The ultimate Malaysian debate: Malaysia or Malaysaja?

By
Nurul Izzah Anwar

AUG 31 — Perkasa claims to defend Malay rights in a multi racial Malaysia. And these Malay rights are inalienable, non-negotiable and permanent. Those that disagree with their interpretation of these Malays rights are deemed treacherous and should leave Malaysia.

In the spirit of Ramadhan and Merdeka, I would like to invite Perkasa to a Constructive Engagement for a new beginning for Malaysia with me.

I would like to ask Perkasa, several key questions to better understand, and together seek real solutions for the crisis it claims the Malays are facing.

I believe that Perkasa is the current vocal, and not necessarily the majority voice of the Malays. And by all indication, Perkasa is the alter-ego of Umno.

If Perkasa can be engaged constructively and a resolution found, then we would have answered the acid-test of Malay concerns once and for all?

To have an honest Constructive Engagement or dialogue, I suggest that we must decide on four fundamental principles.

First, we must base our dialogue on an agreed standard reference document. Should it be the Malaysian Constitution? The Umno constitution? Or the Perkasa constitution?

If we are unable to decide then our dialogue becomes futile and a monologue at best.

However, looking at how Perkasa continues to refer to Article 153 (even brandishing a copy of the constitution in media events) we can infer that the Constitution indeed is the preferred standard reference document for this dialogue.

Second, once we decide on the standard reference document, then we have to address the issue of constitutional interpretation?

For example, nowhere in the written constitution is it mentioned specifically of the existence of the term ‘Malay rights’. Instead the only term spelled out is the ‘Special Position’ of the Malays in Article 153.

The Article contains specifically, of the powers vested in the Yang di Pertuan Agong to ensure that places in the civil service and institutions of higher learning along with quotas in the allocation of scholarships, and permits or licences required for business and trade are reserved for the Malays and the natives of Sabah and Sarawak.

Another case in point is interpreting to reconcile the ‘Special Position’ of the Malays provisions with other non-Malay citizens with Article 8(1): “All persons are equal before the law and entitled to the equal protection of the law”; and Article 8(2): Except as expressly authorised by this Constitution, there shall be no discrimination against citizens on the ground only of religion, race, descent or place of birth in any law relating to the acquisition, holding or disposition of property or the establishing or carrying on of any trade, business, profession, vocation or employment.

It would be ideal to have a mandated entity such as a Constitutional Court or at least a Constitutional Council appointed by the King to act as the final interpreter of any constitutional issues.

The role of the King is central to the issue of constitutional interpretation, as Article 153 of the Constitution states that: “It shall be the responsibility of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong to safeguard the special position of the Malays and natives of any of the States of Sabah and Sarawak and the legitimate interests of other communities in accordance with the provisions of this Article.”

However, it should be noted that the existing judiciary already acts as an interpreter of constitutional matters in Malaysia.

For the purpose of this dialogue, both sides can present their interpretation of the constitution to be rebutted subsequently.

Third, the dialogue be made public and presented to the people for feedback and validation.

Again, it would have been ideal if a Referendum Process is legalised whereby such fundamental issue can be decided and resolved by the citizens and made binding to all.

As an alternative, the public feedback for comments and recommendation mechanism through letters or the internet would have to do. It is not binding but it would be a measure of public participation, which can only enrich our democratic process.

Fourth, the dialogue format is suggested as follows, I shall submit my point of view in the form of this open article to Perkasa for a rebuttal, and also later for Perkasa to provide their version for my subsequent rebuttal.

The outcome shall be presented to the public for comments and recommendations.

Then as a test of sincerity I invite Perkasa to a Publicly Televised Debate.

Dialogue Safeguards

I propose both Perkasa and I will indemnify all political parties from our views.

Maybe Umno might disagree with Perkasa’s views or PR mine. And all political parties can participate at the comments and recommendations stage if it wishes.

To avoid being seditious, I propose that our views are qualified as an attempt to seek clarification and not to challenge or repeal the Constitution.

I believe that Perkasa and I are true Malaysians and Patriots, but that only our views may differ, hopefully for now.

However, if Perkasa refuses to engage on this matter at all, then it is sufficient for the people and history to judge this dialogue as my sincere attempt to reach out to them for the sake of our country.

My first question is; who is a Malay?

Article 160 of the Malaysian Constitution, defines Malay as being one who “professes the religion of Islam, habitually speaks the Malay language, conforms to Malay customs and is the child of at least one parent who was born within the Federation of Malaysia before independence of Malaya on the 31st of August 1957.”

Therefore, constitutionally, a Malay is one who speaks the language, practices the religion of Islam, and performs the rights and rituals of its culture.

My question to Perkasa is,  spiritually and intellectually, does a Malay accepts injustices, power abuse, corruption, racism, anti-democratic laws, state institutional degradation to ensure that the Malays are a Supreme Race in Malaysia, with first class citizenship privileges not to be shared with other non-Malay citizens?

My second question is; what are Malay rights?

Malay rights is an ideological and philosophical and not a legal and constitutional construct.

Article 153 only mentions the ‘Special Position’ of the Malays, and not the ‘Special Rights’ of the Malays.

The term Malay rights is alluding to the unwritten ‘Social Contract’ that defines a ‘Malay Agenda’ which has been extended to include the term ‘Malay rights’.

The Social Contract outlines certain privileges that the Malay community enjoys in exchange for granting citizenship rights to non-Malays during independence by the founding fathers as contained in Articles 14-18, Chapter 1 Part III- Citizenship, of the constitution.

These privileges collectively, are referred to as the ‘Malay Agenda’ which includes provisions on the status of Malay rulers to be preserved, with the head of state, the Yang di-Pertuan Agong to be elected from His Majesties.  Islam would be the national religion, and the Malay language would be the national language. The ‘Malay Agenda’ also includes provisions of economic privileges accorded by Article 153.

It is also pertinent to note, that according to the Reid Commission that drafted the constitution, Article 153 was intended as temporary preferences to seek racial parity, subject to be reviewed after 15 years by Parliament as to its continued need.

It then should have been reviewed in 1972 but was preceded by the 1969 race riots. Efforts were made, that no sunset clause be included for Article 153, and that under the Sedition Act (1971), it is illegal to be discussed even by Parliament.

These economic privileges in the aftermath of the 1969 race riots, was then institutionalised into the New Economic Policy (NEP) which was then extended as the New Development Policy (NDP) from 1990-2000 and currently we are in the final year of the 3rd Outline Perspective Plan (OPP3 2000-2010) which also includes the National Vision Policy.

However, we welcome the announced change from a race-based to a need-based affirmative action policy as outlined in NEM, but if past practices are any indication, the initial affirmative action stance along with an affiliation-based discrimination will still remain. We will continue to find that the actual wealth distribution will still be skewed to the cronies of the ruling elite.

This has become a ‘Malay Right and Entitlement’ and the cornerstone of ‘Ketuanan Melayu’, which continues to even overshadow the New Economic Model (NEM) initiated by the Najib government today.

My question to Perkasa is, has the concept of ‘Malay Rights’ now become a permanent convention that supersedes even the written constitution in policy and practice that has to be accepted by all non-Malay citizens?

My third question is; what is the Perceived ‘Malay Anger’ about?

Can it be that the ‘Malay Anger’ built on ‘Malay Insecurities’, may appear to be racist in form, but in essence is a ‘Malay Siege Mentality’ defensive reaction, to the failure in achieving the NEP goals (reborn as the NDP in 1990, followed by the OPP3 and refined as the current NEM) after 40 years of implementation?

Can it also be that the false sense of losing Malay Entitlement and Privileges has crystallised into a political ideology of ‘Ketuanan Melayu’, that further divides the nation?

Can it be that the Malays feel that they are getting poorer, marginalised and disillusioned in their own country in spite of the NEP and billions spent?

Can it really be that the ‘Malay Anger’ is conveniently blamed on the industry of the non-Malays and reformed minded Malays?

It seems that the ‘Malay Anger’ is centred on economic entitlements rather than on cultural, royalty, language, legal, educational, religious or political power deficiencies, where the Malay remains dominant and rightfully unchallenged, as seen from the official affirmative action policies, institutions and civil service population composition.

Could it be that the real question nagging the Malay psyche is, what then is the value and utility of having the Malay traditional dances, Royal institutions, Malay language, Malay medium schools, Federal and State Religious bodies, Syariah court system, civil service and the Federal and State governments remain dominantly Malay, when the Malay feels poor?

It is this imbalance of achievements that creates a dysfunctional Malay identity of being only Political Masters in name and not in wealth that keeps ‘Ketuanan Melayu’ alive.

The ‘Malay Anger’ is purposely focused on the dismal achievements of NEP goals and targets that is used as the justification to continue it ‘permanently’ at all cost and beyond reason.

Instead the angry Malays should focus on the diminishing ‘enabling’ factors to equitable and sustainable economic growth (as increasing the economic pie to achieve NEP targets is the main premise to wealth redistribution policies in NEP) caused by cronyism, corruption, wastages, leakages, wrong resource allocations (big projects phenomenon), racism, anti-democratic laws and state institutional degradation and abuse that in reality subverts and undermine achieving the well intended NEP goals.

My questions to Perkasa are;

Where does the real blame for the ‘Malay Anger’ lie? Is it with the NEP results or is it with its selective implementation, where only the ruling elite few and their cronies benefit to the detriment of the Malay majority?

