How pathetic – under Malaysian parliamentary system, Auditor-General  is giving directive to PAC rather than the other way round

Most pathetic.

It would appear that under the Malaysian system of parliamentary democracy, it is the Auditor General who is giving directive to Parliament and the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) rather than the other way round.

After the PAC’s second  meeting yesterday on the Auditor-General’s final audit report on 1MDB, the PAC Chairman Datuk Hasan Arifin announced that the Auditor-General’s final audit report on 1MDB will no longer be classified a state secret under the Official Secrets Act (OSA) 1972 once the PAC tables its findings on it in Parliament.

He disclosed that the Auditor-General Tan Sri Ambrin Buang explained to the PAC that after the PAC report is tabled in Parliament, his final audit report on the 1MDB will no longer be an official secret document under the OSA.

This  is most sad, shameful and even pathetic for the PAC Chairman should be telling the Auditor-General  and the Executive that the classification of the AG’s final audit report on 1MDB ends when it is presented to the PAC last Friday, and not when the PAC presents its report to Dewan Rakyat in the indefinite future – this Parliament meeting  by April 7 or some time at the end of the year?

Instead of the Chairman of a key parliamentary committee jealously safeguarding parliamentary dignity and privileges from intrusion and interference by the Executive, we have a clear example where an occupant  of a key parliamentary position is  servilely and supinely submitting to Executive trespass with parliamentary dignity and privileges.

Who decides that until the PAC submits its report to the Dewan Rakyat, the Auditor-General’s final audit report presented to the PAC last Friday should be kept under lock-and-key in the Parliament “strongroom” and that the  14 PAC members are not allowed to take the Auditor-General’s 300-page report home but can only access the Auditor-General’s Report in Parliament under humiliating conditions as if any premature leak of the Auditor-General’s report could lead to grave national security situations?

It is the height of contempt of Parliament for the Executive to classify the Auditor-General’s final audit report on 1MDB  under the OSA although submitted to the PAC on Friday, and what is even more humiliating, imposing the rule that PAC members cannot take home the Auditor-General’s 300-page final audit report, and can only refer to the AG’s final audit report in Parliament’s “strong-room”!

Why not lock the “cari makan” PAC Chairman, Datuk Hasan Arifin together with the 13 other PAC members in the Parliament “strongroom”, requiring them to digest, understand and master  the Auditor-General’s final audit report only in the  Parliament “strongroom”?

When Ministers have access to OSA reports and documents, are they allowed to take these reports and documents home or to their offices  to read, digest, understand and master them or are they locked in a Cabinet “strongroom” where they must complete the reading and understanding of the OSA reports concerned?

Not allowing PAC members to take home copies of the Auditor-General’s final audit report to read, understand and digest them is an intolerable and unacceptable Executive humiliation of parliamentary honour, dignity and privileges which must be purged by a special Parliamentary motion.

Why is Hasan Arifin as PAC Chairman so submissive as to submit to such humiliating, intolerable and unacceptable Executive trespass with parliamentary honour, dignity and privileges in the case of the PAC investigations into 1MDB?

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 8 March 2016, 11:32 am and is filed under
Financial Scandals
,
Parliament
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Police should charge the trio for lodging false reports against me alleging that I had committed sedition against Yang di Pertuan Agong

Police should charge the trio for lodging false reports against me alleging that I had committed sedition against the Yang di Pertuan Agong, when I said that the Yang di Pertuan Agong’s speech at the opening of Parliament yesterday was prepared by the government.

According to Malaysiakini today, the trio who had lodged false police reports against me are Mohd Khairul Azam Abdul Aziz in Sentul, Mohd Shukry Roslan in  Rawang,  Mohammad Zahiddin at Wangsa Maju in Wangsa Maju.

The trio had criminal offences, particularly Section 182 of Penal Code  which makes it an offence punishable with six months’ jail, or RM 2,000 fine or both, for “false information” in lodging a false report.

The police must act without fear or favour and initiate investigations against the trio for false reporting to demonstrate that the police are independent, impartial, efficient and professional in carrying out their police duties.

It would appear that the Citizen’s Declaration on Friday has intensified the vicious campaign of lies and demonization against me by UMNO/BN  cybertroopers – adding to the  long litany of falsehoods against me, from causing the May 13, 1969 riots, to being anti-Malay and anti-Islam with false allegations of DAP attempt to create a  Christian Malaysia, RM1.2 billion Israeli donation to DAP and that former Prime Minister, Tun Dr. Mahathir and former Deputy Prime Minister, Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin have  become my “stooges”.

It would appear that the Umno/BN cybertroopers are scraping the bottom of the barrel to concoct more lies and falsehoods against me and DAP leaders.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 8 March 2016, 2:56 pm and is filed under
Crime
,
DAP
,
Police
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


The significance of the ‘Citizens’ Declaration’

by K Siladass

Malaysiakini

7 Mar 2016

  The country is in turmoil. There are too many demeaning incidents that do not inspire confidence in the present leadership, particularly that of Najib Abdul Razak. Foreign governments are allegedly not too comfortable to deal with the present prime minister, because his explanations about the money found in his personal bank account varied from one to another situation, which is nothing but a clear case of vacillating.

His handpicked attorney-general believes that he is the law and whatever he says must be accepted. In this regard he treats the whole legal system as being incapable of differentiating between chalk and cheese. An attorney-general who condones alleged criminal acts is unfit to be one. And in handling Najib’s case he has clearly abused the discretionary power he has.

Umno Baru is split, hence within the country Najib’s prestige as prime minister is in shambles. His integrity as a leader is questioned. The most important question that looms at large is who needs to be saved? Najib or Malaysia? Who needs to be protected, Umno Baru led by Najib or Malaysia?

The answers to both question would be if you love Malaysia, then it need to be saved. If you love Malaysia, then, it needs protection. Thus, Malaysia needs to be saved from leaders like Najib. Malaysia needs to be protected from Najib and those who support him.

Therefore, the Citizens’ Declaration is the first of its kind in the country’s history and can only be seen as a genuine effort to save Malaysia from leaders whose motive is self-aggrandisement and unjust enrichment, and at the same time the declaration seeks to protect the country and the people from unjust laws perpetuated by Najib and his supporters.

What is remarkable is the fact that the current Umno Baru is Mahathir Mohamad’s brainchild, and its transformation into a political Frankenstein is there for all to see. This Frankenstein under the control of Najib actually caused more damage than one could imagine.

It is time the creator of this Frankenstein come out to destroy what he had created. Besides, Najib is also Mahathir’s creation, hence it is only befitting that he leads to ensure that his creation does not cause more irreparable damage.

The signatories to the Citizens’ Declaration by most of the political parties with diverse objectives and non-government organisations can only be seen as an awakening to meet the challenge the unjust course pursued by Najib and his supporters. The significance of the Citizens’ Declaration could only mean that its motive is to see a clean, efficient, transparent and fair Malaysian government whose aim must be for a just society. Save Malaysia.

K SILADASS is a practising lawyer.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 8 March 2016, 5:39 am and is filed under
Malaysian Dream
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Working with Mahathir: The right thing to do?

 — Yu Ren Chung

The Malay Mail Online

March 7, 2016

MARCH 7 — Earlier this week, a group of influential Malaysians signed a “Declaration” calling for Prime Minister Najib Razak to be removed and for institutional reforms.

This is a major escalation in the effort to remove Najib, and an extraordinary development in Malaysian politics. Najib has faced months of exposés, investigations, and rebukes for corruption relating to the 1MDB scandal.

The signing of the Declaration is the first time that Najib’s critics from opposing sides have explicitly united against him. Opposition leaders and civil society figures on the one hand, and disaffected members (and ex-members) of Najib’s own party on the other hand, have put their differences aside to “save Malaysia”.

Opposition and civil society leaders who signed the declaration are still “coming to terms” with working alongside Dr Mahathir Mohamad, the leading figure of the Declaration effort, who they opposed for decades for his authoritarianism during his Premiership. Many supporters of opposition and civil society leaders have been left questioning this cooperation.

Is working with Mahathir the right thing to do? I believe this question consists of two elements. The first element is strategy, and the second element is morality. I will not present a definitive conclusion for either element, but I hope to highlight what I think are the main arguments for both.

Strategy

Firstly, is working with Mahathir strategically sound? I suggest that the answer depends most heavily on one consideration. The consideration is not just whether the cooperation will remove Najib, but instead whether it will change institutions.

Why institutions?

You may think that ousting Najib is so important, that any other consideration is secondary. This is a risky position to take. As Prime Minister, Mahathir distorted Malaysia’s institutions. Accountability mechanisms were weakened, while Prime Ministerial powers were strengthened. When Mahathir stepped down in 2003, many were optimistic that things would be different under new leadership. Instead, Abdullah Badawi attempted reforms but was unsuccessful, and Najib further exploited the distorted institutions.

Here’s one example to illustrate the point. As Prime Minister, Mahathir increasingly “personalised” the police force, the most important enforcement institution in the country. The police force became less of “a neutral regulatory regime” and more of a “personal instrument” of the Prime Minister (as described by Lee & Nesadurai in a chapter in the 2010 book, Political Change, Democratic Transitions and Security in Southeast Asia). Fast forward to the present: the very same police force ignores police reports against Najib, and instead arrests the individual who lodged the reports. The man (Mahathir) left, but the institution remained.

