Malaysia Losses From Racial Law Exposed

By
Chong Pooi Koon
 | Oct 20, 2011

Bloomberg

Lim Guan Eng turned Malaysia’s second-smallest state into the nation’s biggest economic success after he bumped into two National Instruments Corp. (NATI) executives at the local airport in 2008.

Elected in March that year as Penang’s first chief minister from an opposition party in 36 years, Lim was struggling with the prospect of federal funding cuts. He convinced the managers to set up a research and production center in the state, and within two years the former British trading post was Malaysia’s top destination for foreign manufacturing investment.

“The deal was struck very quickly,” said Eugene Cheong, a director at the local unit of the Austin, Texas-based maker of industrial testing and automation equipment.

Lim’s speed in closing deals with companies from National Instruments to Robert Bosch GmbH is helping Penang achieve what every Malaysian prime minister sought since Mahathir Mohamad started his Multimedia Super Corridor technology zone in the 1990s near Kuala Lumpur: a transition from low-cost assembly to a research and development base for industries such as solar cells and life sciences.

With a general election due by early 2013, Penang’s progress highlights the challenges facing the rest of Malaysia and the National Front government as China, Indonesia and Vietnam offer investors bigger workforces while Singapore lures talent with lower taxes and easier immigration. Lim, 50, the country’s only ethnic-Chinese state leader, embodies the contrast between Penang’s business transparency and the four- decade old policies of the ruling party that favor Malays, which the World Bank says undermine competitiveness.

‘Been Sleeping’

“We’ve been sleeping,” said Ooi Kee Beng, Penang-born author of “Era of Transition: Malaysia after Mahathir” and a senior fellow at the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies in Singapore. “Penang now has a chance to show that if you have good governance, and if you put fairness and justice as your main qualities, free of race considerations, that is actually the way to go for Malaysia.”

In the first seven months of 2011, Penang won 3.6 billion ringgit ($1.2 billion) of approved foreign manufacturing investment, ahead of the 3.4 billion ringgit that went to Selangor, the state that surrounds the capital Kuala Lumpur, a government report showed last month.

It’s not the first time the state has set the pace for technology investment in Malaysia. Penang, a base for the spread of British influence in the 18th century, was the center of a manufacturing push in Malaysia’s shift from rubber and tin production in the 1970s, attracting companies including Intel Corp. (INTC) and Robert Bosch to assemble chips and build car radios.

Political Alternative

Penang’s economic resurgence may bolster the opposition alliance’s claim it can be an alternative to the National Front, which has run the country since independence from British rule in 1957. A national election may be called with 60 days’ notice at the discretion of Prime Minister Najib Razak.

“A lot of this has to do with the dynamism of the chief minister,” said Ong Kian Ming, a political analyst at UCSI University in Kuala Lumpur and columnist for the Edge newspaper.

Lim has managed to keep Penang attractive for international companies even as Najib focuses federal support on regions such as Johor and Sarawak, where his ruling coalition has among its biggest parliamentary-seat majorities.

Under Najib’s Economic Transformation Program, his government is promoting about 65.8 billion ringgit of private- sector-led projects for southern Johor state, compared with at least 375 million ringgit for Penang, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. The comparison excludes projects covering multiple states or those without a clear single location, which amounted to 34.3 billion ringgit nationwide.

Federal Support

“Investment decisions are made on the basis of need not politics,” said Tengku Sariffuddin Tengku Ahmad, a spokesman for the prime minister. “Over the last year we have invested more than 1 billion ringgit of federal funding in Penang and will continue to support their economic progress in whatever way we can,” he said in an e-mail.

Malaysia’s efforts to woo investments in recent years may have been hampered by its policy of giving preferential treatment to ethnic Malays and some indigenous groups, collectively known as Bumiputera, in government jobs, contracts, education and cheaper housing, said Ooi.

When the economy was booming along with its neighbors before the 1997-98 Asian financial crisis, the effects of the policy were less apparent, he said. When growth slowed, the race-based program became a greater damper, according to Ooi. While the nation outperformed rivals in the early and mid 1990s, it has struggled to maintain that edge since the regional crisis.

Malay Contracts

Under federal rules, government construction contracts valued below 200,000 ringgit must be given to indigenous or Malay contractors. In addition, a main goal of the affirmative action programs was to raise the Bumiputera share of corporate stock ownership to at least 30 percent.

Najib said Sept. 27 that the programs, introduced in the early 1970s to reduce poverty and narrow income disparities between different ethnic groups, are becoming more merit-based.

In an interview in his 28th floor office, where the walls are lined with paintings and sketches of Penang, some from the 19th century, Lim said the relationship between state and central government wouldn’t hold Penang back.

“We may have political differences but we are cordial and professional,” he said as he sipped ginseng tea made by his wife. “If Penang fails, Malaysia fails.”

Ambiguous Practices

To prevent corruption, Penang requires open bidding on contracts of more than 200,000 ringgit and has awarded about 125 million ringgit of jobs through competitive tenders, according to Lim. Transparency International said in a 2009 report that Penang, an island and coastal enclave linked by a 13.5-kilometer (8.4-mile) bridge, was Malaysia’s first state to implement open tenders for government contracts.

While Lim said his government awards contracts based on merit within the national guidelines, the federal government states that it has no obligation to accept the lowest offer or to give any reason for rejecting a bid. Under Malaysian federal rules, agencies are only required to invite quotations from at least five bidders for works contracts.

“In domestic tenders, preferences are provided for Bumiputera suppliers and other domestic suppliers,” the U.S. Department of State said in a March report on Malaysia’s investment climate. Implementations of the affirmative action policy “vary greatly; some practices are explicit and contained in law or regulation while others are informal, leaving much ambiguity for potential investors,” it said.

Trained Accountant

The Malaysian government says it is also pushing for greater transparency, including introducing a whistleblower protection act to fight corruption and a planned competition law next year.

“Open tender is a virtue, it’s a policy that is being pushed through federally too,” Idris Jala, a minister in the Prime Minister’s Department and chief executive officer of the government’s Performance Management and Delivery Unit, said in Singapore yesterday. “For a country to grow, to become high income, we must have competitiveness.”

Lim, who holds a Bachelor of Economics from Australia’s Monash University, says his training as an accountant helps him spot any discrepancies in state finances.