How can Perkasa explain just one example, which is the well documented NEP leakage of RM52 billion in equities originally allocated to the Malays that have been sold off?

What impact has cronyism, corruption, wastages, leakages, wrong resource allocations (big projects phenomenon), racism, anti-democratic laws and state institutional degradation and abuse have in shaping the ‘Malay Anger’?

Who has really betrayed the ‘Malay Agenda and Malay Rights’?

My fourth and last question is; what is the end-game scenario that the unresolved ‘Malay Anger’ will lead to?

In my final analysis, only through free and fair elections that the people can decide if ‘Ketuanan Melayu’ or ‘Ketuanan Rakyat’ shall define Malaysia.

Once the next general election outcome is determined, and if ‘Ketuanan Melayu’ is victorious, then some may choose to vote with their feet (emigrate with massive brain drain and a diminishing tax base), and some will choose to vote with their wallet (domestic capital flight compounded with decreasing FDI that further stunts our economic growth), which in turn will indicate the makings of a potential failed state with irreversible consequences.

What is left will be a shell of a former Malaysia that could have been a great example of a democratic and pluralistic nation to the world.

We are truly at a monumental cross-road for the soul of our nation.

As a reminder of a possible way forward out of this ‘Malay Dilemma’, a Malaysian statesman, the late Tun Dr Ismail Abdul Rahman once argued that “the question (of the ‘Special Position’ of the Malays) be left to the Malays themselves because as more and more Malays became educated and gained self-confidence, they themselves would do away with this ‘special position’.” Ismail believed the special position was “a slur on the ability of the Malays.”

After 53 years, are we Malays not educated and self-confident yet?

After 53 years, are we Malays still ignorant to the real causes of our problems yet?

After 53 years, are we not Malay enough to act as the protector and provider of justice, equality, dignity, fraternity, liberty and peace for all who choose to co-exist as partners and fellow citizens yet?

In conclusion, we the Malays must stand up and do what is right for Malaysia and our children as they face the challenges of a competitive borderless world.

Would we be so blind and selfish to risk their future for our sins of the past and our deliberately induced insecurities of the present day?

Then my last question to Perkasa is; Will you allow our country to remain in name as Malaysia or be renamed as Malaysaja?

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 31 August 2010, 11:58 am and is filed under
Constitution
,
nation building
,
NEP
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Traitors – A Trademark & Tradition of Umno!

By
Martin Jalleh

The Umno-dominated government stubbornly sticks to the same old tricks to try to sink the Opposition. One such stale attempt is to label as “traitors” those who refuse to suck up to its spent elite leaders.

And so Defence Minister Ahmad Zahid (AZ) who apparently ran out of steam to shut the Opposition up on the Scorpene submarines scandal, resorted to calling Nurul Izzah a “traitor”.

It seems that the Member of Parliament (MP) has stained the nation’s image by revealing on 4 Aug. 2010 in an interview with Kompas, a newspaper in Indonesia, that the country’s first submarine cannot dive.

Below are his comments (in bold) followed by a response which when added up points to the ironic conclusion that it is the Defence Minister and Umno who could be the real traitors after all!

AZ: “The statement has damaged the country’s image in the eyes of the world.”

Strange, since when did the supremacists in Umno really bother about world opinion?

AZ: “She has undermined the country’s reputation.”

Bolehland already has such a bad reputation for her buckling economy, brain drain numbers, a “bunch of idiots” in the judiciary (N H Chan), bowed media and biased and brutal Police Force.

Added to that is the burgeoning bigotry, “bloody racists”, brute-majority parliament, buffoons in the MACC and a badly “screwed-up” AG Chambers! What is left of our “reputation” that Nurul can do more harm to?

AZ: “It is an act as that of a “penderhaka” (traitor).”

What about Umno’s self-serving sycophants who deceive, deny and deprive the poor Malays of what has been due to them, like the RM52 billion worth of shares allocated to the Malay community since 1971?

The Umnoputras betray their own race by bleeding this country dry and siphoning and stashing their ill-gotten gains overseas whilst making the non-Malays the scapegoat for the “failure” of the NEP!

AZ: “As a member of parliament, she should have been more ethical.”

Does AZ mean “ethical” as in a trumped up sodomy case without penetration, a life blown up by a C4 explosion, a tragic death by “self-strangulation” and a colossal RM12.5 billion case of daylight corruption?

AZ: “The manner in which she disparages the Malaysian armed forces is disgraceful.”

The Ministry of Defence (Mindef) does not need to be so defensive, for Nurul does not need to disparage the Armed Forces. With the help of greedy Umno cronies they often end up disgracing themselves.

Take for example, in 1985 Mindef bought 88 A4 Skyhawks from the US (which she used during the Vietnam War) and then left 35 of them parked in the Arizona desert. No one knows where they are now!

A defence attaché in the 80’s commented on the purchase of certain tanks and armoured personnel carriers: “I hope to God Malaysia never gets into a war. They couldn’t get out of their own footprints.”

It was an utter disgrace when PSC-Naval Dockyard, owned by UMNO crony Amin Shah Omar, failed to fulfill its 1998 contract to build naval vessels. Yet, the Finance Ministry overpaid it about RM1 billion!

In fact, Najib, as Defence Minister, left a “disgraceful” legacy of financial mismanagement, irregularities in procurement, wastage and even grave allegations of kickbacks, bribery and corruption.

In the 2002 acquisition of two Scorpene submarines for one billion euros (RM4.7 billion), the commission of 114 million euros was allegedly paid to Perimekar, a company of Razak Baginda (a close ally of Najib).

In 2003, Malaysia bought 18 Sukhoi fighter jets worth US$900 million. A commission of US$108 million was allegedly given to Umno stalwart Adib Adam the chairman of the local company handling the deal.

AZ must have found the disappearance of two F5-E jet engines worth RM50 million each from the Royal Malaysian Air Force (RMAF) base in Sungai Besi rather embarrassing and disgraceful.

Over the past 23 years, RM180 billion of the rakyat’s money has been spent on national defence! Yet our military capability is still in such a scandalous state today. Can anything be more disgraceful than this?

AZ: “She has put the security of the nation at risk.”

The real enemy is within. The country is at its greatest risk with Umno’s rogues, racists, religious fanatics and rabble rousing newspapers – all of whom are allowed to roam and run riot!

AZ: “Politicians should stop politicising national defence issues.”

Yes AZ, it is disgraceful for Umno to use national defence spending as a surefire money-spinner!

AZ: “Although we may have differences in opinion, we should stick to the truth…”

The truth is that Nurul was only reiterating what AZ had revealed in Parliament on March 17 that one of the submarines was not being able to dive because of technical problems. Surely AZ is not a traitor?

Nurul nipped the Minister’s nonsense (that her statement had threatened national security) in the bud by arguing that

the problems regarding the submarine were common knowledge

AZ had himself said that such technical problems were also faced by many other countries

information on the dive status of any submarine in the world was easily available.

She pointed out to the defensive minister: “If it is true that the minister is a patriot, why then is he not supporting the MACC’s probe on the commission paid to Perimekar Sdn Bhd…?”

She added that the navy’s revelation that it was only conducting its integrated navy exercise once, instead of three times a year in order to save cost (Bernama, 6 Aug.) was even a greater security threat!

Harebrained Home Minister Hishammuddin Hussein Onn jumped on to AZ’s bandwagon and added that Nurul’s criticism of Malaysia abroad “proved that PKR’s struggles were not accepted in this country”.

The Umno vice-president added that “the opposition pact clearly failed to win the hearts of the people to the extent that it had to go abroad to explain their struggles pertaining to national issues”.

Why then did the PM have to go to the US to explain his policies to Obama and why pay RM50,000 in an attempt to get his opinion-editorial article published in one of the major newspapers in the US?

In inferring that Nurul was a traitor, he forgot that his grandfather was a “good traitor” who had formed two parties to fight against Umno and so was his father who refused to join Umno Baru until his death!

Minister in the PM’s Department Jamil Khir Baharom said that Nurul had “sinned” by tarnishing the country’s image. The ambitious Umno man forgot he had majored in many sins as a young major!

Alas, Nurul Izzah is a young MP who, by her own merit, is daring enough to dive deep in search for the truth and in spite of the uncertain implications. She just happens to be the daughter of Anwar Ibrahim.

In contrast, we have Umno’s “old” men whose statements betray their shallowness and who, in trying to keep Umno afloat, are bent on using their silly scare tactics, sabre-rattling tricks and sinister theatrics.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 31 August 2010, 10:02 am and is filed under
Defence
,
Martin Jalleh
,
UMNO
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Why Police investigating Wee Meng Chee for sedition when there is nothing seditious in  his latest 3-minute rap against the Kulai secondary school principal for making racist slurs against students?

It has been reported that the police went to the Muar house of young Malaysian rapper Wee Meng Chee 15 minutes before midnight on the eve of the 53rd National Day, leading to the following posting on Wee’s Facebook:

“3 POLICE CARS FINALLY CAME TO MY MUAR HOME TO ARREST ME***** this happened 15 minutes before our 53rd National Day Celebration, YES, I’m still here but for how long more, I don’t know … my beloved MALAYSIA, where is our justice system?! (THIS IS NOT A JOKE)”.

This message has attracted more than 4,500 comments in 15 hours.

Johor Criminal Investigation Department chief Datuk Amer Awal has denied any police plan to arrest Wee, saying that they are still investigating Wee’s case.