The importance of institutions is universal. Political Scientist Sven Steinmo, in a 1989 essay in World Politics, argued, “institutions provide the context in which interest groups, politicians, and bureaucrats define their policy preferences.” To continue our example: if Najib knew the police force would act neutrally, he may have been less disposed to act unlawfully.

What about Mahathir?

You may then ask: if institutions are so important, and Mahathir distorted institutions, then can working with Mahathir improve institutions? Only time will tell for sure; however, two points can be made at present.

One point is that Mahathir is still one of the most influential figures in Malaysia. His involvement likely increases the chances of reaching the tipping point needed for any leadership change – in this case a necessary condition for institutional change.

The other point is that Mahathir at present is not the same Mahathir who distorted institutions. I do not mean that his character has changed, but rather his incentive structure has changed. Mahathir-the-Prime-Minister had an incentive to consolidate power around his office, while Mahathir-the-retired-politician does not.

Thus it is plausible that working with Mahathir will encourage leadership change – a necessary condition for institutional change – while not hindering institutional change itself.

Morality

The second element in deciding whether opposition and civil society leaders are right to work with Mahathir is that of morality. Is working with Mahathir morally acceptable?

Some may argue that Mahathir acted unlawfully and wronged many during his Premiership, and to work with Mahathir would then be morally wrong, for two reasons.

The first reason involves justice. Any outcome jointly devised by Mahathir could absolve him from his past wrongdoings. Not only would he escape punishment, he may even be ultimately rewarded through a more positive legacy. The second reason involves loyalty. Cooperation with Mahathir in and of itself could be immoral, because it would be a betrayal of those he had wronged.

The issue of justice is not easily resolved, but I suggest two considerations. One consideration is that it is not unusual for justice to be sacrificed to obtain better outcomes. For example, countries transitioning from conflict often choose peace over justice – Myanmar’s political transition is the latest instance of this trade-off. Another consideration is that we may have to choose between bringing Mahathir or Najib to justice.

The issue of loyalty is more easily resolved. First, because loyalty itself is of limited moral worth. And second, because – as constitutional lawyer Syahredzan Johan has pointed out – those who were most wronged by Mahathir have themselves signed the Declaration and agreed to work with him.

On the other hand, there is an urgent need to change the course of the country. Not changing the course of the country would lead to continued losses and suffering for Malaysians, current and future. If working with Mahathir can help bring about this change (in other words, it has strategic value) then working with Mahathir also has clear moral benefits.

It seems to me that the moral benefits are potentially enormous, while the moral costs are smaller.

Institutional change the key

I have explored two elements in deciding whether working with Mahathir is justifiable: strategic and moral. On strategy, I suggested that working with Mahathir will encourage leadership change, and will not hinder institutional change. On morality, I presented the two moral costs of working with Mahathir: sacrificing justice and sacrificing loyalty. I then suggested that the strategic benefits would translate into moral benefits, potentially outweighing the moral costs.

You may or may not agree with this assessment. But in any case, the Declaration has already been signed. What must be done now, is to insist that any change includes the institutional changes demanded in the Declaration, which are:

“A repeal of all the recent laws and agreements that violate the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Federal Constitution and undermine policy choices … a restoration of the integrity of the institutions that have been undermined, such as the police, the MACC, Bank Negara and the PAC … [and] to restore the important principle of the separation of powers among the executive, legislature and judiciary.”

Additionally, Malaysians must not accept empty promises of institutional change. Let us learn from the shortcomings of the 2011 Egyptian revolution, captured by this Tahrir Square protestor: “Our mistake was to leave the square before our demands were met. We should have stayed until they were.”

The opportunity to change institutions does not come often. If Malaysians don’t insist on it when the moment of change comes, it may never happen at all.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 8 March 2016, 9:27 am and is filed under
Mahathir
,
Malaysian Dream
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Ban on Asia’s best debater Syed Saddiq from speaking at universities another sign of panic in the Putrajaya corridors of power over the 304 Citizens’ Declaration for Najib’s removal as PM and democratic and institutional reform

On Sunday, I said that there is an air of panic in Putrajaya as a result of the historic 304 (March 4) Citizens’ Declaration for Datuk Seri Najib Razak’s removal as Prime Minister and call for democratic and institutional reforms to Save Malaysia.

As an example, I cited Najib’s  emergency summoning of UMNO/BN Members of Parliament to his official residence 24 hours after the Citizens’ Declaration on Saturday.

While UMNO/BN leaders put up a stoic front, denying that they were in any way bothered by the Citizens’ Declaration, the ban on Asia’s best debater, Syed Saddiq Syed Abdul Rahman, 23,  from speaking at the local universities provides another sign of the panic in the Putrajaya corridors of power over the Citizens’ Declaration, signed not only by the longest-serving former Prime Minister, Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad, the former Deputy Prime Minister, Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin, former Ministers as well as  by political and civil society leaders totaling  45 personalities.

Even more important, the Citizens’ Declaration has the effect like clap of thunder in the political landscape giving renewed hope to many Malaysians about the possibility of  political changes in the country, although there are also reservations and doubters.

This is captured by  one social media poll by Malaysiakini’s English Facebook and Twitter accounts, recording 76.2 per cent of 5,5852 respondents in favour of the declaration, 11.6 per cent rejection and 8.8 per cent skeptical about the entire issue.

The Citizens’ Declaration is unprecedented, historic and a major watershed in Malaysian political landscape because it  crossed the great political divides in the country and accords with the sentiment of overwhelming majority of Malaysians, regardless of race, religion, region, politics, age or gender.

Even Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim from inside Sungai Buloh prison, has given full support to the bridging of the political divides as he endorses a  movement which is not to be limited to “personal agendas or political vendettas”  but to “chart a new way forward to save our beloved nation”.

Higher Education Minister Datuk Seri Idris Jusoh’s  attributing the blame  for Syed Saddiq’s ban to autonomy which has been given to  the public universities  do not wash, as nobody believes that Idris would say the same thing if the Prime Minister or if he himself had been subjected to a similar ban as that imposed on Syed Saddiq.

Idris should send an  unmistakable message to all the public universities that they have the “autonomy” not to ban Syed Saddiq from speaking at the university functions. Would Idris do this and get the local universities to revoke the ban on Syed Saddiq.

Another sign of the panic in the corridors of power in Putrajaya are the lies and exaggerations about the after-effects of the Citizens’ Declaration, with one  claim that 250 buses had been hired to ferry 100,000 paid protests to a gathering in Selangor on March 27, organized by former Law Minister, Datuk Zaid Ibrahim.

This is indeed a big surprise, for when Zaid informed me about the proposed March 27 gathering, he was talking about a closed-door gathering of some 500 people. Where then do the 250 buses and 100,000 paid protestors emerge from?

There have been both bouquets and brickbats for the 304 Citizens’ Declaration.

Nelson Mandela’s experience may be useful and relevant, where the Nobel Peace Prize Laureate  emerged from over 10,000 days of imprisonment in apartheid South Africa to participate in a national reconciliation and salvation campaign where, in his own words in his autobiography
“Long Walk to Freedom”
,  “Historic enemies who had been fighting each other for three centuries met and shook hands”.

These words of Nelson Mandela in his autobiography may be pertinent for Malaysians at this stage of Malaysia’s  multiple national crises, with some describing them as approach of a “perfect storm”:

“I wanted South Africa to see that I loved even my enemies while I hated the system that turned us against one another.” (p. 568)

“I would not mince words about the horrors of apartheid, but I said over and over, that we should forget the past and concentrate on building a better future for all”. (p. 614).

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 9 March 2016, 4:42 pm and is filed under
Mahathir
,
Malaysian Dream
,
Najib Razak
,
university
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Making our voices heard

Dyana Sofya

The Malay Mail Online

Wednesday March 9, 2016

MARCH 9 ― On March 4, 2016 we saw national leaders from both sides of the political divide, civil society and other influential figures sign the Citizens’ Declaration.

Perhaps Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad put it best when he said it was a meeting of “strange bedfellows.” Be that as it may, it was certainly a historic occasion for our country. Never have we witnessed political arch-nemeses, such as those who were present, coming together for a common political cause.

As I watched the events unfold “live” on my laptop screen, I had mixed feelings of amazement, trepidation and excitement. After all, those who had been jailed, exiled and prosecuted were now sitting together with the man who had caused them all the hardship.

But they did, not because they had suddenly forgotten and forgiven the man for his sins, but because they believed in the greater cause of saving Malaysia and her people.

Not everyone reacted the same way, of course. Some of my comrades, colleagues and friends felt betrayed and disappointed. I don’t blame them.

Some have labelled this pact as akin to an “unholy alliance”, or making a deal with the devil, so to speak. Funnily enough, I am also sure the same question is being asked by supporters of the other side ― the “devil” in this case being a variable.

This occasion reminds me of the coming together of the Big Three at the Yalta Conference of 1945. In the final days of World War II, President Franklin D. Roosevelt of the United States, Prime Minister Winston Churchill of the United Kingdom and Joseph Stalin, supreme dictator of the Soviet Union, arguably a group of stranger bedfellows, had come together to plan, design and decide on the final strategy against Germany and Japan.

Although their personal philosophies and national ideologies were completely different, their common wartime objective led to an unlikely partnership that ushered in the end of the war.