Property developers such as Ivory Properties Group Bhd. (IVORY) will benefit from the inflow of workers and expatriates to support Penang’s industries, while local electronics companies Eng Teknologi Holdings Bhd. and Globetronics Technology Bhd. (GTB) may gain from orders to supply foreign manufacturers, said Choo Swee Kee, who manages about 700 million ringgit as chief investment officer of TA Investment Management Bhd. in Kuala Lumpur.

Property Shares

Eastern & Oriental Bhd. (EAST), which is reclaiming up to 980 acres of land to build luxury homes in what it says is the island’s largest seafront development, has seen its shares soar 25 percent this year. The main FTSE Bursa Malaysia KLCI Index slid 4.5 percent during the same period.

“We have been a believer of Penang’s potential for a long time,” said Eric Chan, deputy managing director of E&O, which also owns the 126-year-old Eastern & Oriental Hotel in the island’s historic Georgetown. “China is no longer cheap and some global companies are looking to move their operations to alternative locations like Penang.”

Lim says ethnic Malays also benefit from the state’s economic growth. In the Malaysian state with the highest proportion of ethnic Chinese, at 42 percent, Malay contractors have won most of the jobs awarded by his government through the open tenders, Lim said. The Malay community doesn’t need racial quotas to succeed, he said.

Brain Drain

“We have proven that this is the way forward,” Lim said in an interview in July on Penang Hill, at an event promoting the state’s efforts to woo talent. “Malaysia has a historical opportunity for change.”

Malaysia’s racial policies spurred a brain drain of largely Chinese and Indian minorities, and limited foreign investment, Philip Schellekens, a senior economist at the World Bank, said in April. In its latest Malaysia Economic Monitor report that month, the Washington-based lender said the migration of talent out of Malaysia undermines the country’s aspiration to become a high-income nation.

“Discontent with Malaysia’s inclusiveness policies is a key factor,” the World Bank said. “Productivity and inclusiveness lie at the heart of Malaysia’s transformation programs. Implementing these forcefully will go a long way towards turning the brain drain into a gain.”

Growth Impediment

The U.S. Department of State said that Malaysia’s “complex network of preferences” to promote the acquisition of economic assets by ethnic Malays and other indigenous groups is a “significant impediment” to economic growth. The country’s affirmative-action policy is unique among Southeast Asian neighbors including Thailand, Singapore, Indonesia and the Philippines.

“It clearly slows things as many competent people leave Malaysia because of it,” said Jim Rogers, the chairman of Rogers Holdings who moved to neighboring Singapore from New York in 2007. Malaysia should “abolish the policy and open the economy and society to all” to boost its competitiveness among international investors, he said in an e-mail. Proposed changes to the policy are making the country more attractive, he said.

Malaysia’s economy expanded at an average pace of 9.2 percent from 1990 through 1997, compared with the 7.1 percent for newly industrialized Asian nations as a group, International Monetary Fund data show. By contrast, Malaysia’s 5.1 percent average growth since 1999 is little more than the group’s 4.8 percent overall mean performance, according to the IMF.

Beating Singapore

Mahathir’s Multimedia Super Corridor, centered around an area in Selangor state that was carved out of oil palm plantations, offered tax breaks and relaxed rules on hiring foreigners to entice software engineers.

While Penang lured research, development and production, the MSC’s more notable successes were getting information- technology support and service centers for companies including Royal Dutch Shell Plc (RDSA) and Deutsche Post AG’s DHL division. The government later broadened the incentives to include companies that weren’t physically located in the main MSC area.

To win the investment in Penang from National Instruments, Lim had to overcome rivals from Singapore and the Philippines to Vietnam and China.

Tax Breaks

Stuttgart, Germany-based Robert Bosch will spend 520 million euros ($720 million) on a factory in Penang that will be one of its largest, employing 2,000 workers to make photovoltaic solar modules. Agilent Technologies Inc. told local media in March it was adding a life-sciences facility that undertakes research and development. Both companies have operated in Penang for about four decades, starting in the 1970s, when foreign investors used the state’s cheap labor to make low-end electronics parts.

The state can’t offer tax breaks for investors or sell bonds, both controlled by the federal government, so it plans to use revenue from local land levies to build more roads and a third bridge linking the island to its mainland territories, according to Lim, who is also secretary-general of the opposition Democratic Action Party.

Penang, bigger only than Perlis of Malaysia’s 13 states, is used to an underdog status. Founded by Captain Francis Light in 1786 after the East India Co. took over the island from the Kedah Sultanate, Britain set it up as a trading post to break Dutch Malacca’s monopoly of the spice trade.

Paddy Fields

Intel spent $1.6 million in 1972 to set up the company’s first offshore chip assembly plant in the state amid paddy fields, employing 100 batik-clad workers. Now, it also designs semiconductor devices in the state.

Penang had 16 percent of the country’s approved foreign manufacturing investment from 2006 to March this year, government data show. The state, a tourist destination with beach resorts and a colonial-era town designated as a United Nations World Heritage site, made up 8.1 percent of Malaysia’s gross domestic product in 2009, based on constant prices.

“The change in government meant that you have reenergized this place,” said Chris Ong, who owns boutique hotels converted from heritage buildings in Penang. “The old state government was here for far too long.”

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 20 October 2011, 1:16 pm and is filed under
Economics
,
Good Governance
,
Lim Guan Eng
,
Penang Government
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


MCA and hudud: Part 1

Stanley Koh | October 18, 2011
Free Malaysia Today

The party can’t hold a candle to DAP when it comes to principled opposition to Islamic state ambitions.

COMMENT

Two questions arise from MCA’s recent call on DAP to abandon the Pakatan Rakyat coalition because PAS is pushing for hudud punishments and, ultimately, an Islamic state.

First: Why did former MCA president Dr Ling Liong Sik fail to protest when former prime minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad declared Malaysia an Islamic state in 2001?

MCA Youth chief Wee Ka Siong’s recent defence of Ling’s silence does not hold water. He said Mahathir’s declaration did not include a threat to change the Federal Constitution. Neither has Pakatan said it would change the constitution to suit PAS’s ambition.

Second: Since MCA is questioning DAP’s commitment to principles, what has happened to its own principles in the face of Deputy Prime Minister Muhyiddin Yassin’s recent remark that Malaysia was merely “not ready” for hudud?

Muhyiddin’s statement seemed to suggest that Umno, like PAS, longs to turn Malaysia into an Islamic state.