The Federal CID chief Datuk Seri Bakri Zinin has however confirmed that Wee was being investigated under the Sedition Act

The question  is why the Police is  investigating Wee for sedition when there is nothing seditious in  his latest 3-minute rap against the Kulai secondary school principal for making  racist slurs against students while the school principal is still scot-free for her seditious racism?

Wee can be faulted for being crude, vulgar, abusive and even obscene as his fury was directed at the school principal of Sekolah Menengah Kebangsaan Tunku Abdul Rahman Putra, Kulai, Hajah Siti Inshah binti Mansor, for making racist, derogatory and seditious remarks like: “Pelajar-pelajar Cina tidak diperlukan dan boleh balik ke China ataupun Sekolah Foon Yew. Bagi pelajar India, tali sembahyang yang diikat di pergelangan tangan dan leher pelajar nampak seakan anjing dan hanya anjing akan mengikat seperti itu.”

Just because UMNO Puteri chief Rosnan Rashid Shirlin is offended by Wee’s latest videoclip does not automatically make the rap seditious and an offence under the Sedition Act.

Are the youth wings of Barisan Nasional parties, particularly from Umno, MCA, Gerakan and MIC and all the Barisan Nasional Ministers  prepared to take a stand that Wee’s latest video clip may be guilty of being crude, vulgar and abusive but definitely not sedition?

In this connection, the Police should explain the purpose of sending three patrol cars to Wee’s house in Muar just before midnight last night – was it to arrest Wee, to get a statement from Wee or just to create an atmosphere of fear?

If the police had wanted to get a statement from Wee, why was it necessary to send three patrol cars to Wee’s house in Muar 15 minutes before midnight of National Day?

Finally, Malaysians are wondering whether when the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak recently spoke of “zero tolerance for racism”, he was thinking of police action against Wee instead of no-holds-barred action against the real racists and extremists who had made a mockery of his 1Malaysia slogan and policy and blighted the country’s prospects for economic rebound with incessant racist rhetoric.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 31 August 2010, 4:37 pm and is filed under
Crime
,
Education
,
Police
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Feeble-minded BN

By
Mariam Mokhtar

Three BN ministers were not speaking from a position of strength when they labeled PKR politician Nurul Izzah Anwar a traitor and a sinner for saying in an Indonesian newspaper, that Malaysia’s new, multimillion ringgit submarine is defective.

She also highlighted the problems plaguing our navy and expressed doubts about the New Economic Policy (NEP).

?Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Jamil Khir Baharom said, Those who tarnish their country’s image with the aim of causing turmoil are regarded to have sinned.

The truth hurts, but Jamil is mad to brand people who are critical of the Malaysian government as ‘sinners’.

He then said: We should love our country and be prepared to defend it, as defending our own country is a jihad (holy war) which carries a big divine reward.

Calling the defence of one’s country a jihad is wrong.

The las?t idiot who used a similar pejorative term was George W Bush. He used the expression ‘crusade’, to describe his country’s response to the Sept 11 attacks.

Terms like ‘crusade’ and jihad produce a negative reaction in both Christian and Muslim communities.

Bush’s use of the word ‘crusade’ evoked a visceral reaction worldwide because it portrayed bloody, violent images of the battles between Christians and Muslims in the Middle Ages.

So, whose sentiments is Jamil appealing to? He is trying to discredit Nurul Izzah and deflect attention from the faulty submarine.

At some point or other, most of us have condemned corruption, abuses of power, nepotism, racism, cronyism, injustices and cover-ups. Are we the sinners or are the corrupt politicians the sinners?

Jamil’s use of jihad alienates the Chinese, Indians and Malays. He is defending patriotism as a Muslim trait.

But if ?Defence Minister Ahmad Zahid Hamidi can call on politicians to stop politicising national defence issues, then Jamil should stop making these religious issues.

When he branded Nurul Izzah a penderhaka (traitor) who has damaged Malaysia’s image in the eyes of the world, he was wrong.

The country’s reputation has already been tarnished by the protracted sodomy trial of Anwar Ibrahim, Teoh Beng Hock’s suspicious death, the farcical cross-examination of Dr PornthipRojanasunand at Teoh’s inquest, the Port Klang Free Zone scandal, the impotence of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission and the denial of justice for Penan girls who were raped.

By accusing Nurul of ‘exaggerating the problems in this country’, Home Minister Hishammuddin Hussein only managed to raise the ire of the public.

Stagnant politicians

Thus, it seems facetious of the Royal Malaysian Navy to wade in and lodge police reports against both Nurul Izzah and Malay Mail reporter Marhalim Abas over the claims that the country’s first submarine, KD Tunku Abdul Rahman, was unable to dive.

The job of this journalist was to disclose the failings of the submarine, just as Nurul Izzah was doing her job as a politician.

?The three ministers condemned Nurul for not mimicking the actions of past and current politicians, who keep quiet about indiscretions.

Are we to heap praise on the former defence minister, Najib Abdul Razak, for his two-year silence over the theft of two fighter-jet engines? These engines surfaced in Paraguay, and were returned, after attorney-general Abdul Gani Patail flew there to secure their ‘release’.

Jamil’s talk of traitors reminds us of the service personnel who sold state secrets to foreign agents. What happened to them?

Nowadays, Malaysians are more critical and are not afraid of asking probing questions. But instead of embracing change, some politicians and NGOs, like Perkasa, are happy to stagnate.

No inner peace

On the eve of the 53rd Merdeka celebrations, our attempts to demolish the walls between the races are hampered by the people who don’t like change.

We have chosen to move forward instead of looking back, like Dr Mahathir Mohamad, Ibrahim Ali and Ahmad Ismail, who have all lost their bearings.

We should focus on the needs of all, so that everyone can contribute. This is impossible because of the unfair quota system in our public universities, which hampers development. Or, the preferential business terms which stunt growth.

After decades of autocracy, our politicians have forgotten to listen and engage. They keep the non-Malays at arm’s length and fail to acknowledge that able Malays are confident of abandoning the worn-out NEP, to embrace change.

People who are absorbed in their own problems, like Ibrahim Ali, will not make a difference or leave the world a better place.

Are we prepared to do what is right? While some of us demanded justice for Teoh, A Kugan and Aminulrasyid Amzah, others were content to look the other way.

?Racist comments were recently uttered by two school principals. A swift response under Najib’s new policy of zero-tolerance has not materialised.

Many politicians only pay lip service to important issues, so does this mean they lack discipline?

Bung Moktar Radin broke the law with his illegal polygamous marriage. His disregard for Syariah law and contempt of court only fuelled resentment.

Kartika Sari Dewi Shukarnor’s ‘s life disintegrated because of a pint of beer but the brewing deals of Muslim politicians would leave many in a drunken stupor.

Malaysians appear to be more religious today, but we seem to lack inner peace.

Muslims claim ownership of the word ‘Allah’ and force people to behave. The moral police run wild and wreak havoc. Their constant checks on behaviour, endanger those who risk their lives trying to escape from the raids. In an effort to prevent teenagers having underage sex and the ensuing problem of abandoned babies, child marriages have been made legal.

On the eve of Merdeka, it is a shame we still have these problems of corruption and disunity.

Nurul Izzah is right to highlight these problems. Is the feeble-minded BN elite aware of the deplorable role it played in these sorry affairs?

Have a Happy and Peaceful Merdeka!

MARIAM MOKHTAR is a non-conformist traditionalist from Perak, a bucket chemist and an armchair eco-warrior. In ‘realspeak’, this translates into that she comes from Ipoh, values change but respects culture, is a petroleum chemist and also an environmental pollution-control scientist.

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 1 September 2010, 12:09 pm and is filed under
nation building
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Ismail takes over from Musa as new IGP

Deputy IGP Ismail Omar 2b new IGP as Musa Hassan’s contract will not be extended 3rd time. Will Musa b apptd Ambassador to nearby country?

09/01/2010 06:06 PM

Congrats 2new IGP.DAP/PR prepared 2fully co-operate 2introduce democratic policing n create efficient, professional world-class police force

09/01/2010 06:12 PM

Ismail takes over from Musa as new IGP

By Asrul Hadi Abdullah Sani
 | The Malaysian Insider

September 01, 2010

KUALA LUMPUR, Sept 1 – Tan Sri Ismail Omar will replace Tan Sri Musa Hassan as the country’s new Inspector-General of Police, Home Minister Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Hussein announced today.

Ismail, who is currently the deputy IGP, will assume his new post on September 13.

Musa, who had his contract extended twice, leaves under a cloud as he had come into office with a Mr Clean reputation but now leaves amid allegations of wrongdoing.

The police force under Musa is also seen now as ineffective and demoralised.

More to come

—-

No third extension for IGP Musa

Malaysiakini

Inspector-General of Police Musa Hassan has not been given a third extension and will be replaced by his deputy Ismail Omar (right).

According to a SMS alert by Utusan Malaysia, the matter was announced by Home Minister Hishammuddin Hussein today.

This has put to rest months of speculation about Musa’s future, as his contract is slated to expire on Sept 12.

Musa, 59, reached retirement age in 2007 but had his tenure extended twice, much to the chagrin of the opposition and human rights activists.

[More to follow]

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 1 September 2010, 6:38 pm and is filed under
Police
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Mahathir is the major obstacle to Najib’s 1Malaysia and National Transformation Agenda

Former Prime Minister Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad blogged on the 53rd National Day eve that “today the races are more divided than ever”.