In comparison, what we saw last Friday in Malaysia was small potatoes. In truth, we have seen many unlikely partnerships in Malaysian politics. In 1990, DAP worked together with Umno rebel Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah, while in 1999 DAP joined hands with Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim.

Both had been Umno stalwarts but found common ground with the opposition following their fall from the ruling Malay party. If Malaysian politics has taught us one thing, it is that there is no shortage of political surprises. Whatever it is, we should keep the bigger picture in mind.

The Citizens’ Declaration proves that unity beyond partisan divide fuelled by common interest is possible. This is something leaders from the ruling regime fail to fathom.

Minister of Communication and Multimedia Datuk Seri Salleh Keruak even said that a declaration backed by 58 individuals does not reflect or represent 30 million Malaysians. According to that logic, he should able to understand that a government who lost the popular vote in the 13th general election does not represent the voters’ interests as well.

Winston Churchill, Franklin Roosevelt and Joseph Stalin at the Yalta Conference in 1945.

Winston Churchill, Franklin Roosevelt and Joseph Stalin at the Yalta Conference in 1945.

The next question asked by ordinary Malaysians is whether signing declarations would work. We should never underestimate the power of massive public pressure. Mounting public disapproval has caused many policy reversals and resignations in the world.

President Nixon was the first president of the United States in history to resign due to pressures from the public and leaders of his party over the Watergate scandal. General Saw Maung of Burma suffered from public nervous breakdowns and even believed himself to be the reincarnation of 11th-century warrior King Kyansittha during a golf tournament in Rangoon. His intense breakdown resulted from intense global and national public pressure after losing the 1990 elections to the National League for Democracy led by Aung San Suu Kyi, undermining his authority as the prime minister.

In 2013, Turkish ministers resigned from their Cabinet positions after growing public pressure following graft investigations. Datuk Onn Jaafar, Tunku Abdul Rahman, and Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi all resigned from office due to public pressure. At least these Malaysian gentlemen knew when they were no longer popular, unlike certain leaders we have today.

However, for public pressure to work, we need more than just endorsements from our leaders. We need participation from ordinary Malaysians. The more people take part in this, the greater the political influence it will generate.

The Save Malaysia cause is beyond the opposition’s political agenda. However, Malaysia cannot be saved without the people’s support. I would therefore like to end by quoting the prophetic toast made by the Soviet dictator Stalin at the Yalta Conference:

“It is not so difficult to keep unity in time of war since there is a joint aim to defeat the common enemy, which is clear to everyone. The difficult task will come after the war when diverse interests will tend to divide the Allies. It is our duty to see that our relations in peacetime are as strong as they have been in war.”

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 9 March 2016, 11:02 am and is filed under
DAP
,
Dyana Sofya
,
Mahathir
,
Malaysian Dream
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


“Save Malaysia” from mischief makers who lodge false police reports when I said what all law  students are taught in universities – that the Royal Address during Parliament’s Opening is the government’s policy speech

The “Save Malaysia” campaign is all the pertinent and relevant when there are mischief makers who lodge false police reports when I said what all law students are taught in universities – that the Royal Address during Parliament’s Opening is the government’s policy speech.

The DAP MP for Segambut, Lim Lip Eng, has lodged a police report against three mischief makers who had lodged a false police  report against me for having committed the crime of sedition when I said that the King’s speech at the official opening of Parliament was prepared by the government-of-the-day, and I hope that the police would  charge the three for their public mischief.

What really surprise me is that there are UMNO/BN Ministers and Members of Parliament who are  so ignorant about basic constitutional and parliamentary principles and practices that their thinking are on the same level of these mischief makers.

I had more than once spoken up in Parliament to belabor this basic constitutional and parliamentary principle, as I had in the past been accused of disloyalty and treason for proposing amendment in Parliament to the motion of thanks to the Yang di Pertuan Agong for the Royal Address.

This is what I said in Parliament in my speech on the Royal Address on 21st March 2007:

“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.”

It is very sad that after 13 General Elections with the Malaysian Parliament building undergoing protracted and major renovation works to celebrate its 60th anniversary in 2019 after the 14th General Election, there are still many in the country, including Ministers and MPs, who do not know that motion of thanks for the royal address or its equivalent are regularly amended in established Commonwealth Parliaments, as  the Royal Address is not the monarch’s personal address but the policy speech of the government-of-the-day setting out its programme for the year.

Any amendment to a motion of thanks is not an attack on the monarch or head of state but an opportunity to table new policies, programmes or perspectives that should have been included in the government’s policy speech.

In Lok Sabha in India, hundreds of amendments are moved every year to the Motion of Thanks for the President’s Address. For instance, for the year 1993, there were 932 amendments to the motion of thanks for the President’s Address.

Similarly, such amendments are regularly made to motions of thanks in Commonwealth Parliaments, whether House of Commons in United Kingdom or the Parliaments of Australia, New Zealand or Canada.

Even in Malaysia, I had occasion to move an amendment to the Motion of Thanks for the Royal Address in the Parliament meeting in October 1982 as well as in 2008, although the first  was rejected at the voting stage and the second disallowed by the Chair on some spurious ground under the Standing Orders.

One objective of the “Save Malaysia” campaign which led to  the Citizens’ Declaration in Kuala Lumpur last Friday must be to cleanse Malaysian politics and restore the purity, nobility and sanctity of politics as an important avenue   to better the welfare of Malaysians and achieve Malaysia’s potential as an united, harmonious, progressive, democratic and a world-class nation instead of bogged down and even lost in the politics of lies, falsehoods and hate – like accusing DAP of being anti-monarchy when DAP has  repeated declared in the past 50 years our loyalty and commitment to uphold and defend the system of constitutional monarchy as entrenched in the Malaysian Constitution.

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 9 March 2016, 9:41 am and is filed under
Constitution
,
Parliament
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Speaker Pandikar must explain the double standards in allowing questions on Najib’s RM2.6 billion “donation” scandal in last parliamentary meeting but disallowing them in the current session

The Speaker Tan Sri Pandikar Amin Mulia must explain the double standards in allowing questions on Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak’s RM2.6 billion “donation” scandal in the last parliamentary meeting but disallowing them in the current session.

Members of Parliament and the nation were promised  last November by the Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, Datuk Seri Azalina Othman Said that the government would answer all questions on Najib’s RM2.6 billion donation scandal on the last day of the budget meeting on Dec. 3.

Right from the beginning of last year’s budget meeting when it started in October, Azalina had been avoiding and evading questions on Najib’s RM55 billion 1MDB and RM2.6 billion “donation” twin mega scandals, first saying on Oct. 20 that Najib will answer all questions on both scandals at a date to be fixed later.

After the Ministerial winding up of the debate on the Budget on 5th November, when again she avoided questions on the twin mega scandals,  she told reporters in Parliament that the answer on the RM2.6 billion donation scandal would be given on the last day of Parliament on Dec. 3.

She said: “The RM2.6 billion is raised in every question during debates. If the PM answers today, there will still be continuous questions.

“It is better to accumulate (the questions) and answer them all on the last day. Yet it is still the PM prerogative.”

But on the last day of the budget meeting on Dec. 3, there was a double cop-out.

Firstly, Najib disappeared and was not in the House to give the answer all MPs and the nation were waiting for.

Secondly, the Deputy Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Zahid Hamidi in a three-minute fiasco performed a second  cop-out with  a cock-and-bull story to justify why he could not give any answer – which all MPs and the whole nation were waiting for as a result of a specific promise made by a Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department.

Zahid said nothing new, merely reiterating that the RM2.6 billion was a political donation, that the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) had identified the donor and that Putrajaya could not elaborate on the RM2.6 billion deposited in Najib’s personal bank accounts as it would prejudice investigations by the authorities.

More than two months have passed, and the RM2.6 billion “political” donation has become RM4.2 billion, and furthermore, what is the latest about the “investigation by the authorities” as there is no authority in Malaysia which seems to be currently investigating this multi-billion ringgit political donation scandal.

There is also the very pertinent question whether the “donor” for the RM2.6 billion had been identified.

However, in the current meeting of Parliament, MPs from Pakatan Harapan who submitted numerous questions on Najib’s RM2.6 billion “donation” scandal have found that the Speaker had disallowed their questions!

The Speaker must satisfy MPs and the Malaysian public for such double standards as it is completely unacceptable if  the Speaker is now  in the forefront blocking parliamentary query to get to the bottom of Najib’s twin mega scandals.

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 9 March 2016, 12:03 pm and is filed under
Corruption
,
Financial Scandals
,
Najib Razak
,
Parliament
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


United front needed to unseat PM Najib

Tommy Thomas

Malaysiakini

9th March 2016

COMMENT
 Any prime minister in the 21st century who admits to receiving US$680 million in his personal bank account will immediately resign or be removed because it so offends public morality and good governance.

When multiple versions are given of the source of monies of that scale and magnitude, the reasons for payment to him and what happened to the money, his credibility is so destroyed that it is impossible for him to continue leading. Yet Najib Abdul Razak remains Malaysia’s prime minister nearly one year after the world discovered the unbelievably healthy state of his bank accounts.

Indeed, Najib’s decision last July to sack the deputy prime minister and attorney-general, and to intimidate hundreds of bureaucrats from discharging their duties in various governmental agencies charged with investigating the 1MDB scandal and the receipt of US$ 680 million, has had the effect of temporarily covering up the crimes committed and silencing Malaysians on pain of detention and prosecution.