If PAS’s insistence on pushing for hudud is a “methodological tactic”, then what should we call Umno’s long-term process of Islamisation?

When it comes to opposing hudud and other proposals that could lead to the establishment of an Islamic state, MCA’s track record is dismal. It does not come anywhere near DAP’s standards of consistency in commitment to principles.

It was on Sept 29, 2001, that Dr Mahathir claimed Islamic-state status for Malaysia.

“Umno wishes to state loudly that Malaysia is an Islamic country,” he said in his address at Gerakan’s 30th national conference. “This is based on the opinion of ulamas who have clarified what constitutes as Islamic country.

“If Malaysia is not an Islamic country because it does not implement the hudud, then there are no Islamic countries in the world.”

Kelantan Menteri Besar and PAS spiritual leader Nik Aziz Nik Mat responded immediately and furiously. “You can talk all you want,” he said. “You can declare a piece of wood to be gold or a wheelbarrow to be a Mercedes, but in reality nothing has changed.”

According to Nik Aziz, his party’s definition of an Islamic country meant a nation governed according to the tenets of the Quran and Hadith. Malaysia was still a secular state, he said. “If the present Malaysia is already an Islamic state, then what do you call the state ruled by the Prophet and his companions?”

DAP, like PAS, was shocked by Mahathir’s declaration. It called for an urgent parliamentary debate on the subject.

MCA’s forum and Ling’s remarks

On Oct 20, 2001, at the request of several members of the Inter-Religious Council, MCA organised a closed-door forum on the issue.

Among the participants were Dr Hamid Othman (the Prime Minister’s Department Religious Adviser), Shad Saleem Faruqi of Universiti Teknologi Mara, Zainah Anwar of Sisters in Islam and several representatives of the Inter-Religious Council.

Ling chaired the session. In his opening remarks, he said: “No one can claim monopoly of knowledge, because the frontier of knowledge keeps on expanding. This seminar is an opportunity to explore, discover and learn.

“There are many questions in mind. Is Umno correct in declaring Malaysia an Islamic country? Or an Islamic nation? Or an Islamic state? Or a Negara Islam? Have the Umno ulamas been correct in defining or in getting the right definition that Malaysia is qualified to be, like the OIC says, not just an Islamic state, but a shining example of a Muslim state?”

The following are unedited transcripts from tape recordings of some of Dr Ling’s remarks:

“We’d like to know what are the criteria for these definitions. We’d like to know are all Islamic countries the same? Is there a single model? What are the basic criteria that would qualify a nation to be defined as an Islamic nation?

“When the PM explained to the BN and the Cabinet about Umno’s position on Malaysia being declared to be qualified as an Islamic state, he also made this very liberal comment: ‘While Umno feels … ulamas feel … and the people who know this religion feel … Malaysia qualifies just as OIC who declared Malaysia or recognizes Malaysia an Islamic state, there is also this pertinent and relevant point of view that Malaysia is not a theocratic state. And that point of view, if you want to call Malaysia a secular state, it’s still correct. Because we do not call ourselves a theocratic state, we can still call ourselves a secular state.’

“We want to ask ourselves. Can we call a country by two or three different names—an Islamic state, a secular state?

“My simplistic thinking … if we look at a rose, being English educated, I would call it a ‘rose’. But other Chinese-educated call it ‘mei gui’ in Mandarin. A Malay friend will call it ‘bunga mawar’. And ‘roja’ in Tamil.

“Yet, it is still a rose. So can we call Malaysia an Islamic state, a secular state and so on and so forth?

“Similarly, an apple. It is round, has seeds, crunchy. It has a stalk, but some people call it ‘apple’, some call it ‘ping gor’.

“Politically, Umno’s definition as Mahathir described it, the status quo, describes the present state of Malaysia which derives from the same supreme law of the land, the Malaysian Constitution, which will not change, which has not changed as far as the religious descriptions there, which will never change.

“Some may ask how do we ensure that his thoughts, his thinking will not change? That the other implications will not change? How do we ensure this? Are there any international conventions we can subscribe to? Are there other instruments we can subscribe to so that … other safeguards … that the whole world watches over this status quo?”

Academic exercise

It was clear that Dr Ling was merely engaging in an academic exercise. The forum had no serious political inputs.

In closing his address, the MCA president said: “We hope in seminars like this, we can learn, we can discover and we can disseminate.

“Knowledge has three components—the generation of knowledge, the dissemination of knowledge and application of knowledge. Today, we are trying to generate for ourselves sufficient knowledge so that we can disseminate correctly to society.”

In a subsequent article, we shall examine what Dr Mahathir actually said, what Hamid Othman conveyed at the forum and how the other participants responded.

Most importantly, we will examine the policy stand taken by Ling on behalf of his party.

Stanley Koh is the former head of MCA’s research unit. He is now a FMT columnist.

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 20 October 2011, 7:27 pm and is filed under
DAP
,
Islam
,
Islamic state
,
MCA
,
PAS
,
UMNO
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


The scurrilous and vicious allegation against Penang chief minister Lim Guan Eng’s 16 year old son circulating on the internet requires a thorough police investigation

By Karpal Singh | DAP National Chairman and MP for Bukit Gelugor

The scurrilous and vicious allegation against Penang chief minister Lim Guan Eng’s 16 year old son circulating on the internet requires a through police investigation. The spreading of lies on the internet should be nibbed in the bud before it develops into a source of ready avenue to defame and destroy. The sophisticated advance in technology should be harnessed to public advantage and not destroy the very fabric of society modern times.

The point to address with all speed and expedition is the necessity for the police to spring into action in the wake of the completely wild allegation against the 16 year old without any regard for humanity. The trauma suffered by the chief minister’s son is beyond imagination having regard to the allegation made against him. Where there is a wrong, there must of necessity be a remedy. The bloggers responsible for the vile postings on their blogs must be brought to book to ensure they are not further emboldened to persist in a path of destruction.

I call upon the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak, to personally intercede in the matter. As a father, the prime minister, no doubt, can imagine the agony suffered by the Penang chief minister. On a matter of such serious concerns, there should be no consideration of political affiliation.

In the meanwhile, I call upon the Inspector-General of Police to direct a police officer to lodge a report against the bloggers concerned with a view to action  being taken against them for criminal defamation of the chief minister’s son. The culprits cannot, and should not, be allowed to get away. The public interest demands swift and effective action.