The implications of Mahathir’s statement merits attention.

Here we have the country’s longest-serving Prime Minister in fact telling the current Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak that despite this year’s Merdeka Month theme: “1Malaysia: Transforming the Nation” and the  latter’s 1Malaysia policy and National Transformation Programme for 18 months since assuming the highest office in the land in April last year, national unity and inter-racial relations had never been so bad at present as  compared to any time in the  22 years Mahathir had been Prime Minister from 1981 – 2003.

Would Najib agree to this Mahathir assessment as the present Prime Minister was during those 22 years of Mahathir premiership either Pahang Mentri Besar or a Cabinet Minister, starting as Minister for Youth and Sports before being appointed to Education and later Defence portfolios – while in Umno, occupying the posts of Umno Youth Leader (especially during the Operation Lalang years) and Umno National Vice President from 1995-2003?

Even more serious is Mahathir’s virtual dismissal of Najib’s National Transformation Programme, particularly the two Najib signature programmes of 1Malaysia and New Economic Model.

Mahathir had first opened fire on Najib’s 1Malaysia policy early last month, lamenting that it had failed to unite Malaysians as a whole and urging “further explanation” from Najib to prevent the 1Malaysia policy from being interpreted differently by various races.

The former Prime Minister has followed up with a wholesale attack on Najib’s National Transformation Agenda by the end of the month, declaring his opposition to the New Economic Model (NEM) unveiled by Najib on 30th March this year with the warning that the removal of NEP-style policies could lead to a revolution – referring specifically to NEM proposals for new affirmative action policies which are market-friendly and needs-based to consider all ethnic groups fairly and equally as long as they are in the low income 40% of households earning less than RM1,500 per month (of which 77.2% are bumiputeras)..

Mahathir even equated and condemned  meritocracy as racism – when meritocracy is one of the principles of Najib’s “1Malaysia. People First. Performance Now” policy.

Clearly, on the occasion of the 53rd National Day Mahathir has crossed the Rubicon to become Najib’s biggest antagonist in Umno and the  major obstacle to Najib’s 1Malaysia and National Transformation Agenda

Will Najib back down from his 1Malaysia and National Transformation Agenda?

If not, who will  win the battle in Umno and Barisan Nasional for allegiance – the Najib or Mahathir forces?

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 1 September 2010, 1:32 pm and is filed under
1Malaysia
,
Mahathir
,
Najib Razak
,
nation building
,
NEM
,
NEP
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Before Khairy demands that Wee Meng Chee be taught a lesson, will he surrender himself to the police for criminal charges to be preferred against him for his previous racist statements?

I had said that Wee Meng Chee can be faulted for being crude, vulgar, abusive and even obscene at the disgust and fury of his 3-minute rap video directed at the school principal of Sekolah Menengah Kebangsaan Tunku Abdul Rahman Putra, Kulai, Hajah Siti Inshah binti Mansor, for making racist, derogatory and seditious remarks like:
“Pelajar-pelajar Cina tidak diperlukan dan boleh balik ke China ataupun Sekolah Foon Yew. Bagi pelajar India, tali sembahyang yang diikat di pergelangan tangan dan leher pelajar nampak seakan anjing dan hanya anjing akan mengikat seperti itu.
”

However, the police  has still to explain why they are investigating Wee for sedition when there is nothing seditious in his rap video against the Kulai and Bukit Selambau school principals for making racist slurs against students especially when the school principals concerned are still scot-free for their seditious statements.

I had myself been arrested and investigated for sedition and DAP National Chairman Karpal Singh had been arrested, charged and acquitted of sedition – just two  examples of the gross abuse of powers and double-standards in the country.

With a new Inspector-General of Police set to take over the police force in ten days’ time, the opportunity to restore public confidence in the efficiency, professionalism and integrity of the Malaysian police force must not be missed or wasted – and there is no better start than to demonstrate to all and sundry, whether within or outside the country, that the Malaysian police is mindful that it should not be accused of being guilty of double-standards in enforcing and upholding the law.

Yesterday, Umno Youth chief Khairy Jamaluddin jumped on a line in Wee’s rap video “Nah” to justify his demand that criminal proceeding should be instituted against Wee.

Khairy is wrong as the line “You tak baca? Siapa buat Malaysia kaya?” (Don’t you know? Who made Malaysia prosperous?) is open to various interpretation and not just Khairy’s conclusion that it is an overt insinuation that Malays played a minor role in Malaysia’s economic growth and was therefore racist in nature.

There is no need to spark a debate as to who had contributed to the country’s economic development or to hark back to the oft-quoted statement by former Prime Minister Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad that the Chinese in Malaysia pay 90 per cent of the taxes in the country.

This is because the line quoted by Khairy could mean that Malaysia’s prosperity is the contribution of all Malaysians and that’s why it is completely unacceptable to tell the Chinese in Malaysia to “balik tongsan”, firstly because all Malaysians contributed to the economic development of the country; and secondly, after 53 years of Merdeka the Malaysian Chinese are 100% Malaysians who have no “tongsan” to go back to!

Before Khairy demands that  Wee should  be taught a lesson, will he  surrender himself to the police for criminal charges to be preferred against him for his previous racist statements, whether his uncalled-for attack on the Indian community during a live telecast at the Umno General Assembly in November 2007 or his infamous outburst about the so-called marginalization of the Malays in Penang under Tan Sri Dr. Koh Tsu Koon as Penang Chief Minister?

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 2 September 2010, 2:00 pm and is filed under
Police
,
UMNO
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Ersatz moderation will not suffice, PM

By
G. Krishnan

Surely any right-minded Malaysian will find it impossible to disagree with the prime minister that we cannot allow racism to destroy us. And surely all of us who cherish the virtues of moderation must find ourselves whole-heartedly agreeing with the prime minister that we cannot allow extreme attitudes on racial and religious issues to compromise national unity.

As such, it is precisely for these reasons, Mr. Prime Minister that moderates such as myself continue to remain perplexed and puzzled about the glaring discrepancy that continues to persist between the messages you espouse and the reality that persists in the manner your government conducts itself.

I must admit, I was struck by your re-affirmation of the principles of the Rukun Negara; something that merely one month ago, I noted in one of my articles should be given far greater prominence in our national culture, especially in place of the religious one-upmanship.

To be precise, I stated that,

In place of such religious invocations, might we not be better off – and would it not be more consistent with our desire for more national unity – if it became more commonplace instead to recite the Rukun Negara or the national anthem.

In a multi-religious country, specific religious invocations are by definition not universal; however, on the other hand, inclusive invocations such as the much-neglected Rukun Negara may well be a nationally universal and valuable unifying force.

But surely you will understand why most moderates such as myself will continue to be puzzled at the lack of practical commitment to the virtues of moderation, and instead at the continued pandering to the religious and racial extremists who insist not on dialogue but demagoguery and intimidation.

And you will also understand why most moderates continue to be skeptical that you want to promote unity and mutual respect, and not imposed control on minorities, when genuine minority voices – irrespective of their political affiliation – continue to be drummed out by the entrenched and vested interests who have come to lack credibility in the eyes of the man on the street.

You will surely understand as well, why moderates struggle to genuinely rally around your clarion calls for moderation when extremist and racist propaganda emanating from some mainstream media are persistently and consistently allowed to be liberally disseminated – and without repercussions – while we find the Home Ministry being overly sensitive and inflexible with independent media.

You will, of course, appreciate the difficulty moderates in the country will continue to have with your apparent commitment to moderation and diversity, when in fact, credible alternative voices in the media are curtailed and marginalised by such seemingly prejudiced regulatory measures.

How, Mr. Prime Minister, moderates such as myself are left asking, should we not continue to have reservations about your government’s commitment to religious acceptance and harmony when your own minister seeks to fan the flames of religious animosity by crassly and blatantly exploiting the case of Teo Nie Ching’s visit to a surau.

To be frank, Mr. Prime Minster, far from reflecting well on your stated claim to moderation and unity, such episodes merely smack of nothing less than blatant hypocrisy and short-sighted opportunism.

These are just an obvious handful of items that speak volumes about what I have called the glaring inconsistency between the rhetoric and practice that persists. Moderation and unity can only be built with mutual trust and mutual respect. Sadly, these are two traits absent from the tenor, tone and posturing of those espousing an even deeper racialisation of our society.

Such vocabulary – let alone practices associated with mutual respect and trust – seems glaringly absent from the worldview of religious extremists and hate-mongers, the very kind, for example, who have indulged in the intimidation of Teo Nie Ching.

So, Mr. Prime Minister, it is obvious to us moderates, that unless you can better reconcile the glaring inconsistencies between the rhetoric and practice – which have, incidentally, also plagued your predecessor, moderates will remain deeply skeptical and reluctant to come on board. Quite the contrary – they will continue to in fact abandon your ship.

Every August 31 we should remind ourselves not just of our potential, which, as you have rightly noted, is immense, but also of the sacrifices we have all made individually and collectively – irrespective of our race or religion – for each other.

But such mutual coexistence and cooperation cannot be maintained with continued political intimidation that some quarters are prone to indulge in.

I submit that it would indeed be very reassuring and compelling to moderates across the political spectrum if your leadership and government is defined increasingly by its deeds with regards to nurturing moderation and unity rather than by its mere rhetoric.

