 21-place drop from No. 23 to No. 44 in the Transparency International Corruption Perception Index in the past 12 years from 1995 to 2006.

For the first time in its 40-year history, public doubts and skepticism about the ACA have now extended to its very core purpose, the  heart and soul of ACA on its integrity and incorruptibility. — with the ACA Director-General himself alleged to be guilty of corruption.

This has been aggravated by the farce illustrated by the following scenario:

Question One: Who is investigating the serious corruption allegations against the Anti-Corruption Agency (ACA) Director-General Datuk Seri Zulkipli Mat Noor?

Answer: Police

Question Two: Who is investigating the serious corruption allegations against Deputy Internal Security Minister, Datuk Mohd Johari Baharum of the  EO “freedom for sale” corruption?

Answer: ACA.

Question Three: Will the ACA on the one hand and the Police and Internal Security Ministry on the other scratch each other’s back and exonerate one another?

Who can give a categorical answer in the negative? In fact, will the majority of Malaysians give “Yes” instead of “No” to the question?

Unless the answer to Question Three is in the categorical negative for all or the overwhelming majority of Malaysians, then Malaysia has a very serious integrity question about the institutions in the country mandated to fight corruption and uphold law and order — the ACA, the Police, the Attorney-General’s Chambers.

If Abdullah is serious about honouring his “zero-tolerance for corruption” pledge, there should at least be three policy initiatives in the Royal Address to give concrete form to his  commitment to combat corruption, viz:

	a Royal Commission of Inquiry on Corruption, probing  the ACA and why corruption had worsened in the past three years instead of improving as well as  the efficacy of asset declarations by government leaders, including Cabinet Ministers.

	legislation to confer full autonomy to the ACA, removing it from the jurisdiction of the Prime Minister’s Office and making it fully independent and answerable only to Parliament.

	ACA director-general Zulkifli going on leave until outcome of investigations into serious corruption allegations made against him by former top ACA officer and whistleblower Ramli Manan.

But there was none of these government initiatives although the Royal Address did emphasise that “efforts to instill integrity and eliminate corruption and abuse of power must be intensified”.  After the unprecedented 91% parliamentary majority in the March 2004 general election and 40 months, the time for “statement of intent” is long past and it is time for action and results.

The ACA did not act independently and professionally when it did a most unusual thing in releasing selectively information to exonerate its director-general by revealing details of Zulkipli’s various declaration of assets in public service — when the serious corruption allegations against Zulkipli was being investigated by the police.

This reminds me of my query to the ACA in July 2005  why it had failed to take action in the case of the former Sabah Chief Minister and Federal Minister for Land and Co-operatives, Datuk Seri Osu Sukam, in its investigations as to how he could have amassed such astronomical wealth as to gamble RM158.7  million, lose RM31.6 million and  run up RM7.1 million debts in a London casino a year after political retirement, apart from bigger gambling debts in other casinos as well as in other countries like Australia.

I had pointed out that in Osu Sukam’s 15 years in various public offices from Deputy Works Minister in 1986 to Sabah Chief Minister 1999-2001, Osu would have at least made four declarations of his assets to the Prime Minister.

All these four declaration of assets to the Prime Minister should be the basis on which the ACA should launch a thorough investigation as to whether Osu had corruptly and illegally amassed  such astronomical wealth as to enable him to gamble hundreds of millions of ringgit in various casinos in London and Australia a year after his political retirement.

Or are declarations of assets whether by political leaders in government or top government officers so unsatisfactory and defective that they are worthless tools in the battle to promote national integrity and combat corruption?   This is why the efficacy of assets declarations by government leaders, whether political or civil servant, should also be a subject of a Royal Commission Inquiry.

Now erosion of public confidence in the integrity of institutions have spread further  to include the Parliamentary Select Committee on Integrity, as a result of its majority decision yesterday to cancel the hearings for Zullkipli and Ramli earlier scheduled for tomorrow.