A climate of fear has succeeded to a large extent, but the scandal is too deep and too huge to simply vanish as the prime minister desires.

Malaysians have been repeatedly told that replacing Najib as prime minister is improper, and that we would have to wait for the next general election scheduled for late 2018. That is utter nonsense; after all Najib himself became prime minister after Abdullah Ahmad Badawi resigned one year after leading Umno to a comfortable victory in the general election of 2008 because of pressure by the Umno warlords.

In fact, all the previous prime ministers (except Najib’s father who died in office) resigned rather than being defeated at the polls.

It is against the national interest and the public interest for Najib to remain in office. Having received so much money – indeed in a recent article in the Wall Street Journal it was alleged that US$1 billion (and not US$680 million) had been credited into his personal accounts – and abusing his awesome powers to ensure that the truth never emerges, Najib has forfeited any right to hold office.

Hence, the most important objective of all Malaysians today is to work together lawfully and democratically to remove Najib as prime minister. He has no right to be our prime minister because he is unfit to hold the highest executive office in the land.

The senior leaders of Umno have formed a ‘cordon sanitaire’ around their president, protecting him and themselves. The speaker of the Dewan Rakyat has refused to permit a motion of no-confidence against the prime minister. Extraordinary times demand extraordinary measures. Only a united front acting for the greater good of the people and nation can unseat the prime minister.

It is against this background that last week’s coalition of senior and respected politicians from numerous political parties, in collaboration with major NGOs seeking Najib’s removal must be applauded. However, cold water has been poured on the role played by the controversial former prime minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad.

This criticism, whilst understandable, is misplaced. It is undisputed that as an authoritarian leader for 22 years, Dr Mahathir was singularly responsible for centralising power in the office of the prime minister and Umno presidency for his personal benefit, which a decade later, is exploited by Najib. Hence the structure and system were constructed by Dr Mahathir.

Lengthy catalogue of damage

Further, institutions of the state which were intended to be independent or impartial to act as a check and balance on the powers of the executive were gravely damaged by Dr Mahathir. The catalogue of damage done by Dr Mahathir is lengthy and long-lasting.

But they should not serve as an excuse not to utilise Dr Mahathir’s considerable political skills, acumen and clout derived from 60 years of hard politicking in Umno in attaining today’s ultimate objective: to remove Najib as prime minister.

That Dr Mahathir was one of the first public personalities to criticise 1MDB and to explain in simple terms its complex and layered financial transactions cannot be denied. What cannot also be denied is his single-minded goal of wanting Najib replaced.

Perhaps the most cogent argument that can be made to millions of Malaysians who are understandably sceptical and cynical about Dr Mahathir’s role in this endeavour is the fact that two of the savviest and most experienced of his opponents, Lim Kit Siang and Anwar Ibrahim, have joined in the movement to oust Najib.

Lim Kit Siang was detained on the order of Dr Mahathir during Operation Lalang in 1987, and remained in preventive detention for two years. Anwar Ibrahim was sacked, charged and jailed for some six years on Dr Mahathir’s instructions.

Yet, each of them realises today that the national interest overrides whatever personal animosities they harbour against their former oppressor. So the average Malaysian should respond by saying that if Lim Kit Siang and Anwar Ibrahim can work together with Dr Mahathir to remove Najib, so can he or she.

Tactics and strategy are essential in politics. So is identifying primary and common objectives. Permanent friends and permanent enemies do not exist in politics. Let me give two historical examples – the first in global politics and the second in national politics, and both involving Hitler.

When Hitler’s Germany invaded Stalin’s Russia in July 1941 (despite their 1939 pact) both Roosevelt and Churchill faced tremendous opposition when they suggested an alliance with Russia because of Stalin’s notoriety as a mass-murderer. Stalin had already murdered some 6 million of his countrymen in the Great Terror of the 1930’s.

Yet, Roosevelt and Churchill persuaded their countrymen that their ultimate objective was the defeat of Nazi Germany, and that Hitler was a greater threat than Stalin. Churchill was quoted as saying “I’ll even sup with the Devil to defeat Hitler”.

Secondly, the Labour Party in Britain was in a quandary whether to join a National Government with Churchill’s Conservative Party. Again wiser heads prevailed, and Attlee’s Labour Party was a loyal member of the coalition government that fought the war.

Accomplishing their momentary common goal

History vindicated both decisions. The world has been a better place in the 70 years after Hitler’s defeat. And in both cases, after the war, the coalitions broke up. The Cold War began shortly after 1945, and allies became bitter rivals.

Likewise, domestically, Labour defeated the Conservatives in the 1945 General Elections, and Atlee became the UK’s post-war prime minister. Hence, their coalitions were of a temporary nature to accomplish their momentary common goal.

Malaysians must be astute to learn the true lessons of history and politics. All of us in the millions must rally around our leaders who signed last week’s Declaration and unite to achieve our immediate objective: the need for a new prime minister.

But that is not our only goal. Indeed Paragraphs 36 and 37 of the Declaration, to which Dr Mahathir was a signatory, expressly state the need for institutional reform and the restoration of fundamental principles of governance. In this journey, Dr Mahathir, Anwar Ibrahim and Lim Kit Siang have critical leadership roles.

A popular front cutting across political parties and affiliations enjoying bipartisan support is also vital for another reason. Because Najib has pandered to the interests of foreign powers to the detriment of our national interest, he enjoys a large measure of support from the US, China, UK, Australia, Singapore: to name a few.

A broad coalition of heavyweight and responsible politicians opposing Najib will give confidence to these countries who are obviously concerned about a post-Najib scenario.

But more significantly, a great power like the USA must be given a strong signal that identifying itself with a terribly unpopular prime minister is just not in their interests. After all, the US would not wish a repeat of the post-1979 Iranian example when the US lost all influences because of its close identification and support for the dreaded Shah of Iran.

The serious structural, systemic and institutional reforms urgently needed to get the nation back on track for which Merdeka was undertaken some 60 years ago will have to await the appointment of a new prime minister. Hence it is a question of time and priority. Absolutely no reform of any kind can take place so long as Najib and Umno are in power.

TOMMY THOMAS is a prominent lawyer specialising in corporate litigation and insolvency, and commercial and public law. He has appeared in litigation involving bonds and other sophisticated financial instruments and has dealt with administrative, labour and constitutional cases.

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 9 March 2016, 12:36 pm and is filed under
Anwar Ibrahim
,
Mahathir
,
Malaysian Dream
,
Najib Razak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


A Chinese view of the Citizens’ Declaration

Rama Ramanathan

The Malaysian Insider

10 March 2016

Last week 45 prominent persons signed “a Citizens’ Declaration”. They signed in their personal capacity. However, when we see many of them, we immediately recall the organisations or histories they represent.

The organisations include Bersih 2.0, the coalition for free and fair elections which has evolved into a movement to restore parliamentary democracy, and C4 (Centre to Combat Cronyism and Corruption).

The histories include victims of Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad’s use of the Internal Security Act (ISA) to silence those who criticised his reign which was characterised by cronyism, corruption and erosion of public institutions. Even, Lim Kit Siang of DAP and Parti Amanah Negara president Mohamad Sabu (who was formerly of PAS) signed.

They signed the declaration at the invitation of Dr Mahathir. The declaration called for the removal from office of Datuk Seri Najib Razak, Prime Minister of Malaysia.

Some have denounced those who signed. They’ve given many reasons. I’ll list just six:

1. The primary author of the declaration is Dr Mahathir, the person most responsible for creating the conditions which made Najib so secure in office.

2. Dr Mahathir has never apologised for the unjust actions he took or condoned while he was in office.

3. Dr Mahathir, though he has resigned from Umno – the party built upon “Malay supremacy” – is eager for Umno to retain its dominance.

4. The declaration stridently calls for the removal of Najib, but only meekly calls for reforms such as those proposed during the Bersih 4 protest last year – which was supported by hundreds of thousands of peaceful Malaysians.

5. The declaration doesn’t even mention Bersih 4, the biggest ever protest in the history of Malaysia.

6. The declaration says nothing about who will replace Najib.

The critics say those who signed played into the hands of Dr Mahathir. They say Dr Mahathir and his allies will “use” the declaration to claim they have massive support, and bring into play various forces which will compel Umno to replace Najib. They say the NGO and political party leaders are naïve or opportunists or worse.

Many of my friends have asked what I think.

My first answer is that the leaders who signed did so primarily because Umno is deaf and the Council of Rulers headed by the Yang diPertuan Agong needs a clear signal about the mind of the people concerning Najib.

The declaration sends a clear signal: the evidence of wrongdoing by Najib in relation to the “gift” he received into his personal account, and in relation to the excesses the 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB) sovereign wealth fund engaged in, demands the end of his tenure.

My second answer is something I’ve often heard in corporate boardrooms. You need to send a clear signal that you want a place at the negotiating table. Those who signed said “we will sit with you to discuss what should be done to Najib and his collaborators, and how to make it impossible for the next prime minister to do what Najib has done.”

My third answer is that an urgent public declaration by high profile individuals with very diverse histories signals the urgency which the people feel. People are willing to actively engage in acts to restore a credible government to our nation.

My fourth answer is to remind people of two insights.

The first insight is from Deng Xiaoping, the communist leader who suffered years of humiliation, torture and incarceration at the hands of Mao Zedong in China, then became the architect of the new China.

Deng – despite his role in the Tiananmen massacre – focused the backward Chinese on becoming one of the most forward-looking nations.