Moderation and mutual accommodation are, after all, only genuine, when practiced.

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 2 September 2010, 4:18 pm and is filed under
Najib Razak
,
nation building
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Hardtalk or money talks? Saga of the aborted RPK interview

by
Dr. Lim Teck Ghee
 | CPI

Hardtalk is a flagship BBC television programme that has gained a large global audience due to its style of tough questioning.

According to its media note, Hardtalk “asks the difficult questions and gets behind the stories that make the news — from international political leaders to entertainers; from corporate decision-makers to ordinary individuals facing huge challenges.”

This reputation of independence and fearlessly getting the stories behind the news is now blotted.

On Aug 10, Nicholas Davis Blakemore, BBC planning editor sent an e-mail note to Raja Petra Kamarudin asking if he would be interested in appearing in Hardtalk.

Following confirmation from RPK (readers can read the full correspondence here), the live interview was to have been conducted on Sept 1.

On Aug 29, Hardtalk producer Bridget Osborne informed RPK that the interview was cancelled. This abrupt turnabout is quite unprecedented in the programme’s 13-year history. According to Osborne, the cancellation was due to legal concerns.

Since then the BBC has issued a further note in which its Global News senior press officer Peter Connors said in an e-mail reply: “It became clear in our research any comprehensive interview with former Malaysia Today editor Raja Petra would prominently feature issues that are currently the subject of a current court case in Malaysia, which raise issues of defamation.”

It is unclear from Connors’ e-mail which “current court case” is being referred to.

Even more cryptic is the allusion to “defamation”. Who might it be that is likely to be defamed should RPK appear on air?

The BBC explanation is uncharacteristic of its traditional journalism ethos.

In the past, the programme has not been afraid of controversy arising from its choice of personalities and the discussions that arose during the course of their interviews. Surely the programme which prides itself on undertaking meticulous and in-depth research to accompany the interviews would have done its homework on the legal implications before any official invitation was extended by Blakemore to RPK.

Bear in mind that RPK is no suddenly arrived personality. The BBC had previously given press coverage to the Malaysian government’s persecution of him, and several times.

Nonetheless, Connors is correct to infer that the topic — once RPK started hard talking — may submerge viewers in turbulent waters.

Let’s just suppose the Q&A had gone ahead. If ‘the news’ is a court case as revealed by Connors, what might be ‘the difficult questions’ asked by Hardtalk to get the real story behind the sandiwara.

If it is the Altantuya murder case, then there is an added dimension. One of the accused was Abdul Razak Baginda who brokered arms deals worth billions of ringgit for the Malaysian Defence Ministry.

A political commentator, Mariam Mokhtar, writing in the Malaysian Mirror speculated on what could have caused BBC to pull the plug. Mariam is sceptical that the British broadcaster would be afraid of legal threats and suggests that the Hardtalk climbdown might be due to something “purely economic” and the pressure coming instead from the British government to protect its arms sales to Malaysia’s Defence Ministry.

For now, and until a whistleblower steps forward to provide details which can throw light on the unexpected turn of events, we can only ponder upon the reasons suggested by analysts who have been closely following this astonishing capitulation by Hardtalk.

Whist some of their views may appear to be highly speculative, it is however still inconceivable that the decision was arrived at by the Hardtalk programming staff themselves.

The possibility that higher levels of authority intervened to stop the programme should not be discounted. There is little doubt that if the interview had gone ahead, RPK would have spoken – if asked – at length on the Altantuya murder and his allegation of the Prime Minister’s involvement.

To clear the air, it is important for the Malaysian and British governments to issue a statement disclaiming any interference in the matter and for the Hardtalk senior management to be more explicit on what actually went on behind the scenes.

Silence will only lead to further suspicions that a conspiracy has been concocted to stymie RPK in his uncompromising pursuit of justice and freedom for Malaysia.

Meanwhile, there is possibly some deep soul-searching going on even now in the backroom of Hardtalk. The television programme before this had a reputation that was well-earned. Its producers and hosts know that as journalists, they have been doing a good job in upholding the integrity of the profession.

Didn’t Connors, the BBC spokesman, also reiterate that all their programmes “adhere to the same strict editorial guidelines which ensure complete editorial independence and impartiality”?

The professional pride of the Hardtalk crew might yet prompt them to come clean on the real reasons why they were denied the chance of giving RPK his airtime to tell the true story.

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 2 September 2010, 4:21 pm and is filed under
Media
,
Raja Petra Kamaruddin
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Malaysia in the Era of Globalization #30

By
M. Bakri Musa

Chapter 4:      Modern Model States

The Relevant Lessons For Malaysia  (Cont’d)

A few years ago I was a guest teacher for the senior class in the school near my village in Malaysia where I once taught briefly as a temporary teacher.  What an experience!  I was taken aback at how passive and quiet the class was.  There was no spunk or energy.  In an attempt to stimulate some discussions I uttered some really silly and outrageous remarks just to get a reaction.  Alas, none was forthcoming.

             These students had such reverence for their teachers that they did not dare question me.  More startling, when one brave soul attempted to challenge my statement, the others quickly put her down, saying in effect that questioning what I said was tantamount to being disrespectful, and thus sinful.  It is this psychological effect imparted by the religious teachers that is so devastating.

             These students did not begin that way.  Something must have happened to them in their later years.  I was with a lower class at another session and the atmosphere was much different.  The pupils were lively, full of sparks and eager.  I was relating to them the folk story, Batu Belah Batu Melanggup (The Mysterious Cave), about a mother who returned home after a hard day searching for food.  All she had to show for her effort was a handful of mushrooms, which she cooked for her family.  When she was done she was too tired to eat with her children and went to sleep instead.  On wakening up, she was shocked that her children had not left her any portion.  Saddened and disappointed with her children, she stormed out of her home to the mysterious cave, with her crying children trailing behind her, apologizing profusely.  Undeterred, she continued on and was swallowed by the cave, leaving her children behind, orphaned.

             The moral of the story as related to me in my childhood is that children must always think of their mothers first, as encapsulated by the hadith that the path to heaven is at the mother’s feet.  The pupils’ reaction to the story was as I anticipated; they blamed the selfish children.

             A few years earlier I had related the same story to my son’s middle school class in California, and the children there reacted with horror at the mother’s action, variously labeling her as cruel and uncaring for abandoning her children – a very different reaction from that of Malaysian pupils.

             When I mentioned the response of my son’s class to the Malaysian pupils, they were appalled.  After much prompting on my part, some of the pupils did finally agree that the American viewpoint was not unreasonable.  And from there the discussions took off.  Surprisingly most of the girls were supportive of the American viewpoint (perhaps a reflection of a nascent maternal instinct) but the boys stuck with the traditional interpretation.  At the end of the class even their teacher was also surprised that I had managed to create a lively discussion with that simple story.

             The point is, even the classics could be interpreted in many ways.  Unfortunately today in the typical Malaysian classroom, even at the highest levels, teaching is a one-way street:  from teacher to student.  No discussions, no feedback; everything is black and white.  Besides, the right answers are given at the back of the book, or in some sample essays written by somebody.

             Respect for teachers is good, but not blind obedience.  In many ways religious teachers in Malaysia remind me of athletic coaches in American schools.  American students greatly respect their coaches because these coaches control who gets to play.  Likewise, Malaysian religious teachers control their students by exploiting the students’ psychological vulnerabilities.

             While the Irish are purposefully reducing the role of the Church in the state and in their personal lives, Malaysian Muslims are seeking an even greater role for religion.  The current frenzy of Islamization in Malaysia eerily reminds me of the early Irish experience.  If this is not stopped and reversed now, it will be too late and Malaysia will suffer the same fate as Ireland once did.  I will return to this issue more fully later in the chapter on Islam (9).

             The other lesson worthy of emulation is the Irish attitude towards the English language.  Malaysians share with the Irish a common legacy of being colonized by the English and as such, we harbor many negative sentiments regarding things English, including and especially the language.  Malaysia has an advantage in that unlike Gaelic, Malay is still a living language and widely used.  We should nurture that.  At the same time we should be pragmatic and accept English for what it is – an international language.  Had the Irish stick with Gaelic, their citizens would be at a definite disadvantage.  By opting for English in their schools and colleges (and also in everyday use), the Irish are poised to benefit from globalization.  Indeed many multinational companies are flocking to Ireland precisely because of the ready availability of well trained, English-speaking workers.  By adopting English, Ireland is able to leapfrog its development.  The Irish may be anti-English in other spheres, but not in language.  Malaysia, even though it has been independent for nearly half a century, still harbors lingering suspicions that everything English or (Western) is bad.

             The Irish had gone overboard in ignoring their native tongue and is now desperate to resurrect that near-dead language.  Gaelic is now mandatory in schools and a pass in the subject is required for senior public appointments.  Politicians now generously sprinkle their speeches with Gaelic.

             Besides being the official language of Malaysia, Malay is also the language of hundreds of millions more in Southeast Asia.  Assured that Malay would not meet the fate of Gaelic, Malaysia should encourage its students and citizens to study and use English.

             Even the Koreans, Chinese, and Japanese are desperately learning English, and their languages are even more advanced and older than Malay.  English is an international language not by fiat but as a matter of fact.  We need an international language, just like we need a uniform global standard for everything else, to facilitate exchanges and communication.

             In the past elite linguists tried to concoct “Esparanto,” but that artificial language failed miserably.  By default, English is now the international language.