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 20 October 2011, 5:26 pm and is filed under
Crime
,
Najib Razak
,
Police
,
UMNO
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Wake up, Malaysians

— Ali Kadir

The Malaysian Insider

Oct 19, 2011

OCT 19 — I find it incredulous that so much angst and disbelief has been exhibited by Opposition politicians, pundits and readers of news portals, including The Malaysian Insider, over the lies that Lim Guan Eng’s son had behaved inappropriately towards a girl in his school and the matter was hushed up.

This is Umno. Should any of us be surprised with politicians from that party?

It has been my point for a while that the only hope for Umno is for the party to lose it all at the next polls, and do a major overhaul while in the wilderness, find new leaders, rediscover a moral core and come back.

The party is tired, bankrupt of ideas or people of integrity. It is a fallacy to believe that the second line of politicians such as Khairy or that Kota Belud MP will be any different from the corrupt batch of ministers and MPs who sad to say are leaders of Malaysia.

They have been cut from the same cloth as the likes of Ibrahim Ali and only know about patronage politics and benefiting from the government largesse of contracts.

At a time when the world economy is slumping and every responsible government is thinking about doing its best to prepare its country for a soft landing, Umno has been doing the only thing it knows what to do — indulge in lies.

No one believes Najib Razak’s growth estimates of 5 and 6 per cent next year, not even the MIER or banks.

But in Parliament, it is business as usual as Umno/BN MPs have been in denial mode (I don’t believe 99 per cent of them even know what they are talking about when they speak about the economy).

So my advice to Lim Guan Eng and the rest of his supporters is stop wasting time by reacting with shock and indignation at the tactics being employed by your opponents. Leopards can’t change their stripes, nor devils change their ways.

The last line is a message that all of us Malaysians should keep in our hearts and ponder.

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 20 October 2011, 8:36 am and is filed under
Lim Guan Eng
,
Politics
,
UMNO
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


A foolish move

By
Tay Tian Yan
 | October 21, 2011

The Malaysian Insider

OCT 21 — Those who spread rumours across the Internet are villains while those who echo Internet rumours are fools.

Among the latest names on the list of fools is Khairy Jamaluddin, who should not be foolish.

Anyone with little understanding will curse “senseless and despicable” when they heard about the recent rumours accusing Penang Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng’s teenage son of harassment.

Just like rubbish, similar accusations have been piling up on the Internet and, generally, people do not even border to read them as they are so disgusting.

However, Khairy actually treated them as treasure. He tweeted immediately and even “embellished” it with sexual innuendos.

Should it be the words and deeds of a well-educated politician who graduated from Oxford University?

As the BN Youth chief, should he slander a 16-year-old boy?

Spreading rumours and launching personal attacks on the Internet are flaws in the Internet age, as well as a cheap political weapon.

Khairy used to be a victim himself. He was involved in a sex scandal spread online after he got married to Nori Abdullah.

The attacks were obviously meant to destroy Khalid’s political future. Khairy, Nori and the famous actress involved in the scandal should have been distressed and harmed by the rumours.

As a former victim and the BN Youth leader, he should immediately come forward and condemn the act when he saw them on the Internet. He should also stop them immediately if they were “products” of a mercenary team.

As a father himself, I believe that he does not wish to see his sons being treated the same and regarded as members of “kampung buah dada” a few years later.

Sure it was a blow to Lim’s son but he should not be sad as the truth has now been revealed. Instead, he should take it as an early political lesson. As a member of a politician’s family, he has to get prepared and be strong to resist such attacks.

I think Khairy is the one who has suffered the greatest blow. As a Youth leader who has to build a healthy image while establishing credibility, the foolish and frivolous acts this time have undermined many of his efforts made over all these days.

As a father, he should be ashamed if he has a little empathy.

And he has to pay the price for making such a move to serve his political purposes.

The only way to make up is to apologise to Lim’s family, as well as society.

As for the mercenary team members behind the scene, would they learn a lesson and be watchful over their deeds and words?

The answer is of course negative. They will continue captivating instead.

The greatest difference between the online virtual world and the real world is, in reality, we can differentiate between gentlemen and villains, and between normal and abnormal persons. In the online virtual world, however, the true identities are always hidden or confused. Conspirators and losers could wear a mask and launch malicious attacks.

Anyone who believes them should as well be regarded as a fool. — mysinchew.com

                This entry was posted on Friday, 21 October 2011, 4:53 pm and is filed under
UMNO
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Anya Corke: I don’t know Guan Eng’s son

By
Shannon Teoh

The Malaysian Insider

Oct 21, 2011

KUALA LUMPUR, Oct 21 — The girl whose photograph was used by pro-Umno bloggers to level accusations of sexual harassment against Penang Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng’s son has denied ever meeting or hearing of the 16-year-old schoolboy.

Chess grandmaster Anya Sun Corke said today that she was “shocked, dismayed and baffled” as to how her photo was used without her knowledge or consent.

“I have never met or even heard of any of the people involved. I have never been physically assaulted in any way. I have never been victimised in any way by this boy or his family.

“The only way in which my ‘modesty was outraged’ has been by the publication of my picture in connection with these scurrilous and unfounded rumours,” the undergraduate at Wellesley College said in a statement.

Pro-Umno bloggers had claimed that Lim’s son had assaulted a 16-year-old schoolmate and tried to escape punishment by using his father’s name.

But the DAP showed at a press conference on Wednesday screenshots from the blogs which used pictures of Corke that matched those from www.chessbase.com. (http://www.chessbase.com/)

Lim had denied the allegations on Tuesday, saying he was furious with the “barbaric lies” made about his teenage son by “pro-Umno ferocious beasts.”

His colleagues in Pakatan Rakyat (PR) have come out strongly in support of the DAP secretary-general against what they call “the lowest gutter politics” seen in decades.

The principal of SMK Heng Ee in George Town also moved two days ago to put an end to the accusations, calling them “completely untrue.”

Sensing growing public anger, Umno MPs have been quick to distance themselves from the allegations.

Corke said today that she has not visited Malaysia for seven years.

“I would also like to express my sympathies to the boy who was defamed by these baseless allegations.

“Last but not least, I hope that members of the public and the Malaysian media will respect my privacy and refrain from making unsolicited contact with me and my family, college, chess federation, and any other affiliation,” she said.