I am barred from parliamentary standing orders from disclosing what transpired at yesterday’s Select Committee meeting, but there is no hiding my deep disappointment and  the adverse public reactions to the latest developments. As I said on my blog, I am mulling over whether I should continue to sit on the Parliamentary Select Committee on Integrity.

[Speech (8) on Royal Address debate in Parliament 21.3.07]

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 22 March 2007, 4:44 pm and is filed under
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.


Trend of greater official secrecy under Pak Lah government

The third front where I had hoped  would be special mention of new policy initiatives  in the Royal Address is in connection with Abdullah’s pledge to lead an open, accountable and transparent administration  — in particular  a firm government commitment to introduce a Freedom of Information Act to replace the Official Secrets Act (OSA) and the removal of the OSA and declassification of  all privatization contracts, whether toll contracts, power  and water concessions, to put them in the public domain for the scrutiny of the Malaysian public.

The Works Minister, Datuk Seri S. Samy Vellu was recently very incensed and hurt. He appeared on the front page of New Sunday Times (Feb. 25, 2007) with blaring headlines: “‘Works Minister, still smarting over being accused of ‘going for blood’, says… ‘I’m no Dracula'”.

Samy Vellu accused me of calling him a Dracula.

He said: “Lim Kit Siang said I was going for blood. He was indirectly saying I’m a Dracula. Only a Dracula goes for blood. A man and politician of his age and experience should be more cultured when he talks about other people.”

I said he was “bloodthirsty” and I stand by what I said. But I never said he is Dracula. If he is a Dracula, then it is his own self-description!

Let me state in this House  that “Dracula” had never entered my mind when in my statement of 3rd February I had demanded to know why Samy Vellu was “suddenly so ‘bloodthirsty’ as to want four Opposition leaders, namely Tan Sri Khalid Ibrahim and Tian Chua of PKR, Ronnie Liu of DAP and Dr. Hatta Ramli (PAS) jailed for at least a year under the Official Secrets Act (OSA) for revealing that the government had guaranteed profits to Litrak in the Lebuhraya Damansara-Puchong (LDP) concession agreement?”

This is what I said in that statement:

“What have the four done that they must be treated like ‘highway robbers’ and must be made to  suffer the  most severe form of punitive punishment, of being jailed for at least one year, if they are charged under the OSA and found guilty of unauthorized communication of an official secret?

“Have they done anything akin to sabotage or imperil the national economy, subvert the national security or undermine national stability?

“I do not believe that Samy Vellu, even in his most creative best, would be able to make out a prima facie case that the four Opposition leaders had done any of these terrible things in connection with he publication of the Litrak LDP concession agreement.

“I went back to the news reports as to what was revealed about the Litrak LDP concession — that the LDP concession:

	  was “lopsided and not done in the best interest of the people”.

	 allows the concessionaire to continue collecting toll irrespective of whether the company is reaping profits or making losses.

	 that the government has very little power under the agreement as the  concessionaire can continue to collect toll regardless of how much collection it has made.

“Are these revelations so earth-shattering   as to shake the government, society and nation to their very roots as to require invocation of a draconian and repressive law to jail the four for a minimum term of one year each?

“In fact, astute Malaysians would have guessed the lopsided contents in the concession agreements and privatization contracts, even without sighting them.

“The question is what has made Samy Vellu so ‘bloodthirsty’ that he is behaving as if he has usurped the powers of the Attorney-General or had arrogated to himself the powers of a Super Attorney-General on toll concessions and OSA prosecutions?  Why is he demanding his pound of flesh, muttering that ‘they will have to pay the price’?

“Samy Vellu should know that anyone charged and convicted under the OSA would be mandatorily jailed for a minimum of one year, regardless of whether the offence is grave or trivial, or the motive — whether it is to betray the country by selling national defence secrets or in the exercise of the  highest form of patriotism to uphold accountability, transparency and integrity and to expose corruption and abuses of power.