             Adopting English does not mean that the world wants to imitate the ways of the English.  Malaysians fluent in English have no desire to be a Mat Salleh culup (Englishman wannabe).

             Why English and not Chinese is the preferred international language is an interesting question.  After all Chinese is spoken by more people than any other language.  It would have been the more natural candidate.  Trying to explain why English and not Chinese is the language of choice is like trying to explain why the personal computer is preferred over Apple; or VHS format over Beta on video recordings.  The consumers have voted.  Undoubtedly had the Anglo-Saxon world (Britain and America) been third-rate economic powers, English would now enjoy as much popularity and wide usage as Swahili.

             In truth the future does not belong to the English speakers.  Indeed those who are fluent in English in addition to their own (or any other) language will be at a great advantage, enjoying a marked premium in the marketplace.  Next would be those fluent only in English.  The losers would be those who speak only their own mother tongue regardless of how widespread that language is used.  China is making its most prestigious universities use English as the medium of instruction.  As the Chinese premier rightly said, he has no particular love for that language but it is in the national interest that the best Chinese students be fluent in it.

            Properly designed, Malaysia’s educational system could produce citizens who would be in great demand worldwide.  Most Malaysians, especially non-Malays, are already functionally trilingual: their mother tongue, Malay and English.  What a great advantage!  Malays too could be trilingual:  Malay, English and Arabic.  But with the preoccupation with Malay, English gets shortchanged.  The official mindset seems to be that for Malay to advance, other languages must be suppressed.  I argue the contrary.  Studying other languages facilitates the learning of Malay.

             By being fluently bilingual or trilingual I mean more than just the ability to communicate in multiple languages.  It means the ability to breath, live, and dream in those languages.  Such a skill would give one a different perspective on looking at the world.  The difference in saying “beautiful house” in English and “rumah cantek” (“house beautiful”) in Malay reflects not simply a mere rearrangement of words but of viewing the universe differently.

            When I was in school I never appreciated Malay literature.  It was only later in college, after being exposed to the richness of English literature that I began to understand my own native literature.  My knowledge of good English literature enhances the understanding of my own.  Had I been cocooned in the world of Malay language alone, I would have missed all those splendid opportunities.

            Eminent writers in Malay today (I include Indonesian writers) are those who have been exposed to great literatures of other languages.  Before Pramoedya Ananta Toer produced those epic novels, he was already translating the English classics into Indonesian.  Similarly, Malaysia’s Kassim Ahmad and Shahnon Ahmad (no relation) had significant education in English.  They were exposed to the refined ideals of the Western world that enhanced their literary perspective and skills.

             One of the reasons I (and many others) found concerts of the late Sudirman so enjoyable was because his choreography and stage presentations were unique.  He was not simply aping the style of popular Western artists (as so many third-rate performers do); he broke new grounds, with the artistic and skillful blending of East and West.  I have always wondered how much better Malaysian movies and television shows would be had our producers and directors been trained at such eminent institutions as UCLA cinematography school.

 Next:   The Relevant Lessons For Malaysia  (Cont’d)

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 2 September 2010, 11:05 am and is filed under
Bakri Musa
,
globalisation
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Hishamuddin should not act both as prosecutor and judge to pass judgment that Nurul Izzah had committed the offence of sedition, dictating and usurping the powers of the Police, AG’s Chambers and judiciary

I am shocked that the Home Minister, Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Hussein has acted both as prosecutor and judge to unilaterally and arbitrarily pass judgment that the PKR MP for Lembah Pantai, Nurul Izzah Anwar has committed the offence of sedition for questioning the entrenched sensitive issue of Article 153 of the Constitution with her challenge to Perkasa to a debate on “Malaysia or Malaysaja?”

As Home Minister, with responsibility over the police, it is a gross abuse of power on his part to dictate or usurp the powers of the Police, Attorney-General’s Chambers and the judiciary by passing judgment that Nurul had committed the offence of sedition in questioning the entrenched sensitive issue of Article 153 and therefore deserves to be arrested, charged, tried and convicted for sedition.

Police reports lodged against Nurul Izzah for committing the offence of sedition by questioning Article 153 do not mean that she had done so, and it is most irresponsible and reckless on the part of Hishammuddin as Home Minister to assume that Nurul Izzah is guilty as charged in the police reports against her.

As Home Minister, Hishammuddin must be professional and rise above party politics.

If Hishammuddin has already arrived at the conclusion that Nurul Izzah had questioned Article 153 and committed the offence of sedition, how can she expect the police, the Attorney-General and the judiciary to be independent, impartial and professional in the discharge of their respective duties?

Hishamuddin’s bias, unprofessional conduct and gross abuse of powers is evident from his media comments on Nurul’s case, as for instance in the following Utusan Malaysia report today:

“Mengulas lanjut, Hishammuddin berkata, kenyataan Nurul Izzah itu membuktikan pemimpin pembangkang tidak bertanggungjawab kerana secara terbuka mempersoalkan peruntukan itu walaupun Perlembagaan dengan jelas melarang sebarang perdebatan mengenainya atau berdepan dengan dakwaan di bawah Akta Hasutan jika ingkar.

“’Nurul Izzah seorang wakil rakyat yang silap pertimbangan tetapi sebagai rakyat Malaysia yang diamanah untuk menjaga keselamatan dalam negeri, saya akan mengambil segala tindakan perlu tanpa memilih bulu bagi mengelakkan insiden seperti ini berlaku lagi,’ jelasnya.”

In her challenge to Perkasa to a public debate, Nurul made it clear that she was not challenging Article 153 which she pointed out is an entrenched sensitive issue which is even illegal to be questioned in Parliament.

This is why she specifically proposed: “To avoid being seditious, I propose that our views are qualified as an attempt to seek clarification and not to challenge or repeal (Article 153) the Constitution.”

It is most disturbing that Hishammuddin seems to be backing those who are unreasonably and unconstitutionally equating all aspects of the New Economic Policy (NEP) meant to have a time span of 20 years from 1970 – 1990 with Article 153.

If this ridiculous and unconstitutional trend  is not rebutted and stopped, a day will come when the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak could be charged with committing sedition for allegedly challenging Article 153 when he unveiled  New Economic Model (NEM) proposals for new affirmative action policies which are market-friendly and needs-based to consider all ethnic groups fairly and equally as long as they are in the low income 40% of households earning less than RM1,500 per month (of which 77.2% are bumiputeras).

The 1971 Constitution amendments prohibited questioning (though it allowed discussion on their implementation) of four entrenched sensitive issues by invoking the Sedition Act  i.e.  apart from Article 153, Part III on Citizenship, Article 152 on the National Language and Article 181 on the Sovereignty of Rulers.

Recently, there were various calls including by the Malacca Chief Minister Datuk Seri Mohd Ali Rustam for the removal of citizenship of Wee Meng Chee for his 3-minute video rap protesting against the racist and seditious outbursts of a headmistress in Kulai.

Ali Rustam would have run afoul of the constitutionally-entrenched sensitive issue of citizenship under the 1971 Constitution Amendments.

Would Hishammuddin unilaterally and arbitrarily pass judgment that Ali had committed the offence of sedition, to be followed up with actions by the Police, Attorney-General’s Chambers and the judiciary?

                This entry was posted on Friday, 3 September 2010, 3:11 pm and is filed under
NEP
,
Police
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


‘Namewee is a uniting factor’

Mariam Mokhtar

Malaysian Mirror

Friday, 03 September 2010

 If Namewee (Wee Meng Chee) is prosecuted for his music-video, then two mixed messages are being sent out by the government: The first is that the authorities practise double-standards. The second is that it was only because of Namewee’s ‘intervention’ that the government sat up and took racism seriously.

On Wednesday, it was reported that the rapper was being investigated by the police for sedition. Various ministers and a menteri besar also want Namewee punished for his controversial video.

In the first place, Namewee made this clip because of the government’s slow response to tackle effectively the latest racist incident. It appears that we are now united, against racism.

Far from being seditious or racist, Namewee has done the job of the government in exposing all that is ‘ugly’ about us.

Just over two weeks ago, the Johore school headmistress featured in Namewee’s clip made serious, humiliating and crude remarks to non-Malay students in her school.

The prime minister, who coined the term 1Malaysia, took two weeks to make any comment regarding this issue. In the meantime, the damage became magnified.

Finally, Najib said that when it came to racism, he wanted ‘zero-tolerance’ and a ‘swift response’ to people who made racial slurs.

It appears that the prime minister has fallen at the first hurdle. There was not a quick, speedy response, as promised. It took him a very slow two weeks before issuing a statement.

For another, why has the police investigation been allowed to drag?

But let us imagine that for one moment, it was a non-Malay school head who had uttered derogatory remarks about her Malay pupils and told them to ‘pergi balik bawah tempurung’ (return to your place beneath your coconut shell) or that the tudung worn by the girls was only to cover-up their ‘bad hair-do’.

Wisdom and tolerance

I need not mention how the Malay community, egged on by the Ketuanan Melayu clowns, would react by picketing, protesting and practically foaming at the mouth.

If anything, the Johore school incident proved that the non-Malay community has shown extreme restraint and should be commended for their wisdom and tolerance.

The shame is that few Malays voiced their objections to the disgusting remarks of the Malay school-heads (both in Johore and Kedah). Where are the voices of condemnation for these racist rants? Are they afraid of pilloried by members of their own community? Or have they no principles? And lack a conscience?