Deng resolved the contradiction between socialism and the free market economy by saying “It doesn’t matter if a cat is black or white, so long as it catches mice.”

Our paramount need now is to send a strong message that even the appearance of corruption is unacceptable; and, even the appearance of interfering in investigations is unacceptable. The declaration and those who signed it have sent a very strong message that those at the top who fail to set the right example must go.

The second insight is also something I’ve heard in boardrooms and is also from China: Mo zhe shi tou guo he, or “cross the river by groping the stone under foot”.

It is often not possible to see everything that’s ahead. That doesn’t mean you just rant or twiddle your thumbs. It means you take risks and you accept that you may miscalculate and have to take a step backward and try a different approach.

The Citizens’ Declaration could be a tipping point in our nation: the point at which a series of small changes or incidents cause a larger, more important change. – March 10, 2016.

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 10 March 2016, 12:20 pm and is filed under
Mahathir
,
Malaysian Dream
,
Najib Razak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Call on youths and students  to make the ban on Asia’s best debater, Syed Saddiq 23, in public universities the cause célèbre in Malaysia to demand academic and democratic  freedom for youths and students

Asia’s best debater, Syed Saddiq Syed Abdul Rahman, 23,  has been banned from a third public university, Universiti Malaysia Sarawak (Unimas), after he had earlier been banned from Universiti Sains Islam Malaysia (Usim) and Universiti Tenaga National (Uniten).

The Higher Education Minister Datuk Seri Idris Jusoh had passed the buck of responsibility for the ban on Syed Saddiq by Usim and Uniten to the public universities concerned, claiming that the ban was because of the autonomy which his Ministry had devolved to the public universities.

Idris cannot wash his hands from responsibility for the ban on Syed Siddiq so easily.

Everybody knows that Idris was evading his responsibility as Higher Education Minister and was trying to pass the buck of the ban by Usim and Uniten to the public universities concerned.

But the third  ban on Syed Siddiq by Unimas provides irrefutable proof that there was a directive from the Higher Education Ministry to all public universities to declare Asia’s best debater as  persona non grata in the campus of all public universities.

Can  Idris explain why he has  the gumption to issue a directive from the Higher Education Ministry to all public universities to ban Syed Siddiq as a speaker at all public university forums and talks but does not have the guts to accept responsibility and to defend his repressive and regressive action which goes against the very concept of universities of excellence producing university graduates with critical, inquisitive and first-class minds?

Nobody believes that the public universities will on their own volition, one after another,  impose a ban on Syed Siddiq without a directive from Idris’ Higher Education Ministry.

Idris should stop the despicable practice of throwing stones but hiding his hands but should muster  up the courage to own up for his undemocratic and repressive action in the public universities, and best of all, have the humility to admit that the Higher Education Ministry was wrong in issuing such a directive to ban  Syed Siddiq from  the public universities – which makes nonsense of the autonomy which the public universities are supposed to be exercising in the new era of academic freedom in public universities.

If Idris is not prepared to immediately revoke the ban on Syed Siddiq in all the public universities, I call on the youths in Malaysia  to make the ban on Asia’s best debater, Syed Saddiq  in public universities the cause célèbre to demand academic and democratic  freedom for Malaysian students and youths.

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 10 March 2016, 6:38 pm and is filed under
university
,
Youth
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Fears Over Malaysia Mecca Fund Test Najib’s Main Support Base

Shamim Adam

Bloomberg

March 10, 2016

For Malaysia’s 18 million Muslims, the ultimate in holy duty is to travel to Mecca, a pilgrimage that can require decades of saving. Now the fund that holds much of their money is under a cloud, a fresh challenge for a scandal-hit government.

Concerns over unpopular and unprofitable investments at the government-linked fund may erode loyalty to Prime Minister Najib Razak among his main supporters — rural-based ethnic Malays — and potentially do more damage than a clutch of political funding probes that have been running for months.

The premier has so far weathered the fallout from a $681 million donation investigation and alleged financial impropriety at state investment company 1Malaysia Development Bhd. But controversy over the Hajj fund known as Lembaga Tabung Haji — a statutory agency under the Prime Minister’s Department — cuts to the heart of religion in the secular Muslim nation, and the fund has almost 9 million depositors.

Najib is already grappling with a slowing economy, and ordinary Malaysians face rising living costs. With an election due by 2018 he needs the votes of the Malay majority, who returned him and the United Malays National Organisation to power in 2013 as Chinese and Indian Malaysians shifted to the opposition. The coalition led by UMNO, which has ruled since independence in 1957, won the last election with its slimmest margin yet.

“The Hajj is fundamental to Islam and Islam is now a core component to political discourse within the country,” said Terence Gomez, a professor at the University of Malaya. “Because they are dealing with the savings of so many people, and many of them are core to Najib’s constituency, he has to be very careful,” he said. “Najib cannot afford to lose the Malay ground.”

Concerns over nest eggs emerged last year after the Hajj fund bought land from 1MDB, which is being investigated at home and overseas for alleged financial irregularities and money laundering.

In a letter late last year the central bank warned Tabung Haji its liabilities exceeded assets and pointed to negative reserve levels, while opposition politicians have highlighted loss-making investments they say amount to over 1 billion ringgit ($242 million). Tabung Haji referred Bloomberg queries to an earlier statement that rebutted concerns over its liabilities and said it’s reviewing its reserves policy based on the central bank’s advice.

Government Guaranteed

While the deposits are government-guaranteed, that hasn’t stopped Malaysians from worrying their savings are at risk or that dividends of 5.5 percent to 8.25 percent in recent years will evaporate. After the central bank’s letter was made public in late January, depositors flooded Tabung Haji’s Facebook page, asking about dividend payments and expressing concern their funds may have been mismanaged.

In the five decades Tabung Haji’s operated, Malaysian Muslims have moved from hoarding Hajj savings at home — given Islam’s ban on interest-bearing instruments — to helping create one of the largest funds in the country, investing in Shariah-compliant assets from land to shares.

Performing Hajj

Depositors have surged from 5.6 million in 2010. As the fifth and final pillar of Islam, every able-bodied adult Muslim must undertake a pilgrimage to Mecca, the birthplace of Prophet Muhammad, at least once in their lives if they can afford it. More than 20,000 Malaysians perform the Hajj each year based on quotas allotted by Saudi Arabia.

Najib in May ordered the fund to sell land it bought from 1MDB just days after the purchase was disclosed, following a public outcry on social media and protests outside Tabung Haji. Last month he blasted unnamed elements who he said were creating unnecessary fear and causing some to withdraw their savings.

“There are some who have kept their savings with Tabung Haji for so long, who are nearly in their twilight years, but because they fell for twisted statements, they lost their turn to perform the pilgrimage,” Najib said on his website. His office did not respond to requests for comment.

Trust Falls

Tabung Haji said in its latest annual report that net assets at the group level rose to 57 billion ringgit in 2014 from about 31 billion ringgit in 2010. In a January statement it said the central bank’s evaluation of its assets and liabilities did not include its investment portfolio, and that its holdings exceeded what it owed for all of 2014 and 2015 when its investments were taken into account.

Malaysians’ trust in the government dropped seven points to 39 percent over the past year as credibility took a “big hit” amid alleged graft, real and perceived lack of transparency and widespread allegations of mismanagement at state-linked companies, according to the latest annual Edelman Trust Barometer. It polled 1,150 people.

“Because of the lack of trust in the government, more and more Malays are looking at UMNO more critically than before,” said Rafizi Ramli, vice president of the opposition People’s Justice Party and a critic of Tabung Haji. “It’s too early to say that those Malays who are disillusioned will switch to the opposition but we definitely have made a breakthrough.”

1MDB Probes

The Edelman report follows months of controversy over 1MDB’s finances. The country’s attorney general meanwhile said Najib received the $681 million in his accounts from a member of the Saudi royal family before the 2013 election, with $620 million later repaid and the fate of the rest of the funds not specified. Najib has denied any wrongdoing. 1MDB has repeatedly denied paying any money to his accounts.

Tajudin Wahab, who opened an account with Tabung Haji in 1978 with a monthly contribution of 50 ringgit, said he was disturbed by recent news reports on the fund.

“I’ve lost confidence in the government,” said the 62-year-old consultant for the oil and gas industry, who has been to Mecca twice but is now reviewing the amount of money he keeps in the fund. “I felt Tabung Haji was being taken to the cleaners, that it was being used by the political masters.”

UMNO Council

The pilgrims fund said in a statement last month an investment in Felda Global Ventures Holdings Bhd. — a plantations company whose share price has fallen 67 percent since its share sale in 2012 — is a long-term strategic investment in a core sector. The investment was estimated by Bloomberg around 1 billion ringgit. Tabung Haji said it typically issues its annual report around the middle of the year after it has been presented to parliament.

The returns of many sovereign wealth funds have been less affected by market turbulence as they have large holdings in illiquid assets, said Enrico Soddu, head of data and research at the London-based Sovereign Wealth Center. Volatility in listed securities had a bigger impact on other government-related funds, he said, including Japan’s Government Pension Investment Fund and Norway’s Government Pension Fund Global.

Tabung Haji Chairman Abdul Azeez Abdul Rahim is a supreme council member of UMNO. Chief Executive Officer Ismee Ismail, who has led the fund since 2006, is a director at 1MDB. Some depositors have turned to social media to ask Najib to replace Azeez with central bank Governor Zeti Akhtar Aziz, whose term ends in April. The central bank did not reply to an e-mail seeking comment.