“This was because Samy Vellu is one of the few remaining Cabinet Ministers responsible for the most  shameful, undemocratic, repressive, draconian and pernicious pieces of legislation in the land  –  the 1986 amendment to the Official Secrets Act imposing a mandatory minimum  one-year jail sentence on conviction, regardless of the gravity of the offence or the noble motivation for the disclosure. ”

Samy Vellu had lost out the public argument for his “bloodthirstiness” in wanting the four Opposition “whistleblowers” jailed for at least one year under the OSA while being blissfully unconcerned of similar breaches of the OSA by the concession companies, equity analysts and rating agencies which had freely made use of “official secrets” in the highway concessions to publicly flog their shares, loans and bonds.

I welcome  Samy Vellu’s recent changeof-heart  to fly the standard of a reformer and advocate for government openness, accountability and transparency over his efforts in the Cabinet to declassify the highway concessions.

Let me tell Samy Vellu that he cannot make the transformation from his self-description of  “Dracula” to a saint unless he publicly apologises for his earlier “bloodthirstiness” in demanding that the four Opposition leaders be jailed for at least one year for “blowing the whistle” about the lopsided Litrak LDP concession.

This act of remorse and contrition must be followed up by his public advocacy, starting in the Cabinet, that all OSA investigations and proceedings,  including against the four Opposition leaders over the toll concessions, should be halted until the OSA is phased out and replaced by a Freedom of Information Act.

But instead  of abolishing the cult and  infrastructure of secrecy, inimical to the principles of openness, accountability, transparency and good governance espoused by Abdullah, there is the reverse process of  greater secrecy which must be deplored and halted  — as evidenced by the New Straits Times report of March 11, 2007 in the expansion of the ambit of the OSA to cover several documents related to claims by contractors for extra funds for government projects, such as:

	The assessment report by the officer in charge of overseeing a government project;

	Comments by the government Claims Committee;

	Minutes of the Claims Committee’s meeting;

	The document stating the decision of the Claims Committee; and,

	The document which proposes the ex-gratia payment to be paid.

However, my hopes that in  at least three areas  of anti-corruption, police reform and freedom of information there would be new government initiatives in the Royal Address have been proved wrong as there was not a single new government initiative for the new year.

[Speech (10) on Royal Address debate in Parliament 21.3.07]

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 22 March 2007, 4:56 pm and is filed under
Good Governance
,
Parliament
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


“Bangsa Malaysia” – has it been  abandoned by Cabinet, UMNO and BN?

It is most ironical and tragic that the government’s nation-building objectives had come under a cloud on  the occasion of the nation’s 50th  Merdeka anniversary — whether the Barisan Nasional government is still committed or has abandoned the objective of creating a Bangsa Malaysia.

After the  denunciation of the Bangsa Malaysia concept and objective  by the Johore Mentri Besar, Datuk Abdul  Ghani Othman at a Umno Johore conference in early November last year –  a run-up to the “fire-and-brimstone” Umno and Umno Youth general assemblies the following week — the Federal and State Governments appear to have distanced themselves from the Bangsa Malaysia objective.

Let us not forget history. The Bangsa Malaysia concept was proclaimed  in Vision 2020 in 1991 with the objective that it be achieved within three decades in 2020 with the emergence of a people entirely Malaysian in perspective, transcending ethnic, religious and cultural differences

This was how Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad, who proclaimed Viksion 2020, explained  the Bangsa Malaysia concept at the time:

This is the report from the Star (Sept. 11, 1995), which carried the  front-page headline
“ESCHEW ETHNICITY’
, with a secondary headline of
“PM: Be proud of being Malaysians”
:

“Kuala Lumpur – Datuk Seri Dr. Mahathir Mohamad said Malaysians should reduce their strong sense of ethnicity in order to achieve Bangsa Malaysia.

“He said citizens should be proud of being Malaysians and work together instead of being preoccupied with ethnic origin.

“‘Bangsa Malaysia means people who are able to identify themselves with the country, speak Bahasa Malaysia and accept the Constitution,’ he said at a dialogue with the Malaysian Students Executive Council of the United Kingdom here yesterday.

“The Prime Minister said to realise the goal of Bangsa Malaysia, the people should start accepting each other as they are, regardless of race and religion.