Namewee is reacting to the slow response of the government to tackle racism. Hence, it is the government who has failed the Malaysian public. It is Namewee who conveyed the important message to Malaysians, in an entertaining way via his Youtube clip, that ‘racism sucks’.

To date, what is the progress into the school-head investigation? How long does it take to get eye-witness statements?

People forget that Namewee is a rapper. He produces videos and music videos. Rap music may glorify violence, misogyny, drug abuse and homophobia. Profanity and vulgar language are common.

Like it or not, rap or hip hop, is the language of the young these days. With rap, he has managed to engage with the young, to ‘say ‘no’ to racism’. Any parent of a teenager will know what I am talking about. The songs teenagers listen to these days, often colour the air-waves blue.

One can only imagine Namewee’s rage at the slow official response to tackle racism.

It is the same fury that overcomes us when we are lectured by our political masters to do, think and talk ‘1Malaysia’ but then discover to our shock, that some ministers do not practise it.

Admittedly, Namewee is simply expressing his anger and frustration in creativity and music, just like Eminem or Jay-Z.

It is highly unlikely that our aging ministers will understand nor appreciate rap music.

Namewee is the perfect entertainer and has sound business acumen. Sometimes, to shock may even sell more records. He has gained increased publicity for himself being enterprising.

Umno Youth chief Khairy Jamaluddin adopted a different spin on Namewee’s questions: “You tak baca? Siapa buat Malaysia kaya?” (Don’t you know? Who made Malaysia prosperous?). Khairy assumed that Namewee suggested the ‘Malays played a minor role in Malaysia’s economic growth’.

Khairy is possibly wrong and as far as can be ascertained, Namewee wasn’t alluding to anything.

Namewee posed an open-ended question. However, political personalities are already scoring brownie points by insinuating various things.

Namewee was wrong to be abusive – even I would balk short at such behaviour. But Namewee speaks for all those who suffered that day in school and for the people in Malaysia who care.

Maybe if the authorities had been swift in their response, Namewee would not have had the reason to come up with this clip.

The more potent danger

Actually, Namewee has done the job of the government much better that the government itself. It has given prominence to racism issues in a creative way and made us take a stand against racism. If not for his Youtube, clip, would we have taken as much attention? The problem is that the authorities have ‘lost it’.

When Dr Chua Soi Lek criticised Namewee and said, “Freedom of expression should come with responsibility to consider sensitivities towards other races and religions”, he forgot that it was the two school principals who ignored sensitivities and caused a furore.

And instead of the school principals being censured, it is Namewee who is allegedly being charged with sedition. Namewee’s clip was crude and coarse, but not racist.

This young disgruntled Malaysia’s response to racism has been blown into something of a racial firestorm. That is the more potent danger.

It seems that when you scratch beneath the surface, 1Malaysia is unraveling faster than a knitted jumper. One person condemns an irresponsible racist head, and the so called defenders of the race, react like beasts unleashed, and all for the wrong reasons.

Namewee has talent. He engages with the young via his rap music and lyrics. He should be nominated for a role in the Ministry for Information, Communications, Cul¬ture and Arts, to promote racial unity and other Malaysian issues.

Far from creating disharmony, Namewee has united us against racism. He at least has the courage to tackle racism in his own entertaining way.

                This entry was posted on Friday, 3 September 2010, 9:55 pm and is filed under
nation building
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Rising racism, 53 years on

By
David KL Quek

This year, I became a senior citizen. I can now withdraw my EPF savings and I qualify for some discounts for travel and surprisingly even for some buffet meals at some eateries.

But as I ponder upon ‘retirement’, it is sad to see the Malaysia that I know and live in, grows increasingly uncertain, diffident and bogged down in self-made crises, one after another.

Our previously phenomenal economic growth has now trickled down in a dizzying spiral of middle-income trap – not helped by the 2008 global financial crisis.

Our foreign direct investments have dwindled as our competitiveness, our productivity, perhaps our systemic corruption and wastage, have now been exposed and called into question.

Even our inborn entrepreneurs are investing overseas because of the uncertain future and shifting policies, which have made us face the truth of our competitiveness and value as a nation.

Instead of maturing gracefully, we appear to have become trapped in a petulant phase of angry adolescence breaking out senselessly to attack convenient bogeymen -race and religion appear to have become the easy targets, which breed even more political and economic uncertainty.

As a fourth generation Malaysian, I was born two and a half years before our fateful Merdeka. I am still wondering whether we are truly ‘liberated’ as befits the meaning of ‘Merdeka’, so gloriously proclaimed by our Bapa Merdeka, Tunku Abdul Rahman Putra Al-Haj, in 1957.

That Merdeka was to have ushered in the birth of what some would have called ‘an unlikely nation’, one that appeared cobbled together in a slapdash manner, juxtaposing a disparate if hodgepodge peoples – predominantly Malays, Chinese and Indians- and akin to mixing oil in water. Yet again, does any one in such serendipitous circumstance have that conscious sense of history and historicity of these singular moments?

To be fair, even then, no one dared to dream that the idea of Malaya and later Malaysia could succeed. But truth be told, we did do very well for so many years, becoming one of the rising ‘Asian tigers’. It’s just these recent years that we have foundered and perhaps lost a little faith in ourselves.

So many other post-colonial new nations had self-destructed in interethnic, religious or tribalistic clashes and conflagrations. We nearly did in May of 1969.

But good sense and firm actions created a novel social re-engineering feat (the NEP) in its wake, to bring about some semblance of order, reasonable interethnic tolerance and suppressed racial tensions.

For the next four decades, we have lived a reasonably harmonious if distinct existence, although seething fault-lines appear now and again to threaten the veneer of our touted ‘Truly Asian’ unity among our unique pastiche of colourful normalcy.

Forty years hence, ratcheted-up rhetoric is beginning to sunder this extraordinary relationship. Polarised insistence on continued affirmative action in stylised if arbitrary terms, remains a bone of contention, which powerfully fans the embers of resurgent ethnic fears and pride.

Sadly, as we celebrate this auspicious anniversary, we seemed mired in increasingly rabid and insulting racism, which greatly threatens our flimsy unity and contrasting diversity.

Extremist leaders continue to spew so much hurtful invectives that these would have shamed the most neo-Nazi right-wingers, the world over. Most modern societies would have punished such hate-mongers if not for their senseless racial baiting but then for their ad hominem attacks on just about anyone who dares to challenge their warped if narrow worldview.

Perhaps the media can play their roles better by downplaying these media hounds, whose purposes are so sickening and depraved.

Racist rhetoric

It appears that more and more politicians are flogging the twisted if populist concept of ethnic supremacy and extraordinary rights (of ethnic ketuanan) once again, as if to bolster their public images as racial champions. The loudest and the most strident appear to be those who are now commanding the greatest publicity and arguably some perverse following.

Our authorities appear timorous in not wanting to directly confront these vociferous bullies, for fear of some unintended backlash. But in so doing, the government loses even more credibility. The government of the people must serve as a fearless just arbiter of a firm and respected Leviathan, and not be held ransom by some mindless minority.

There cannot be distorted applications of the rule of law, where any one can flaunt and challenge the wisdom of the law, at wanton will. There seems to be no more respect for anyone else except for the self-righteous bully pulpit arrogance of voluble tyrants disgorging more and more hatred and painfully shrill racist ideologies to the hilt.

Freedom of speech implies rational discourse and debate, not threatening and insulting rantings. It certainly does not absolve anyone of despicable spewing and inciting of ethnic or religious intimidation or hatred.

But who really is to blame for the recent rise in racist rhetoric?

It appears that some components of the government are still pushing the propaganda machine to perpetuate the concept of racial supremacy and denigrating all other ethnic groups.

The Biro Tata Negara (BTN, National Civics Bureau) instead of instilling national civic consciousness, appears to relish in inculcating and indoctrinating any civil servant or would be scholarship holder, in a time-warped belief system that only the Malays are true patriots and truly deserving of their Malaysianness.

This is still happening 50-odd years following Merdeka, and one wonders why non-bumiputeras don’t sometimes feel any greater sense of belonging to this nation of ours.

Surprisingly such BTN programmes appear to have been a ‘recent’ phenomenon. My sister and brother-in-law who are senior government servants in the Ministries of Education and Higher Education respectively claimed never to have been subject to such gross demeaning indoctrination or abuse – perhaps, they too have been too polite, too programmed, to acknowledge. It did not take place when I was a clinical lecturer for seven years at Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia in the 1980s and early 1990s.

But as MMA president, I have received some angry verbal complaints (many are traumatised, frightened and do not want to be quoted for fear of reprisals) that even non-bumiputera junior medical specialists and house officers, who aspire to join the service or to be confirmed, are currently subject to physical and mental abuse. Mind you, these are not students of impressionable age, but grown men and women in their twenties and thirties.

Some have been made to squat and huddle together in front of other bumiputera peers, rudely woken at early mornings, shouted at, called pendatang, usurpers of scholarships and positions, depriving the true bumiputeras of their places and rights, told in uncertain terms that they are here only at the behest and kindly generosity of the bumiputeras, and that they can always ‘go home’ or balik kampung which means China or India.

Groups have been bullied into subordinating to and acknowledging the official ‘dogma’, or risk having the entire group not ‘passing the course’. Do these utterances ring a bell?