People in rural heartlands are “the pockets of voters who are crucial in the next elections,” said Oh Ei Sun, an analyst at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies in Singapore and Najib’s political secretary from 2009 to 2011. “If anything happens to Tabung Haji, a lot of people will feel insecure and angry.”

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 10 March 2016, 7:26 pm and is filed under
Financial Scandals
,
Najib Razak
,
UMNO
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Mahathir And Anwar Vs Najib: How Will It End? – Analysis

By Yang Razali Kassim

RSIS

MARCH 9, 2016

Malaysia’s rambunctious politics has entered an even more unpredictable phase with political foes Mahathir Mohamad and jailed Anwar Ibrahim joining hands to unseat Prime Minister Najib Razak and push for systemic change. Where will all this lead?

The unthinkable is happening in Malaysian politics. It is triggered by the deepest political crisis the country has ever known, at the centre of which is Prime Minister Najib Razak. Forced by a common desire to end the turmoil by unseating Najib, two bitter foes – former premier Mahathir Mohammad and his jailed former deputy Anwar Ibrahim – have joined hands in what has long been thought an impossible alliance.

Aptly described as a sea-change in Malaysian politics, never before have such sworn enemies buried their hatchets for a common cause – and never before had that been a joint cause celebre to sack a sitting prime minister. By launching his rainbow “core group” of concerned citizens of various political stripes and leanings to “Save Malaysia”, Mahathir has once again thrust himself into the eye of the storm to redefine the political landscape. In the same vein, with Anwar in jail, all the disparate forces that have aligned themselves against Najib over the 1MDB investment fund scandal have finally found someone of stature to rally around in a marriage of convenience. It is ironic that the man who crushed the opposition while in power has remade himself in retirement as the de facto leader of what in essence is a citizens’ revolt.

Strange group or a potent movement?

Mahathir himself described this as a “very strange group of people” brought together by a common goal of citizens calling for the scandal-hit prime minister to be replaced. By calling it a “core group”, Mahathir is indicating that this is only the beginning of more moves to come. What could emerge down the road is yet hazy, perhaps even to the nanogenarian. But it is safe to say that a new era in Malaysian politics is unfolding with the key players jostling for a place in the shifting ground as they position themselves for a very uncertain road ahead.

Broadly speaking, politics and the people have become polarised into two groups. The first is pro-Najib, anchored around UMNO, the ruling party where the internal dissenters have been silenced while the loyalists do battle for Najib, as he fights for his survival to the bitter end. Opponents within and outside UMNO are being crippled or threatened one-by-one. Indeed the knives are now out to sack suspended deputy president and critic Muhyiddin Yassin as well as his allies Shafie Apdal and Mukhriz Mahathir for supporting Mahathir’s “Citizens’ Declaration” of 4 March.

The second group is basically the rest – the anti-Najib forces comprising nearly 50 of the country’s public luminaries such as Mahathir’s wife Dr Siti Hasmah Ali, DAP leader Lim Kit Siang, former MCA chief Ling Liong Sik, PKR deputy leader and Selangor chief minister Azmin Ali, PAS stalwarts Husam Musa and Mustafa Ali, Pakatan Harapan leader Mat Sabu, former cabinet ministers Daim Zainuddin and Zaid Ibrahim, as well as civil society leaders like Bersih’s Maria Chin Abdullah.

The Mahathir-Anwar tag-team aside, the convergence of forces pushing for systemic change and reform is equally unprecedented. Indeed, Anwar’s embrace of his foe’s mission signals that Mahathir has reciprocated in support of Anwar’s reform agenda, perhaps convinced that the entire system has been compromised by Najib’s survival manoeuvres. This is reflected in the concluding paragraph of the Citizens Declaration to “restore the important principle of the separation of powers among the executive, legislature and judiciary” which “will ensure the independence, credibility, professionalism and integrity of our national institutions” – all of which, ironically, had been undermined by Mahathir himself while in power.

Deep Split and Polarising Positions

As expected, Najib’s hardcore lieutenants have dismissed Mahathir’s latest strategy as leading nowhere. Some have even belittled Mahathir’s resignation – his second since 2008 when he forced his first successor Abdullah Ahmad Badawi out – as something of a joke. Deputy prime minister Zahid Hamidi has painted Mahathir’s move as unconstitutional. While Najib has countered it as a “big mistake”, his office says the only lawful mechanism to change the prime minister or government is through elections. UMNO Youth even challenged the Mahathir-led movement to form up as a formal coalition and challenge the UMNO-led ruling coalition Barisan Nasional (BN) in a general election.

Any misplaced sense of supreme confidence on the part of UMNO could, however, backfire. Mahathir’s second quitting may indeed not amount to much within UMNO, given that Najib has got the party effectively button-holed. But it would be foolhardy to take lightly what the 90-year-old warhorse is now doing, which may well lead to big changes in Malaysian politics.

Although the UMNO-led BN won control of parliament in the last general election, it actually lost the popular vote – meaning the people’s confidence had migrated to the Anwar-led opposition. Given Najib’s current scandals which have been a lightning rod against UMNO, elections, if held today, could conceivably lead to the defeat of UMNO and BN. Mahathir’s son, Mukhriz, the deposed chief minister of Kedah state, said as much when he said “the opposition could easily win the next general election”; which was why the opposition had thrown their support behind Mahathir given their shared sense of urgency to save the country before more damage is done.

What Next?

Mahathir’s “core group” could be variously described as having features of civil disobedience, a people’s power movement, even a de facto “new opposition”. Prior to its launch, there had been talk of similar and overlapping moves, such as Zaid Ibrahim’s initiative for a 27 March closed-door gathering of like minds. There is also the plan by Dr Wan Azizah, PKR’s leader and Anwar’s wife, to convene national consensus talks. There is clearly a need for close coordination to avoid competing initiatives if they all are to be taken seriously. Significantly the Islamist PAS has not formally joined the anti-Najib alliance although some of its leaders had supported Mahathir.

But if Mahathir and his citizens’ movement could sustain themselves and grow, and the opposition recovers from its disunity – all climaxing towards the next general election to be called by 2018 – UMNO and BN could be in deep trouble. That growing trajectory in itself will have two possible consequences. The first is to trigger a nation-wide awakening that could transform into an anti-Najib groundswell, at the expense of UMNO/BN. The second is for this groundwell to put further pressure on UMNO to pre-empt the impending electoral defeat with a prior leadership change.

If this trajectory holds, UMNO – for its own survival – may be forced to explore two other options: vote Najib out, or craft unconventional strategies – such as allowing Najib to step down voluntarily, or even pave the way, reportedly, for a possible asylum. Face-saving compromises and “out-of-the-box” solutions should not be ruled out, given the new threshold that has been crossed and circumstances veering towards political instability – with wide-ranging repercussions and spillover effects on the wider Southeast Asian region.

*Yang Razali Kassim is a Senior Fellow with the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), Nanyang Technological University, Singapore.

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 10 March 2016, 5:04 am and is filed under
Anwar Ibrahim
,
DAP
,
Mahathir
,
Malaysian Dream
,
Najib Razak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Parliamentary Reform in Malaysia  a most peculiar animal when other countries see parliamentary democracy taken  to a higher stage of development  but in Malaysia we are trying but  failing to achieve what had been parliamentary practices in early decades of nation-building

Yesterday, the Speaker of Parliament, Tan Sri Pandikar Amin Mulia announced three of his four proposals for parliamentary reforms, viz. Minister’s Question Time on Tuesday and Thursdays, reduction of the period for submission of questions from MPs to 10 days from the existing 14 days and a second Chamber to deal with emergency motions tabled by lawmakers.

The Speaker’s announcement was  followed by a statement by the Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, Datuk Seri Azalina Othman Said pledging that the government is committed to the successful implementation of Parliament’s transformation, and disclosing that the Cabinet had agreed to three of the four proposals at its  meeting on Jan. 20.

She  thanked the Speaker for clarifying to the media on any misunderstanding that the executive was interfering into the affairs of the legislature.

What an irony!  Azalina did not realise that she had just publicly  confessed to the sin of executive interference in parliamentary affairs when the Cabinet had to give the final approval on Jan. 20 to three of the four parliamentary reforms.

This is March 10. Why have the proposed parliamentary reforms not be tabled in the House? This does not bespeak of efficiency of Parliament or the Speaker’s Office.

Parliamentary reforms should be the sole prerogative of Parliament and not contingent on  Executive or Cabinet approval.

This has highlighted the pertinence and relevance  of the Citizens’ Declaration of 4th March 2016 which in Paragraph 37 enunciated the “much-needed democratic and institutional reforms to restore the important principle of the separation of powers among the executive, legislature and judiciary to ensure the independence, credibility, professionalism and integrity of our national institutions”.

Just as it would be unthinkable that court rules and practices should first be vetted and approved by the Cabinet, parliamentary reforms should not be dependant on Cabinet approval if Malaysia accepts and practises the principle of the doctrine of separation of powers among the executive, legislature and judiciary!

Parliamentary Reform in Malaysia seems to be   a most peculiar animal in the world of Parliaments. In other countries,  parliamentary reform take development of parliamentary democracy to a higher stage but in Malaysia we are trying but  failing to achieve what had been parliamentary practices in the early decades of nation-building.