” Dr. Mahathir said certain quarters may condemn him for wanting to achieve Bangsa Malaysia and not struggling for the Malay cause as he did during his early years in politics.

“He said when he was fighting for the Malay cause per se, he was young and his thoughts were that of an inexperienced politician.

“Dr. Mahathir said, in future, there would be no nation in the world which would have a single ethnic group as its citizen.

“‘People have a high degree of mobility and no nation will have the purity of a singular race with the exception of probably Japan and Korea.”

“Dr. Mahathir said while a citizen of a nation may associate himself with the country, he would not be readily prepared to give up his culture, religion, or language.

“‘Previously, we tried to have a single entitybut it caused a lot of tension and suspicions among the people because they thought the Goverment was trying to create a hybrid.

“‘There was fear among the people that they may have to give up their own cultures, values and religions. This could not work, and we believe that the Bangsa Malaysia is the ansswer,’ he added.”

On 7th August 1996, in an interview with the Editor-in-Chief of with the Utusan Melayu Group, Johan Jaafar, on race relations in Malaysia, Dr. Mahathir said:

“PM: Zaman berubah. Kalau dahulu tumpuan ialah kita kepada asimilasi. Di mana-mana negara juga tidak ada lagi usaha untuk ‘asimilasi’, bahkan di Amerika Syarikat mereka sering bercakap berkenaan dengan ‘roots’ asal-usul mereka. Jadi kalau kita sudah terima bahawa itu tidak mungkin, kita perlu cari jalan lain untuk merapatkan perhubungan antara kaum ini. Seperti kata De Bono, Lateral Thinking, kalau kita tidak boleh merentas satu jalan maka kita pergi ke jalan lain untuk sampai ke matlamat yang sama.”

In an  interview with TIME magazine for the December 9, 1996 issue, which carried Dr. Mahathir as the cover story, the  then Prime Minister said:

“TIME: You recently said that efforts to assimilate races have not been successful and it was time to try something else.

“Mahathir: The idea before was that people should become 100% Malay in order to be Malaysian. We now accept that this is a multi-racial country. We should build bridges instead of trying to remove completely the barriers separating us. We do not intend to convert all the Chinese to Islam, and we tell our people, the Muslims, ‘you will not try to force people to convert’.”

I  had at the time commended Dr.  Mahathir for the evolution of his thinking on nation-building for Malaysia, for this was one of the cornerstones of the DAP political struggle when we were formed in 1966, to establish that Malaysia is a multi-racial, multi-lingual, multi-cultural and multi-religious nation and that the only viable and successful nation-building policy must be one based on integration and not on assimilation.

Many DAP leaders had to pay a heavy price in terms of loss of personal freedoms or being persecuted in courts for courageously defending and upholding the rights of all races, languages, cultures and religions in a multi-racial Malaysia.

In the sixties, seventies and eighties, when there were political forces trying to impose and implement a “One Language, One Culture” nation-building policy, the DAP was the only political voice and force in Parliament and in the country to declare its uncompromising opposition.

There is no doubt that if there had been no DAP in the last three decades, the attempt to impose a “One Language, One Culture” Policy in Malaysia would have been taken to extreme lengths with disastrous results both for national unity as well as development.

Mahathir’s public acknowledgement that assimilation had not and cannot be a successful nation-building policy is a vindication of the DAP’s political struggle for a Malaysian Malaysia.

The question on the occasion of the 50th Merdeka Anniversary is whether the Johore Mentri Besar Ghani Othman’s rejection of Bangsa Malaysia now holds sway in Umno, Barisan Nasional and the government.

I am quite disturbed that the objective of Bangsa Malaysia has been conspicuously omitted in the Royal Address, which is  the government policy speech,

I call on the  Prime Minister to  explain whether a policy decision has been taken by the Federal Government to acquiesce  to the objection of  the Johore Mentri Besar who had claimed that there was no justification for the concept and objective  for a united and single Bangsa Malaysia or a Malaysian race, when the constitution provides clearly for Malays as “the pivotal race” —  or to backtrack from an open commitment to achieve a Bangsa Malaysia under Vision 2020.