According to Corke’s Wikipedia listing, she “is a Woman Grandmaster and the top chess player from Hong Kong who is currently playing for England.”

She earned the title with her performance in 36th Chess Olympiad, playing for the Hong Kong men’s team.

She was the 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2008 Hong Kong National Champion (for men and women), thought to be one of the youngest national champions ever.

                This entry was posted on Friday, 21 October 2011, 10:03 am and is filed under
blogging
,
Lim Guan Eng
,
UMNO
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Aziz Bari a victim of ignorance, say colleagues

By
Shannon Teoh
 | October 21, 2011

The Malaysian Insider

KUALA LUMPUR, Oct 21 — The academic staff of the International Islamic University of Malaysia (UIA) have joined the protest against the university’s suspension of Prof Dr Abdul Aziz Bari, stating that the law professor is a victim of ignorant “allegations and pressure.”

Just hours after 700 UIA students gathered at the Gombak campus this morning to demand Abdul Aziz’s reinstatement, the university’s academic staff have also come out to condemn the indefinite suspension that followed after the don had allegedly criticised the Selangor Sultan.

“Abdul Aziz Bari (picture) should be thanked for getting a nation to think. He should not be punished for the reaction of third parties.

“The allegations and pressure that are not based on knowledge levelled against Abdul Aziz Bari are a waste of time and lowers the status of the country in the eyes of the world,” the UIA Malaysia Academic Staff Association (PKA UIAM) said in a statement today.

Aziz’s suspension has raised the mercury ahead of tomorrow’s planned gathering of a million Muslims to rally against “the challenge of Christianisation” on the back of alleged proselytising by Christians.

Sultan Sharafuddin Idris Shah had decreed recently that the Selangor Islamic Religious Department (Jais) had found evidence of proselytisation by non-Muslims during a dinner held at the Damansara Utama Methodist Church (DUMC) on August 3 but said it was insufficient for further legal action.

Abdul Aziz’s statement that the intervention was “unusual and inconsistent” and not done in line with Islamic teachings caused a furore in Parliament among Barisan Nasional (BN) MPs who urged that action be taken against the UIA law lecturer.

Although a police report has been lodged against him, the outspoken academic has decided against apologising for his remarks, insisting he had not meant to challenge the Sultan.

“We feel aggrieved at the external interference in the education system that should be free and professional,” PKA UIAM added.

A large crowd at the Himpunan Sejuta Umat (Himpun), or Gathering of a Million Faithful, tomorrow could push Umno and PAS to seek relevance among more religious Malays and raise already simmering fears of Islamisation among non-Muslims and more liberal Malays.

Christian leaders have labelled Himpun’s fight against proselytisation “irrelevant” and cautioned the group against provoking religious tension by going ahead with the rally.

Although Umno has defended Himpun’s freedom to assemble, its partners in the ruling BN, MCA and Gerakan, have urged for the rally to be called off as they fear it will harm race and religious relations.

PAS has said the gathering should remain apolitical while PKR insists there is no threat from Christians.

                This entry was posted on Friday, 21 October 2011, 5:25 pm and is filed under
university
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


How far can Burma bend for change?

Peter Hartcher
 | October 18, 2011

The Age

One of the world’s most famous champions of freedom, Burma’s Aung San Suu Kyi, spent most of the past 21 years under house arrest, considered a pariah by the military dictators who cancelled elections, shut down free speech and cut Burma off from the democratic world.

A year ago it was forbidden to print her name in a newspaper. But now, the long-suffering Nobel peace prize winner is not only allowed her freedom, she was invited to a well-publicised dinner with the President and his wife. The beginning of a liberalisation in one of Asia’s most repressive countries, or a manipulative gimmick to trick the world into easing tough sanctions?

When Suu Kyi was released last November and the first ”democratic elections” in 19 years were held, nobody believed that there was serious reform under way in the country that now calls itself Myanmar, population 55 million.

The elections were held under a new constitution that gives the military permanent dominance. As expected, pro-military parties won overwhelmingly. The whole exercise was dismissed by Western governments as a fraud. The ageing military dictator, General Than Shwe, handed power to a slightly younger former general, Thein Sein, in March, and nobody paid much attention.

The new President gave his inaugural address to Parliament declaring his intention to fight poverty, curtail corruption, end armed conflicts and achieve political reconciliation. But he was given about as much credence as the China’s constitutional guarantees of democratic freedom.

But reforms have been flowing fast. The press has been freed up somewhat. Access to foreign news websites such as the BBC has been allowed. Suu Kyi has been allowed to travel and speak freely and widely and in security. A satirist who had bedevilled the regime for years, and been jailed for even longer, was released. Foreign journalists have been granted unprecedented access.

The UN’s special envoy to Burma, Tomas Quintana, had been banned from the country after last year calling for a UN special inquiry into whether the regime was guilty of crimes against humanity. This year, he was not only allowed back and given all the access he asked for, the regime even took his advice and created a human rights commission. Remarkably, the commission has since issued a call for the release of political prisoners.

In July, Australia’s Foreign Minister, Kevin Rudd, told President Thein Sein this would be the single most transformative step the regime could take to signal serious intent of political reform.

Thein Sein has now released some 200 to 220 political prisoners, according to the best estimate of the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs. About another 1800 remain, however, and activists are unconvinced: ”Such amnesties are not new,” Zetty Brake, of Burma Campaign Australia, says. ”In the past, these releases have never been an indicator that change is on the way. They have been used by the dictatorship to try and secure positive publicity in order to ease international pressure.”

The question of political prisoners will remain an acid test of regime intentions, and yet, with each passing day, it is becoming harder to sustain the argument that change in Burma is tokenistic.

State pensions for nearly a million people, mostly poor, have increased dramatically. Microfinance, the system for giving loans of as little as $20 or $100 to the very poor to allow them to start small ventures such as breeding chickens or opening stalls, has been legalised. Trade unions, long banned, have been legalised, a ”momentous policy decision” according to the International Labour Organisation’s representative in Burma, Steve Marshall.

Some reforms have been ”previously unimaginable” in the words of a Burmese historian and former UN official, Thant Myint. ”What we’re seeing today is Myanmar’s best chance in half a century for a better future,” he argues.