Less than a year and a half ago, one young returning teacher broke down from such radical abuse and hazing, that her family decided to pull her out, repaying the loan in full – enough is enough! So can we not see how this will perpetuate the cycle of blatant racial baiting and hatred when these ‘officers’ return to their respective services, after such provocative BTN courses?

Mustn’t such propaganda stop? Is the government truly sincere in wishing to stem such state-endorsed racism? Is this government truly espousing the 1Malaysia concept for whatever it is worth?

Last year, Minister in the PM’s Department Mohd Nazri Abdul Aziz acknowledged that the BTN must be overhauled. He had revealed that courses by the BTN were racially divisive and used to promote certain government leaders. While Nazri was bold enough to expose this, he was nearly alone in defending the need to overhaul the BTN courses.

Most of the ruling elite, including the deputy premier had sided with those who refused to acknowledge Nazri’s contention that the BTN was a mockery of the 1Malaysia concept. Of course, former premier Dr Mahathir Mohamad joined in and insisted there was no need to revamp the BTN courses, which led Nazri to call the former PM a “bloody racist”, even conferring on Dr M the title “the father of all racists”.

So are we surprised that Perkasa, school teachers and principals, public officers, resort to such ‘ingrained’ behaviour, notwithstanding the so-called ‘provocation ‘ from their charges, their students, who must surely be so ‘insensitive’ as to other’s religious practices?

Pursue the perpetrators

Yet, when called upon to investigate such racist behaviours, the authorities appear to be dragging their feet, and instead concentrate with such efficiency to question and charge a rapper (NameWee) who merely was bold and foolhardy enough to serve as a conduit to expose these wrongdoings.

Can the police and authorities not see the biasness of their actions, by pursuing the messenger and not the perpetrator of possible crimes?

Can the authorities not understand why thinking Malaysians and non-bumiputeas are beginning to feel persecuted and discriminated against, more and more, despite utterances to the contrary by our political leaders?

Can the authorities not understand why more and more disgruntled non-bumiputeas are making a beeline to emigrate whenever and wherever they can – hardship, uprooting displacement and starting over, notwithstanding? This has got nothing to do with patriotism, when one is constantly told that he or she is unequal as a citizen, and that they are unwanted.

Can every Malaysian non-bumiputera truly feel that he or she has a fair and reasonable share of this piece of earth called Malaysia? Do our authorities truly appreciate talent, merit or worth of any non-bumiputera at all, or is this mere lip service? Can they not see the hollowness and insincerity of their pronouncements – when we can hardly see the ‘walk’ from the ‘talk’?

Such crescendos of racist ravings seriously undermine the carefully constructed dream of a true Malaysian nation, shattering the much-bandied ‘unity’ slogan already so tattered among our terribly troubled diversity.

Hurtful cries to demonise and belittle other races as unequal, pendatang and lesser than themselves cannot but help demoralise every peace-loving non-bumiputera Malaysian who aspires for a better tomorrow, a better Malaysia.

We fully recognise the special position of the bumiputeras, but as non-bumiputeras we also increasingly demand our rightful place in this nation of ours. Lest it is forgotten, our position is also enshrined in the constitution. This is not arrogance, but a statement of fact as a human right of any citizen.

We do have a long way to go. We have many mindsets to change, to engage, to dialogue with in sincerity and humility, so that race and religion cannot be made a bogeyman for every travail or challenge that the country is facing.

We have our work cut out for us, but as rational Malaysians, we must all try even harder to persuade the government to be one for all Malaysians and not for mere sloganeering alone or for any one racial group.

We must flush out all closet racists. We must instead cultivate greater rational discourse and dialogue without preconditions of threats and top-down dictates. We need to work on closer cross-ethnic cooperation, tolerance and acceptance so that together we are truly more than the sum of our rich individual strength and heritage.

We must nurture greater cohesiveness by lowering the tempo and temperature of racial baiting and shrill cries and rhetoric of ethnic pride and irrational fear-mongering. We must work towards greater confidence of sharing and building and not engage in divisive dismantling bigotry based on artificial barriers of so-called ethnic or religious sensitivities.

This government must be seen to act without fear or favour, by espousing fair and just policies, by directly confronting and stemming the tide of racism and racial-baiting. Divisive ravings drive uncertainty and suppress confidence. We need to reverse such negative rhetoric if we wish to improve the climate for economic buoyancy in this country.

By staying the course of inept inattention, we stand to lose our global competitiveness even more, as we Malaysians lose confidence in ourselves and our grip on the future.

We must do this right and soon, or risk losing everything! 53 years hence, and Merdeka then would have been in vain.

“We came into the world like brother and brother, And now let’s go hand in hand, not one before another.” – William Shakespeare, in the closing couplet of ‘The Comedy of Errors’ [V.i.425-26]

DR DAVID KL QUEK was the editor-in-chief of the MMA News (bulletin of the Malaysian Medical Association) for 11 years and is currently president of the MMA.

                This entry was posted on Friday, 3 September 2010, 10:38 am and is filed under
nation building
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Some Mothers Do ‘Ave ‘Em

By
Tunku Abdul Aziz

What a charade. And what tragic depths of professional incompetence the recent resumption of the coroner’s inquiry into the death of Teoh Beng Hock had demonstrated for the world to see. There is a lot to laugh at in Najib’s 1Malaysia, but sadly for all the wrong reasons.

As an observer, sometimes jaundiced, of the Malaysian scene, I thought I had seen it all, but I was totally unprepared for the complete and utter mayhem of the senses that developed when Abdul Razak Musa of the MACC’s in house legal talent began his cross examination of Dr Pornthip Rojanasunand, the famous Thai pathologist. His attempt to trivialise and discredit her academic credentials was pathetic, to say the least. It backfired disastrously on him.

It showed the true measure of this sad figure of fun and ridicule who claimed to possess 24 years experience as a lawyer under the belt. I have never been impressed with experience, however long, for its own sake, not unless there is clear evidence of a string of successes to back up the claim.

Abdul Razak Musa has proved my point that years spent wallowing in the mediocrity of a professionally undemanding environment counts for naught.

But then this is 1Malaysia, and things could be infinitely worse. Abdul Razak Musa is just another of the numerous unintended victims of misguided racial policies.

Pack them in as long as they are constitutionally considered “Malay” and, with a bit of luck, a wink and a nod in the right places, we should all get on together famously.

Two decades of unfettered, blatant cynicism towards issues of governance engendered and encouraged by Mahathir, and continued by Abdullah Badawi and, now, Najib, has produced a civil service of uncertain reliability.

On present showing, it is notoriously ill-equipped both in expertise and integrity ever to give practical effect to Najib’s vision of a high income, and Mahathir’s unrealistic “highly regarded,” country that is Malaysia.

Politicians may spout all the rhetorical plans and designs their disingenuous minds can devise to take Malaysia forward, but, it is the quality of the civil servants on the nation’s payroll that will make or break Malaysia.

I have come across enough top Malaysian, for which read Malay, civil service officers, including diplomats and policemen, in my varied working life, to convince me that Mahathir may indeed justifiably congratulate himself on having succeeded, beyond my wildest nightmare, to turn a once proud and largely incorruptible civil service into a ragtag band of “elegant idlers” who are also, in the main, corrupt and bereft of integrity.

As long as the Malaysian public service remains an exclusively Malay ghetto or enclave, so long will it remain closed to new ideas and innovations that would give our country its much needed competitive edge to become an important regional player. Exclusivity, in the worst possible sense as represented by the current unspoken Malay favoured recruitment policy, has already had the effect of promoting intellectual isolationism.

Living with mediocrity is no longer an option if our twin goals of high income and competitiveness are to be achieved by 2020.

The talents of all Malaysians need to be actively nurtured and harnessed for the greater good of our country.

1Malaysia will otherwise remain a hollow slogan like all the rest of the politically motivated and inspired trash often dignified and legitimised with an appeal to national duty, loyalty and patriotism.

Abdul Razak Musa represents, in microcosm, the malaise inherent in the public service at large. If he is an example of the talent available to the MACC, then as I have said repeatedly all these many months that the war against corruption waged by an incompetent leadership will not make the slightest dent in the corruption equation. At best it will raise an eyebrow or two, and even with the additional five thousand officers, it will still remain the laughing stock it has always been except when under the command of Shafie who was a man of considerable moral and ethical courage.

Watching the video of Abdul Razak Musa in action in the palace of justice was surreal. I could not help but reminded of one of my favourite BBC comedies of the 70s, “Some Mothers Do ‘Ave ‘Em” by Raymond Allen, featuring Michael Crawford as the hapless, well meaning, accident prone and clueless Frank Spencer.

There, I fear, the similarity must end. Frank Spencer was at least endearing and lovable and highly intelligent in real life. His timing was always perfect, a requirement for a successful comedy and he was a first rate actor. Abdul Razak Musa’s comedy of errors has succeeded, more than he could ever have imagined, in driving another nail in the MACC coffin and, by extension, that of the Malaysian public service whose reputation cannot be lower than it is at present, with or without the much touted KPIs.

Najib must stop tinkering at the edges and deal not with the symptoms but the afflictions that are crippling his 1Malaysia. Start with replacing a Malay-centred civil service and bring in talented Malaysians to help make a real difference in developing this country to its full potential.

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 4 September 2010, 7:08 pm and is filed under
Teoh Beng Hock
,
Tunku Abdul Aziz
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.