Has the Cabinet and Barisan Nasional Supreme Council endorsed the abandonment of the concept and objective of Vision 2020 for a Bangsa Malaysia, cold-storaged it  or have they reaffirmed that Bangsa Malaysia remain the unshakeable and unaltereable objective of the government, nation and Vision 2020?

Or is the Cabinet and the Barisan Nasional  Supreme Council just hiding their heads under the sand like ostriches, avoiding the issue altogether?

If the Prime Minister, Cabinet and  Barisan Nasional Supreme Council are not prepared to reaffirm Bangsa Malaysia as the national goal and Vision 2020 objective, then what is the meaning and purpose of the 50th Merdeka Anniversary celebrations?

I call on all MPs, whether Barisan Nasional or Opposition, to stand up in Parliament in this debate to declare loud and clear  their categorical support for  the Bangsa Malaysia objective of Vision 2020 and repudiation of Ghani Othman’s subversive thesis  to destroy the Bangsa Malaysia concept.  Let everyone in Parliament, every political party represented in Parliament, stand up and be counted in full support of  the Bangsa Malaysia objective.

I hope we will not end up with a situation where only DAP MPs dare to openly support the Bangsa Malaysia concept and objective for Malaysian nation-building while  Ministers and MPs particularly from the Barisan Nasional component parties fall silent on the matter, one by one.

[Speech (12) on Royal Address debate in Parliament 22.3.07]

                This entry was posted on Friday, 23 March 2007, 10:29 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.


Musa Hitam’s merit call for IDR to attract FDIs  – extend to whole country

Thirdly, on international competitiveness.

The Royal Address quoted the World Competitiveness Yearbook 2006 where Malaysia’s position has improved from 28th place in 2005 to 23rd place in 2006.

Since last month, the government has tried  to generate a  “feel good”  atmosphere among the people with the message  that good economic times are back.

Parliament was told that since 3rd January 2007, the Bursa Malaysia Composite Index has been recording an encouraging performance and exceeded 1,200 points, a level which has not been reached since the Asian currency crisis in July 1997.  There was the record 2006  trade volume breaching RM1 trillion. We are told that in  2006, “total investments in the country remained  strong, reaching its highest level in the history of our nation”.

On February 13, International Trade and Industry Minister, Datuk Seri Rafidah Aziz announced that Malaysia is back on the global investment map, with a record RM46 billion investments in 1,077 approved manufacturing projects last year by local and foreign investors — a 48 per cent jump from the RM31 billion invested in 2005. This was made up of RM20.2 billion of foreign investments and RM25.8 billion in local investments.

Is the government right that Malaysia is “out of the woods”, dispelling the  gloomy news in the past few months that Malaysia is in danger of dropping out from the radar of foreign investors because of increasing lack of international competitiveness, whether in efficiency of public service, quality of education, good governance, transparency and integrity?

The United Nations Conference Trade and Development (Unctad) World Investment Report 2006 last October revealed unflattering figures about Malaysia for the year 2005,  viz:

	Foreign direct investment (FDI) in Malaysia dipped to US$3.97 billion in 2005  from US$4.62 billion in 2004;

	For the first time since 1990, Indonesia managed to overtake Malaysia in drawing FDIs. Inflows to Indonesia surged by 177% to US$5.26 billion in 2005. Indonesia  registered a 177 per cent  hike in FDI from US$1.89 billion in 2004 to US$5.26 billion in 2005, while Malaysia suffered a 14.3 per cent shrinkage of FDI.

	As a whole, FDIs to South, East and South-East Asia reached a new high of US$165 billion in 2005, a 19% increase over 2004, with China (US$72 billion), Hong Kong (US$36 billion) and Singapore (US$20 billion) as the biggest receipients of FDIs in 2005.

Rafidah’s FDI figures to justify her claim that Malaysia is back on the FDI radar  do not  tally with the latest Unctad figures released in its
“Number 1, 2007 Unctad Investment Brief”
 which has given an even lower estimate for FDI for Malaysia for 2006 as compared to 2005.