One of the ”previously unimaginable” decisions to emerge from Burma was the suspension of a $US3.6 billion project, financed by China, to build a major dam across the Irrawaddy River. This is a touchstone for both Burma’s domestic politics and its international strategy and diplomacy. Certainly for China, Burma’s biggest trading partner and chief ally and protector, this is a very serious matter.

It was not only the terms of the announcement. Thein Sein said in a note to the parliament that he was suspending construction for the duration of his term – to 2015 – because the dam was being built ”against the will of the people.” Since when had anything been done in Burma according to the ”will of the people”?

It was also the importance of the project. The dam was to generate 6000 megawatts of electricity, 90 per cent of which was to flow across the border to China. So, too, according to activist groups, were 70 per cent of the profits. Beijing is unimpressed at this abrupt change in Burma’s priorities. Its foreign ministry has expressed hope that any decisions on the project will be made ”in consultation” with China.

For the Burmese people, it is one of the most potent political issues. The Myitsone Dam would have drowned fertile rice paddies, dislocated tens of thousands of ethnic Kachin people, and destroyed sites that archaeologists claim are the most important for understanding the origins of Burmese history and culture.

Thein Sein appears to have sided decisively with his people against Beijing. This seems the hardest evidence yet that he is not just an extension of the old repression but a new force seeking popular support and political legitimacy.

The world is now paying serious attention. The new US special envoy to Myanmar, Derek Mitchell, said ”if they take steps, we will take steps to demonstrate that we are supportive of the path to reform.”

Washington is now moving to improve diplomatic relations, but not yet to lift sanctions.

The World Bank and the International Monetary Fund have long refused to aid Burma. Rudd told the Herald that ”it’s well worth reconsidering engagement with Burma” for the two biggest international lenders, but Australia was not yet ready to reconsider its own sanctions on Burma.

How far can Thein Sein go in offering Burma some real hope for freedom and prosperity? How far will Burma’s military allow him to go? The world is pleasantly surprised but, like Suu Kyi herself, wary: ”I’d like to see a few more turns before I decide whether or not the wheels are moving along.”

Peter Hartcher is the Sydney Morning Herald’s international editor.

                This entry was posted on Friday, 21 October 2011, 5:54 pm and is filed under
Burma
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Kerana politik, sanggup mengorbankan kanak-kanak yang tidak bersalah

Aspan Alias
 | October 21, 2011

The Malaysian Insider

21 OKT — Isu yang dimainkan oleh Ketua Bahagian Bukit Gelugor, Dr Novandri serta beberapa blogger pro-Umno terhadap anak Lim Guan Eng memang jelas mendapat perhatian ramai dan kebanyakan dari reaksi yang saya secara peribadi terima menunjukan sebagai satu isu yang menjadi kemarahan ramai.

Ramai yang meminta saya menulis dan memberi komen tentangnya. Saya tidak mempunyai komen panjang tentang isu ini. Yang pasti “lawmakers” dari Umno nampaknya menjauhi diri mereka dari isu ini dan rata-rata kita mendengar yang Umno tidak terlibat dengan isu yang panas ini. Malahan Ahli-Ahli Parlmen Umno meminta Guan Eng menyaman Novandri dan bloggers pro-Umno jika itu merupakan fitnah yang sengaja diadakan kerana tuntutan politik yang “desperate”.

Komen saya senang sahaja; ini merupakan satu lagi dari banyak bukti yang Umno begitu “desperate” untuk mendapatkan kembali kerusi-kerusi yang mereka tertewas dalam pilihanraya yang lalu. Umno tidak menampakan lagi sikap seperti parti yang memimpin negara. Umno sudah menjadi “defensive” dan ini merupakan petanda yang parti itu sedang menuju kearah kejatuhan. Ini hakikat.

Umno tercari-cari kesalahan DAP di Pulau Pinang seperti orang mencari kutu yang halus dalam rambut. Umno tidak mempunyai modal lagi untuk mendapat perhatian ramai. Umno nampaknya sudah menjadi “sour grapes” dan jika sudah dihinggapi oleh penyakit seperti ini selalunya parti yang seperti ini akan ditinggalkan oleh orang ramai.

Orang ramai akan mula berfikir samada parti ini mampu untuk menjadi pelindung kepada rakyat kerana orang ramai akan sendirinya akan merasa tidak berkeyakinan jika sebuah parti pemerintah sanggup melakukan perkara yang amat menjijikan itu semata-mata untuk menyambung nikmat berkuasa.

Memalitkan seorang kanak-kanak yang tidak bersalah kerana kepentingan politik serupalah seperti penjenayah kanak-kanak yang sangat tidak bertanggungjawab. Ada pihak yang sanggup melakukan kerja seperti ini semata-mata kerana hendak menjatuhkan pihak lawan. Jika Guan Eng yang hendak dijatuhkan kenapa jadikan anaknya sebagai mangsa?

Tidak kah “penjenayah-penjenayah” ini merasa malu apabila Guru Besar SMK Heng Ee, George Town sendiri manafikan adanya berlaku perkara yang difitnahkan oleh pihak tertentu di dalam Umno itu? Kenapa setengah pihak yang desperado ini sanggup menyiarkan gambar orang lain yang dikatakan sebagai anak Guan Eng? Gambar yang dikatakan sebagai anak Guan Eng itu rupa-rupa gambar orang lain yang sedang belajar di AS.

Inilah sebenarnya yang berlaku di dalam Umno. Umno sudah hilang segala-galanya. Yang ada hanyalah saki-baki kuasa yang ada yang dimandatkan oleh rakyat dalam pilihanraya yang lalu.

Tidakkah terfikir oleh “penjenayah-penjenayah” ini bagaimana kanak-kanak berusia 16 tahun itu menghadapi hidup seharian kerana fitnah yang amat hina ini? Isu ini jelas merupakan satu fitnah yang amat rendah darjatnya. Kerja seperti ini tentulah berlaku kerana mereka sudah terbiasa melakukannya. Kata perbilangan “alah bisa tegal biasa”.

Kalau sudah biasa dengan jenayah, untuk melakukan jenayah yang lain akan menjadi perkara biasa. Kepada semua yang bertanggungjawab merencanakan pembohongan ini berfikirlah apa dengan tekun dan bertanya kepada diri sendiri, “apa yang telah aku lakukan ini?” dan perbaikilah diri masing-masing.