For instance, other countries evolved Question Time to a higher and more specific initiative of Prime Minister’s Questions (PMQ) to require the Prime Minister to personally account for his government’s actions in accordance with the principle that he is “primus inter pares” – first among equals.

In fact, the parliamentary practice of PMQ in the House of Commons in the United Kingdom, where the Prime Minister appears in person in  Parliament to answer questions on fixed days, say Tuesdays and Thursdays,  for fixed time, some 30 minutes,  has a history of more than half a century.

In Malaysia, we are creating world parliamentary history with  parliamentary reform where the “Prime Minister’s Question Time” ends up as “Minister’s Question time” and we have the Parliament Speaker justifying it by claiming that it was the same, viz:

“This is the same. Just the question of name because during the minister’s question time, the prime minister will be around to answer, the ministers will be around to answer too.”

What poppycock. Even school children will know that Prime Minister’s Question Time is very different from Minister’s Question Time!

Najib has got 10 Ministers in the Prime Minister’s Department. Unless Najib gives an undertaking that he would personally take all questions directed at the Prime Minister during Prime Minister’s Question Time, Najib’s appearance in Parliament at PMQT will be as rare as his appearance during the Question Time in Parliament in the past six years.

Where is the parliamentary reform?

It is noteworthy  that in the first Cabinet when the country achieved Merdeka in 1957, the first Cabinet under founding Prime Minister, Tunku Abdul Rahman, had only 12 members, including Tunku and the Deputy Prime Minister, Tun Razak.

In the early decades of nationhood, the Ministers would diligently answer questions posed by MPs in Parliament, which later degenerated into Ministers playing truant from their duties of answering questions in Parliament, delegating them to Deputy Ministers.

This is why I say that parliamentary reform in Malaysia is  a most peculiar animal when other countries see the   development of parliamentary democracy taken  to a higher stage but in Malaysia we are trying but  failing to achieve what had been parliamentary practices in the early decades of nation-building.

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 10 March 2016, 8:38 am and is filed under
Parliament
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


The imprisoned Malay mind

– M. Bakri Musa

The Malaysian Insider

9 March 2016

In my first three essays I pointed out that the Malay problem is real and not a mere myth. It is also solvable and not unique unto our community. Thus there is much that we can learn from others.

I posited that the four critical foundations of society – leadership, citizenry, culture, and geography – interact with one another in a feed-back loop mechanism. Where the interaction is positive, that society would advance fast; where negative, it would be in a quick downhill slide.

Of the four, only geography is immutable. Of the remaining three, leadership is the easiest to change; culture, most difficult.

The greatest barrier to changing and emancipating our people is our closed minds. The Malay mind has been trapped, or more correctly imprisoned into believing that our world beneath the coconut shell is perfect despite the obvious evidence to the contrary.

We are reminded of this harsh reality often, and in ways that are unpleasant or even crude. We don’t like it a bit and we lash out at and blame others.

The worst prison is one without walls or fences. Then you do not even realise that you are being imprisoned. In the San Diego Zoo, there is a small island surrounded by a moat no wider than a few feet. The deer on the island could easily hop over but they do not because they do not feel being imprisoned and thus have no need to escape.

However, if you were to fence the island, those animals would be pacing the perimeter looking for a break to escape.

Likewise, the Malay mind; it does not realise it is being imprisoned underneath the coconut shell. To that mind the world under the shell in the entire universe, and it is cozy and comfortable, sheltered from the harsh blistering tropical sun, thank you very much. There is no need to escape.

That sense of security and comfort however, is illusory. The digital waves have already breached our coconut shell, and with impunity. Whether we realise it or not, and whether we like it or not, those cooped up under the coconut shell are increasingly becoming aware of the vast wonderful world outside.

They may not as yet be able to experience the physical reality of that world but at least they can partake in it virtually.

That however only whets the appetite, leading to increasing frustration and consequent agitation. Make no mistake; our coconut shell will be toppled. It is inevitable.

The only question is when, how, by whom, and whether under controlled conditions or a free-for-all.

When the toppling is done by us and under our control, we could choose the timing and adjust the pace to suit us, thus eliminating or at least minimising possible collateral damages.

If our coconut shell were to be toppled as a consequence of swirling external events and thus beyond our control, then we would be reduced to being hapless victims, begging for the mercy and kindheartedness of others. The consequences would be equally ugly if our coconut shell were to be toppled because of internal explosion.

The coconut shell of the Arabs was toppled by events beyond their control. Those Arabs are still not yet done paying the severe price of their Arab Spring.

We must not only prepare our people to topple their coconut shell but also make them ready for the ensuing wide open world. If they are not, then they would find the new world not only blindingly bright but also very disorienting. Their immediate reaction then would be to scramble and find another coconut shell to hide under and seek comfort.

Helping them topple their own coconut shell would also simultaneously prepare them in adjusting to the new wide open world.

The Malay mind is imprisoned as a consequence of many factors, among them our warped interpretation of our religion, our corrupt and inept leadership, our crumbling and ineffective institutions, and the residuum of our previous regressive feudal culture.

These elements also retard or discourage our active participation in the world of business. Engaging in trade and commerce is a powerful instrument in toppling our coconut shell.

In an earlier book, Malaysia in the Era of Globalisation, I remarked how eerily the Malaysia of today resembles the Ireland of the 1950s. Malays today, like the Irish then, are in the tight clutches of religion (Islam for Malays, Catholicism for the Irish).

Young Malays flock to study Arabic, hadith, and revealed knowledge, instead of English, science, and mathematics. The Irish then fled to the convents and monasteries to recite their rosaries and memorise the catechism. Malays today are in the psychological grips of their “ulamas” and “ustazs”, just as the Irish were with their bishops and priests.

The Irish then were consumed with trying to resurrect their dead language, Gaelic. Malays today are obsessed with making sure that their young do not study any other language but Malay. Learning another language, in particular English, is seen as an expression of hatred for one’s own.

In business, the major enterprises in Malaysia today are in the hands of the Chinese minority, and politics with the Malays. In Ireland then, the major businesses were in English hands while the Irish were consumed with republican politics and endless dreams of reunification with the North.

With Irish education tightly under church control and consumed with religious instructions, the leading intellectual centres were naturally the Protestant-affiliated universities.

If there were any ambitious Irish parents who dared dream of a better future for their children by enrolling them in the much superior English schools, they risked being excommunicated. That is, being considered a “murtad”, in local lingo.

Sounds familiar?

In Malaysia, the schools favoured by Malays are the religious and national schools with their heavy emphasis on religion, while non-Malays choose vernacular schools and private English-language colleges with their emphasis on science, technology, and other secular subjects.

It took one man, Sean Lemass, Prime Minister from 1959 to 1966, to lead the quiet revolution in Ireland. He began by clipping the powers and influences of the Catholic church by stripping its control over education and social policies.

Freed from the suffocating control of the church, the Irish could abandon their inferior Catholic schools and colleges to attend the much superior English universities without fear that they would be (or seen as) committing a sin.

Likewise, they could use contraceptives without fear of eternal damnation, or more practically, of being condemned by their priests and bishops.

Lemass also liberalised the media including state-owned ones. They could now show foreign programs thus exposing the Irish to the greater outer world. He not only tolerated but also encouraged criticisms of his leadership and policies, a reflection of his confidence and competence.

Despite the Irish antipathy towards things English, he made English, not Gaelic, the language of Ireland. Lemass was a pragmatic leader.

It took nearly fifty years for Ireland to achieve its present prosperity following the reforms Lemass initiated in the 1950s. If a Malaysian Lemass were to appear today, we could look forward to 2065 before Malaysia – in particular Malays – could be considered developed.

We have many potential Lemasses in our midst. The challenge is to vote them into power instead of keeping the present crop of crippled and corrupt OKUs (Orang Kuat Umno). Lemass liberated the Irish from their invisible prison. Our Lemass too would do likewise to Malays. – March 9, 2016.

* Dr M. Bakri Musa is the author of Liberating The Malay Mind, ZI Publications, Petaling Jaya (2013). This is the third of a six-part piece.

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 10 March 2016, 5:26 am and is filed under
Bakri Musa
,
Malays
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Goldman Sachs Hire Came as Bank Pitched 1MDB

By TOM WRIGHT in Hong Kong and  JUSTIN BAER in New York

Wall Street Journal

March 10, 2016

Wall Street firm hired daughter of close ally to Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak

Goldman Sachs Group Inc. hired the daughter of a close ally to Malaysia’s prime minister around the time the firm’s bankers were pitching business to the country’s government investment fund, people familiar with the matter said.

Goldman is looking into the hiring as part of its investigation into the firm’s actions related to the Malaysia fund and into the Wall Street firm’s former Southeast Asia chairman, Tim Leissner, said one of the people.

The probe is also part of its broader investigation into the hiring of relatives of government officials or other well-connected people, the person said. Goldman is among several international banks under investigation by U.S. authorities to determine whether their hiring practices violated antibribery laws, The Wall Street Journal has previously reported. The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act bans U.S. companies from giving anything of value to a foreign official to gain an unfair advantage or business favors. Goldman has declined to comment on the U.S. probe.

Neither Goldman nor Mr. Leissner have been accused of wrongdoing.