In its preliminary estimates of FDI inflows in 2006, Unctad figures for Malaysia sees a shrinkage of 1.6 per cent to US$3.9 billion from US$4.0 the previous year, while  FDIs for the whole region of “South, East and South-east Asia” registers an increase of 13.1 per cent from  US$165.1 billion in 2005 to US$186.7 billion, with Thailand recording a 114.7 per cent increase  from US$3.7 billion in 2005 to US$7.9 billion and Singapore a 58% increase from US$20.1 billion in 2005 to US$31.9 billion.

Parliament is entitled to an explanation for  the RM6.4 billion difference in MITI’s  FDI figure of RM20.2 billion (or US$5.7 billion) for 2006 and UNCTAD’s preliminary estimates of US$3.9 billion (RM13.8 billion) for the same year.

This difference would increase to RM9.85 billion if we take into consideration two qualifications to the MITI figures released by Rafidah:

Firstly, the figures are for approved FDI figures for the year which are very different from actual FDI inflows for the year. For instance, for 2005, approved FDIs in manufacturing was RM17.9 billion (US$4.71), but actual FDI inflow into the country was US$3.97 (RM15.1 billion) — a shortfall of RM2.8 billion.

Secondly, the FDIs in manufacturing represents only 75% of total FDIs, which will bring the difference between FDIs for manufacturing as approved and actual inflows for 2005 to RM6.6 billion.

On the same basis that some 75 per cent of FDI inflows in 2006 was for manufacturing, then the difference between MITI and Unctad figures  for FDI inflows for manufacturing would increase further to RM 9.85 billion — which is no small figure.

A full and proper explanation for these different set of FDI figures should be given to the people in keeping with the government’s pledge of accountability, transparency and good governance.

Bloombert has reported that former deputy prime minister Tun Musa Hitam has proposed that the government should exempt the Iskandar Development Region (IDR) in South Johor from policies that favour the bumiputras to help attract foreign investors to the huge growth area.

Musa, who sits in an advisory panel for the project, said policies that gave the bumiputras privileged access to government contracts and guarantee a minimum presence in the workplace may deter foreign companies interested in investing in the IDR.

Musa said contract awards “will have to be on merit” – “The Malays will have to face competition.”

I fully endorse Musa’s call. In fact, it should be extended to the whole of Malaysia and not just to IDR, as it is not  just IDR that must maintain the best-possible posture in international competitiveness to attract FDIs, the same considerations apply for the whole country as well.

During the debate on the Mid-Term of the Fifth Malaysia Plan in Parliament on 28th June 1989, I had specifically called for the end of the New Economic Policy and its policy of quotas and ethnic percentages in 1990 and the adoption of the principle of social equity and merit in the interest of national unity and international competitiveness.

[Speech (14) on Royal Address debate in Parliament 22.3.07]

                This entry was posted on Friday, 23 March 2007, 10:42 am and is filed under
NEP
,
Parliament
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


National service programme and Hisham’s keris-wielding

This year  is a the  50th Merdeka Anniversary for the nation.

There are two ways to celebrate the half-century of nationhood –  in  a lavish expenditure of public funds in  fireworks, extravaganzas and pageantry or to celebrate it  in a meaningful manner to instill greater national solidarity and sense of purpose in the nation’s journey to achieve a Bangsa Malaysia and a fully developed nation status.

Parliament, as the highest political forum in the land, should set the national example to celebrate the half-century of  our nationhood in a meaningful manner, with Malaysians regardless of race, religion, class or political beliefs standing up for  fair, just and progressive nation-building policies to create towering Malaysians and to  stop Malaysia’s loss of international competitiveness.

The most meaningful way to celebrate the country’s  half-century of nationhood is to seek a   national consensus as  to what had gone wrong with nation-building and how we can learn from the mistakes and failures of the past decades so that we can be more successful in the next 50 years, in particular on the following issues:

Firstly, National unity — why after nearly five decades of nationhood, race relations in Malaysia is “not good, fragile and brittle”, as publicly admitted by the Prime Minister recently.  Racial and religious polarization have never been more serious today than in the past five decades.