Politik itu politiklah! Tetapi janganlah sampai melakukan perkara yang sangat ternoda ini. Jangan tunjukan sangat “desperation” itu kepada khalayak ramai. Semua tindakan yang dilakukan terhadap seorang kanak-kanak sekolah itu hanya merupakan tindakan “self defeating” bagi parti yang memerintah.

Itu sahaja komen saya.

                This entry was posted on Friday, 21 October 2011, 4:49 pm and is filed under
Crime
,
UMNO
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


MCA and hudud: Part 2

Stanley Koh | October 20, 2011

Free Malaysia Today

In 2001, when Dr Mahathir declared Malaysia an Islamic state, MCA president Dr Ling Liong Sik said he and other non-Muslim leaders supported the prime minister’s position

COMMENT

What is the role of religions in politics? Is Islam compatible with democracy? How do we deal with the conflicts between the constitutional provisions for fundamental liberties and equality with religious laws and policies that may violate them?

Should the state legislate on morality? Is it the duty of the state to bring about a more moral society?

Can there be one truth and one final interpretation of Islam that must be legislated and govern the lives of every Muslim citizen of the country?

These were some of the questions raised in 2001 at a MCA-organised forum attended by Dr Hamid Othman of the Prime Minister’s Department, Shad Saleem Faruqi of Universiti Teknologi Mara, Zainah Anwar of Sisters in Islam and representatives of the Inter-Religious Council of Christianity, Hinduism, Sikhism and Buddhism.

The forum came in the midst of public disquiet over then prime minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad’s declaration, in September 2001, that Malaysia was an Islamic state. Many Malaysians were confused and quite a number were in fear that the country would eventually be run like a Taliban state.

Hamid, whose job was to advise the PM’s Department on religious matters, said he did not have answers to the questions raised.

“I would like a dialogue to begin on these very important issues,” he said. “This dialogue and debate have begun, particularly in Muslim countries like Iran and Indonesia. And the search for answers and solutions cannot be the exclusive preserve of the ulamas.

“All citizens have the right to engage in this dialogue and in this debate because nothing less than the future of this nation is at stake. The peace, political stability and prosperity, the celebration of our rich, multiracial and multireligious heritage that we have enjoyed, must be the heritage that we leave to our children.”

Why did Mahathir make the surprising declaration? Veteran political observers interpreted it as purely and simply a move to outdo PAS in the competition for Malay voting support. They said Mahathir had no other considerations apart from the political. Some interpreted it as a desperate political manoeuvre occasioned by increasing support for PAS as that party pushed its own brand of Islamic Malaysia, one that would include hudud punishments under Islamic law.

MCA’s stand

BN’s major component parties, particularly MCA, were caught in a bind. To its credit, MCA organised the forum on short notice to seek clarification and answers to end the confusion and fears.

What was the MCA president’s own response to Mahathir’s declaration? Dr Ling Liong Sik claimed that many non-Muslim leaders supported the prime minister’s position. The following were the exact words he used at the forum, as recorded on tape:

“Can I say my personal point of view? Now throughout the world, there’s conflict, struggle, war between the moderates and the extremists. In any society, sometimes even within the religious society—you name them—fundamentalists, some moderates, some of them reasonables.

“Now in Malaysia, we, in BN, are taking the moderate-centre stand. We try to discuss everything between races. That is why we have invited religious councils to give your views. Now we know, we know, the erosion of Malay support is serious.

“It is serious. And in Selangor, previous election, let us say in Shah Alam, won by 41,000 votes. Last election (1999), dropped to 2,400 votes. In Gombak, previous election won by 30,000-over votes, but last election, kalah 800 votes.

“This is the erosion of Malay support. And it is going the other way to the extremist call. The hudud laws, Islamic state, this and that, now non-Malay taking the middle road.

“Are you going to support the moderates? Because even if withdrawing support, being silent, is supporting the extremist line.”

Ling elaborated that supporting Mahathir’s declaration was merely a demonstration of support for moderates.

“Now, if Dr Mahathir said we are going to change the constitution and make this a theocratic state, I think it will be completely different.

“This is the constitution drawn up by our forefathers and everybody agreed to it. And it is the supreme law of the land. And it should not be changed. And that is what he said.

“By definition, we can now call ourselves an Islamic state. I am not saying Dr Mahathir’s saying is right but he has good reason in trying to stem the erosion.”

Only a duty

Hamid gave his interpretation of what Islam expects of Muslims who hold political power.

“Islam recognizes any values not contradicting to Islamic teachings,” he said.

“The implementation of hudud laws is only a duty, and not a pillar of Islam.

“If PAS refers to books on Islamic jurisprudence, PAS will say the same things as Umno. If PAS says that hudud is a pillar of Islam, they cannot hoodwink Islamic scholars.

“The governance and administration of Malaysia is run in accordance to Islamic teachings, particularly, in the eradication of poverty, or more correctly, hunger. Secondly, eradication of disturbances, meaning efforts to maintain peace and harmony for the country. From the very beginning, the Alliance, and later Barisan Nasional (BN), was run to achieve these objectives. It has been the objective of the government.

“You can call it an Islamic objective or secular. Islam accepts (what is) secular, but not secularism.

“Secular in … Islam means in this life, striving for betterment, providing services for the wellbeing and welfare of fellow men while carrying out your duties and responsibilities.

“Islam cannot accept secularism, which means that there is no life after death. Secularism means there is no punishment after death and this runs contrary to Islamic teachings.”

Neither Islamic nor secular

Shad agreed that there is no one model of an Islamic state, just as there is no such thing as a single model for communism, socialism, capitalism or secularism. “It is a matter of semantics,” he said.

He said the Reid Commission did “a good job” of drafting a “detailed constitutional document” for Malaysia, but he noted a “significant omission” in that the constitution does not have a preamble.

“Maybe it was a deliberate move,” he said. “Most constitutional documents have a preamble stating the nation supports either secularism, socialism or social economic justice. Our constitution lacks a preamble. Neither the word ‘secular’ nor ‘Islamic’ appears anywhere.

“Article 4(1) states that the written constitution is the supreme law of the federation. Though Islam is the religion of the federation, it is not the basic law of the land. And Article 3 (on Islam) imposes no limits on the power of Parliament to legislate.

“Islamic law is not and never was the general law of the land, either at the federal or state level. In such fields as criminal law, Islamic law has very little relevance. Thus, the hudud offence of zina (fornication) cannot be punishable in Malaysia under syariah law. Article 160(2) of the constitution, which defines law, does not include syariah as part of the definition of law.