Mr. Leissner was put on leave in January and resigned the next day after a review of his email showed he had allegedly sent an unauthorized reference letter on behalf of an individual to another financial firm, the Journal reported this week, citing people familiar with the matter. That letter allegedly sent by Mr. Leissner also contained inaccuracies, but it wasn’t connected to business Goldman did for the Malaysia fund, the Journal reported.

Goldman has since found that Mr. Leissner separately recommended that the firm hire the daughter of Jamaludin Jarjis, a senior politician and close aide to Malaysia’s prime minister, Najib Razak, as a bank analyst in Singapore in 2010, the person familiar with the matter said. Mr. Jamaludin died last year in a helicopter crash.

The daughter, Anis Jamaludin, worked at the bank for three months, the person said. A LinkedIn account in her name said she was at Goldman from July to November 2010. It was unclear why the time periods differed between the two accounts.

Mr. Leissner’s lawyer is negotiating with Goldman over his access to deferred pay, including restricted shares he was awarded in past years, people familiar with the matter said.

Ms. Anis was hired at Goldman as its bankers were looking for business from 1Malaysia Development Bhd., a government investment fund. The board of 1MDB approved the hiring of Goldman in August 2010 to review the possible purchase of a hydroelectric dam in the Malaysian state of Sarawak, according to 1MDB board minutes. The fund set aside 5 million ringgit (about $1.2 million) for Goldman’s advice, the minutes show.

Ms. Anis went through the same interview process as other candidates and was cleared by Goldman’s legal and compliance departments, people familiar with the matter said. Mr. Leissner wasn’t the main relationship banker with the fund at the time Ms. Anis was hired, one of the people said.

Ms. Anis couldn’t be reached for comment. Real-estate records show Mr. Jamaludin purchased a condominium in 2011 in Boston for $1.9 million that matches an address listed on Ms. Anis’s resume.

Mr. Jamaludin attended college in the U.K. at the same time as Mr. Najib, who heads 1MDB’s board of advisers. At the time of his daughter’s appointment at Goldman, Mr. Jamaludin was a ruling-party politician and Malaysia’s envoy to the U.S. He later returned to Malaysia and was a key strategist for Mr. Najib during elections in 2013, according to a former ruling-coalition politician involved in the campaign. It is unclear if he had any direct role in 1MDB.

The 1MDB fund was used to finance hundreds of millions of dollars of political spending during those elections, which Mr. Najib’s party won, the Journal reported in December, citing a person involved with setting up the fund and 1MDB board minutes. The fund is under scrutiny for its alleged connection to transfers of more than $1 billion into the personal accounts of Mr. Najib.

Malaysia’s attorney general said $681 million of that amount was a legal donation to Mr. Najib by a member of Saudi Arabia’s royal family and most of it was ultimately returned. The attorney general also concluded that there was nothing improper about the donation. Investigators, however, believe the money originated with 1MDB and before much of it was returned moved through a complex web of transactions in several countries, people familiar with the investigations previously told The Wall Street Journal.

Mr. Jamaludin also headed a government affordable-housing program that Mr. Najib launched. The program worked with 1MDB to develop a new residential area in Kuala Lumpur, the capital. Mr. Jamaludin died in a helicopter crash while returning home from a wedding reception for Mr. Najib’s daughter.

The fund didn’t respond to a request for comment. 1MDB has denied wrongdoing and said it would cooperate with corruption probes into the fund that are continuing in at least five countries. Attempts to reach Mr. Najib’s office weren’t successful. He has denied wrongdoing or taking money for personal gain.

Goldman played a key role in raising money for 1MDB. The bank sold a total of $6.5 billion in bonds for the fund in 2012 and 2013, including a $3 billion issuance just two months ahead of the elections. That bond was supposed to finance 1MDB’s plans to develop real estate in Kuala Lumpur, but little construction has occurred.

The bond sales earned Goldman hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue. The bank has defended the unusually high fees, saying it took on large risks by buying all the bonds before selling them to investors.

Apart from concerns over the unauthorized reference letter, Goldman investigators also found Mr. Leissner had offered an internship to the child of someone involved in an Indonesian mining deal that the firm was advising on earlier this year. Goldman was helping a group of investors secure financing to take over an Indonesian copper-mining operation but later resigned due to concerns over the involvement of the individual, the person said.

                This entry was posted on Friday, 11 March 2016, 5:05 am and is filed under
Corruption
,
Financial Scandals
,
Najib Razak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Ministry of Defence should not be a ‘black hole’ of information

— Liew Chin Tong

Malay Mail Online

March 10, 2016

MARCH 10 — Yesterday, my parliamentary question on the expenditures of AV-8 (8×8 armored vehicle) and Second Generation Patrol Vessel (SGPV) projects was turned down because it was classified under the Official Secrets Act (OSA).

I am disappointed by the Speaker’s decision to gag this legitimate question.

Why is the Ministry of Defence refusing to give answers about the financial implications of the two projects?

While I fully understood the sensitivity of defence capability development, the financial aspect of the two projects should still be subject to Parliamentary scrutiny. Particularly since these projects are the largest scale defence development programmeme in Malaysia’s history.

The rakyat deserve to know how their money is being spent on defense projects.

It is acceptable not to reveal the technical configurations and specifications as well as the tactical deployment of the assets, but it is an international norm to allow the public to know how much money was spent thus far and report the progress of the projects, to be accountable to the public.

This is exactly what my question is asking for, and it was rejected.

I would like to draw a parallel with the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter programme, which is the most expensive defence project in the history of mankind (total programme cost more than US$1 trillion — RM4.112 trillion).

The United States allowed the programme to be audited by the US Government Accountability Office continuously.

From time to time, observation, programme progress and financial implications reports are released to inform the US congress and public about the development status.

The principle of transparency was highly upheld in this case. (please refer to http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-15-429T)

Similarly, AV-8 and SGPV are the largest defence development programmes Malaysia has ever committed to, each costing RM 7.5 billion and RM 9 billion respectively.

The public needs to know how the money was spent, and was the principle of integrity being upheld in managing these funds?

There is no reason why this information should be classified.

If even a Member of Parliament is prevented from asking and getting such information, how can the public be informed of pertinent expenditure involving taxpayer’s funds?

I call upon the Speaker of Dewan Rakyat to look into this issue seriously, particularly to incorporate the revamp of categorisation of classified information as part of the parliamentary reform agenda.

                This entry was posted on Friday, 11 March 2016, 4:48 am and is filed under
Defence
,
Parliament
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Confirmation of Muhyiddin statement that the “Citizen’s Declaration” is Mahathir’s brainchild

I confirm the statement made by former Deputy Prime Minister, Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin, that the “Citizen’s Declaration” calling for Datuk Seri Najib Razak’s removal as Prime Minister was first formulated by Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad and his comrades.

Muhyiddin made this disclosure in his interview with Sinar Harian, while rebutting vitriolic demonisation campaigns  by UMNO   leaders and propagandists claiming that the Citizen’s Declaration was an Opposition initiative, and that Mahathir and other UMNO leaders like former Deputy Prime Minister, Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin, former Cabinet Ministers Tan Sri Sanusi Junid and Datuk Seri Shafie Apdal were trapped by DAP or by  the Opposition.

Muhyiddin also expressed shock and surprise at the selective, mischievous and tendentious reporting of the historic event of the Citizen’s Declaration last Friday on 4th March 2016 and the ensuing  events in the past week.

He  said the joint declaration was not about personalities like him, Dr Mahathir, former Kedah mentri besar Datuk Seri Mukhriz Mahathir or Umno vice-president Datuk Seri Shafie Apdal as  Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim,  who is now in prison, had also expressed support, commenting: “That is extraordinary, because we know the history between Dr Mahathir and Anwar.”

Muhyiddin may find it surprising that he has now become a “non-person” with the UMNO/BN controlled media, but this is no news to us in the Opposition. I had  been a “non-person” as far as the UMNO/BN media are concerned in the past half a century, unless it is to vilify or demonise me.

There is no good word about me or DAP leaders, except  for those DAP leaders that the UMNO/BN media want to exploit, and photographs are a “no no” in the UMNO/BN media as far as DAP leaders and I are concerned.

This reminds me of Nelson Mandela, who was banned from being mentioned in the Apartheid South Africa media  for decades, and how for the first time  in 20 years, photographs of Mandela were allowed to be published in South Africa in February 1990 when he was to be  released from prison after 27 years or  10,000 days of imprisonment!

I can confirm that the initiative for the Citizen’s Declaration came from Mahathir, but the question of he using the Opposition and civil society leaders or vice versa does not arise.

Although Opposition and civil society leaders agree on the need for the removal of Najib as Prime Minister, because of Najib’s twin mega scandals and Malaysia lurching towards a Prime Ministerial dictatorship with fundamental freedoms entrenched in the Constitution flouted and violated, leadership change must be accompanied by  democratic and institutional reforms to end rampant corruption, arbitrary abuses of power and violation of human rights and fundamental liberties entrenched in the Constitution.

It is not a question of who made use of whom, but reaching of national  consensus that Malaysia must be saved from hurtling towards a failed and rogue state, where leadership change accompany democratic and institutional reforms.

(Speech at the “Mana RM2.6 billion?” dialogue at Anak Bukit, Kuala Kedah on Saturday, March 12, 2016 at 5 pm)

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 12 March 2016, 6:56 pm and is filed under
Corruption
,
Financial Scandals
,
Mahathir
,
Najib Razak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.