The introduction of the national service training programme in 2004 is testimony of the failure of the national education system to create national unity in the country — and this is no surprise when the Education Minister, Datuk Seri Hishamuddin Hussein is the very symbol and cause of such polarization  with his racist  keris-wielding histrionics at Umno general assemblies.

The national service training programme is a misnomer it has nothing to do with national defence or fighting a war but to instill national unity, patriotism and discipline.

But even for the limited objective of the national youth service training programme to inculcate national unity, patriotism and discipline, a  comprehensive review and even suspension is warranted as it is highly debatable whether such limited goals are being  achieved and whether such a programme should be organized for all students during their school years instead of have a very costly and most dubious one affecting only one-fifth of school-leavers.

There are two   other reasons why the national service training programme has not inspired general confidence of the parents and the public:

	Firstly, the defects, flaws, mishaps, sub-standard camp conditions,  crimes and tragedies of the national service training programme since its inception, with  12 trainee deaths with four  in the last two months, i.e.Ili Ameera binti Azlan (18.1.07), Teng Siau Shean (30.1.07), Zul Hadi bin Basir (20.2.07) and  Prema Elenchelian (28.2.07) and   the most recent case of paralysis of Asilalatin Abdul Basir from Pasir Mas.  With three trainee deaths in 2004,  three in 2005,  two in 2006, and four alone in the first two months of this year, how can parents feel safe to have their children selected for the programme?

	Secondly, the programme’s  failure to be a model of integrity, accountability and transparency without a whiff of scandal to dispel all suspicion that the refusal to suspend the troubled national service training programme was prompted more by vested  crony interests in the annual expenditures of some RM500-RM600  million for the programme, which would total some RM2 billion at the end of this year’s programme.

As the Defence Minister in direct charge of the national service training programme, Deputy Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak should give a detailed breakdown of the RM500 — RM600 million  million expenditure a year since 2004 for the national service training programme, showing what, how, where, who and when expenditures under the programme were made, whether open tender had been called, and if so, the respective bids for the different contracts under the programme.

[Speech (11) on Royal Address debate in Parliament 22.3.07]

                This entry was posted on Friday, 23 March 2007, 10:20 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.


PM – address cumulative Article 11 concerns

Secondly, on Inter-religious relations today and the past 50 years.   In the first two decades of nationhood, the government sponsored the establishment of a Inter-Religious Council headed by a Cabinet Minister to promote inter-religious dialogue, understanding and goodwill. Today, a very similar proposal, the Inter-Faith Council, is regarded as highly sensitive and intolerable by the government-of-the day. What  has gone wrong?

It is most regrettable that despite six requests in the past nine months, the Prime Minister has refused to meet the Article 11 coalition of 11 civil society groups to uphold the Federal Constitution as the supreme law of the land — or even to give any response.

Why is the Prime Minister who preaches inter-religious dialogue in international conferences adopting such a hostile attitude to Article 11 and domestic inter-religious dialogue?

Non-Muslim concerns about religious freedom as entrenched in Article 11 have been re-ignited by the latest Court of Appeal judgment in the R. Subashini case.

Just like the  S. Shamala case in 2004, the Hindu women found they could not seek legal remedy in the civil courts to protect their rights after their husbands converted to Islam and unilaterally converted their children.

While the civil courts told Shamala to seek the Majlis Agama Islam Wilayah Persekutuan’s help, Subashini was told to gain recourse through the Syariah  Appeal Court.

Since Shamala’s case, there had been the M. Moorthy, Nyonya Tahir, Anthony Rayappan and Lina Joy cases, where  the court has not provided just remedies to the grievances raised by the plaintiffs on constitutional grounds, causing grave injustices and setting dangerous precedents in subjecting non-Muslims to the laws or Islam.

If Islam Hadhari as espoused by the Prime Minister cannot give justice to non-Muslim Malaysians to uphold  the constitutional right to freedom of religion, then Islam Hadhari will not only be seen as irrelevant but detrimental to the constitutional rights and freedoms of non-Muslims —  definitely not a desirable way to celebrate Malaysia’s 50th Merdeka anniversary.

I call on the Prime Minister to meet with Article 11 and play a proactive role to allay the cumulative concerns of non-Muslims about their constitutional right to freedom of religion.

[Speech (13) on Royal Address debate in Parliament 22.3.07]

                This entry was posted on Friday, 23 March 2007, 10:35 am and is filed under
Human Rights
,
nation building
,
Parliament
,
Religion
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Why still no Chief Judge of Malaya after 2 1/2 months?

Fourthly, on an independent judiciary — Malaysia was held in high international esteem until the 1988 judicial crisis, and the nation has not fully recovered from the trauma and fall-outs of the successive series of judicial crisis for the ensuing 15 years. How to restore full public confidence in the system of justice in the country?

The answer by the Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, Datuk Nazri Aziz  to Karpal Singh (DAP-Bukit Glugor) yesterday that  the government has no plans to set up a Judicial Commission for the appointment of judges is most deplorable.

What is even more shocking is that this is also the view of the Chief Justice, Tun Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim who had likened the proposal for an independent judicial commission on appointment and promotion of judges as akin to nudity rather than transparency.  Such comment by the higher judicial officer in the land  is most  ill-advised, in poor taste and reflect badly  on the office of Chief Justice.

Ahmad Fairuz may be unhappy with the proposal of an independent judicial commission to oversee the selection and promotion of judges, but he should realize that this proposal pre-dates his appointment to the top judicial post in the land  and meant to enhance public confidence in the system of justice and  in that context,  there is nothing personal against any personal holder of the office.

Ahmad Fairuz should not have questioned  the motives of those who had made the proposal, such as the Bar Council and several prominent lawyers, posing the rhetorical question:  “Are we to allow whoever has cases in court and who lost to decide on the fate of judges?”  He ignores the support of retired judges for the proposal.

It is absolutely wrong and  inapt to categorise the proposal of an independent Judicial Commission as an exercise in nudity rather than transparency, especially when this judicial reform had been adopted by other countries such as Canada, New Zealand, South Africa and the United Kingdom.

The proposal for a Judicial Appointments Commission was not made only during Fairuz’s  tenure as Chief Justice.

I for one had been calling for a new system of judicial appointments to ensure transparency, top-quality judges  and a world-class justice system since the nineties.

Here, I want to know what has happened to Fairuz’s  public undertaking  on his appointment as Chief Justice some four years ago in 2003 to recast the Judges’ Code of Ethics to restore public confidence in judicial independence, impartiality and integrity.

Has the Chief Justice reneged on his commitment to recast the Judges’ Code of Ethics to fully restore public confidence in the  independence, impartiality and integrity of the judiciary?

It is most surprising that  the post of Chief Judge of Malaya had not been filled for over two-and-a-half  months since the retirement of Tan Sri Siti Normah on 5th January 2007.

The excuse that it will take some time to fill the position of the Chief Judge of Malaya because the name of the candidate had to be forwarded to the Prime Minister who would advise the Conference of Rulers on the appointment and that the Conference only meet once in three months is completely unacceptable, as it is known at least six months in advance when the position would definitely fall vacant — when Siti Normah was given a six-month extension (which cannot be further extended) when she turned 66 on July 6 last year.

It reflects poorly on the efficiency and professionalism of the Chief Justice that he cannot ensure a smooth transition for high judicial appointments so that a new Chief Judge of Malaya was able to take over from Siti Normah on her retirement on 5th January 2007.

At present, Ahmad Fairuz is the Acting Chief Judge of Malaya. Is this proper and even constitutional?  Will Malaysia one day have a Chief Justice who even trebles up as Acting President of the Court of Appeal as well as Chief Judge of Malaya?

[Speech (15) on Royal Address debate in Parliament 22.3.07]

                This entry was posted on Friday, 23 March 2007, 10:52 am and is filed under
Court
,
Parliament
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.