“All in all, it can be said that Malaysia is neither a full-fledged Islamic state nor wholly secular. On the one hand, it maintains Islam as a state religion and is deeply committed to the promotion of religion in the life of Muslims. On the other, it places the Yang di-Pertuan Agong and the state sultans as heads of the religious hierarchy and adopts the supremacy of the constitution as the basic rule of the legal system.”

According to the professor, the legal system is “mixed”. “It avoids the extremes of American style secularism or Saudi, Iranian and Taliban type of religious control of all aspects of life. It mirrors the rich diversity and pluralism of its population. It prefers pragmatism over ideological purity, moderation over extremism. It walks the middle path.

“Islam provides the basic norms for Malay society and culture. In view of the fact that Muslims constitute the majority of the population, and Islamisation is being vigorously enforced, Malaysia can indeed be described as an Islamic or Muslim country.”

To be continued in Part 3

                This entry was posted on Friday, 21 October 2011, 9:56 am and is filed under
Islamic state
,
MCA
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


The shackling of Prof Abdul Aziz Bari and academic freedom

Aliran Executive Committee
 | 21 October 2011

His suspension comes in the wake of his publicly expressed opinion regarding the recent decree by the Sultan of Selangor over the controversial Jais raid on the Damansara Utama Methodist Church.

Many Malaysians share his opinion and look up to him as a brave academic who did not betray his conscience in expressing an honest opinion without fear or favour. This intellectual freedom of expression must be the hallmark of an institution of higher learning. It is rare individuals like him who inspire students to speak the truth and defend what is right. He is an asset to IIUM.

The action taken by the university against the learned professor is baffling. The university is guilty of committing a serious travesty of justice as its action amounts to a denial of the right of academics to offer their expert opinions on matters that they specialises in and are concerned about.

It is expected of the professor to share his knowledge and expertise with the rest of us. That is the primary purpose in recruiting the best lecturers to teach and mould our youngsters to be responsible citizens.

If anyone disagrees with his view, he or she should do it intellectually and in a civilised manner to enhance an understanding of the issue at hand for both the academic fraternity and the larger community. A sledgehammer such as the Sedition Act should not be used to suppress healthy discussion.

It has not been proven that his views are invalid and without merit. Malaysians should be told why his views are wrong. We should indeed start a debate to discuss this issue in a civilised manner as befitting a civil society.

Equally important, the university’s action makes a mockery of the notion of intellectual freedom and integrity that a university worth its salt is supposed to promote and protect. If this important value is not protected and guarded, what is the worth of a university?

Besides, the measure of an intellectually vibrant institution of higher learning is recognised and honoured when there are open discussions, debates and dissenting opinions. The prevalence of a lacklustre follow-me mentality – symptomatic of the larger political and feudalistic culture – will be the death knell of a university.

Aliran calls upon the IIUM authorities to lift the professor’s suspension immediately and cease all other similar actions that would only smear and sully the university’s academic reputation.

                This entry was posted on Friday, 21 October 2011, 5:23 pm and is filed under
university
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Aziz Bari – a critical test case

Prof Aziz Bari has become a critical test case whether Malaysia is moving towards greater democrartisation, academic excellence and enhanced International oompetitiveness or the reverse.

The suspension of Aziz by IIUM could not have come at a worse time for Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak’s National Transformation Programme whether government, economic or political.

It has firstly thrown into doubt Najib’s political will, commitment and stamina whether the Prime Minister and his administration are prepared to see through the wide-ranging government, economic, educational and political  reforms without which Malaysia stands no chance of escaping from two decades of middle-income trap, overtaken by one country after another most notably Hong Kong, Singapore, Taiwan and South Korea.

Malaysia cannot expect to achieve the goal of a high-income developed nation unless and until we can produce world-class universities, not just in the eyes of Ministers but acknowledged internationally.

The failure of any Malaysian university to get into the recently-released Times Higher Education (THE) World Top 400 Universities Ranking 2011-2012 is powerful testimony that Malaysia is not doing enough to train, retain and recruit talents to transform our economy into a knowledge economy so as to restore our international competitiveness.

The suspension and persecution of Aziz Bari for expressing his views and comments will be a message to the international academic community that Malaysia is not prepared to accept and respect academic freedom resulting in worsening of brain drain of Malaysian talents and condemning the Talents Corporation to failure to attract brain gain from the Malaysian diaspora and the world intellectual resources.

Politically, Aziz’s suspension has come as a slap-in-the-face for Najib’s recent claim of wanting to make Malaysia ‘the best democracy in the world”. If Najib is sincere,  then the curbs and fetters undermining academic freedom and excellence like the Universities and University Colleges Act should be repealed! But instead we have the Aziz Bari persecution – reminder that the undemocratic mentality and mindset of repression in key institutions in the country are still in full control of the levers of power despite all the sloganeering about democratization and political transformation.

Why was Aziz Bari arbitrarily suspended at variance with Najib’s call for democratisatio  and government, economic and political transformation? Is Najib being sabotaged from inside his party and government?

Najib’s should  direct that the suspension of Aziz by IIUM be revoked immediately and cause an investigation why his call for democratization and government, economic and political transformation is being flouted so blatantly by his own subordinates in government and party!

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 22 October 2011, 4:51 pm and is filed under
Education
,
university
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Malaysia’s battle royale

Mariam Mokhtar | Oct 17, 2011

Malaysiakini

The cultural identity of modern Malaysia is like an artist’s palette, a colourful blend of people from different backgrounds, origins, traditions, culture and faiths. There is no denying that our rulers helped shaped the country’s social and historical development. They symbolise unity, pride and national identity.

But our royalty cannot escape living in a goldfish bowl.

If our public institutions are subject to modernisation, evaluation and reform, why can’t we discuss this particular institution – the royal institution?

Why are we perceived as enemies of the state just because we point out the obvious but unspoken facts? Why do intellectually challenged flunkies, who refuse to be dragged into the 21st century, prevent intelligent discourse about the Malay rulers?

Stopping healthy interaction will strain relationships between the rakyat and the monarchy. Hence, this discussion is long overdue.

The royalty cannot dispense with the scrutiny of a rakyat that exacts high standards from them. The royalty must learn to cope in a modern world where the feudal system, class distinctions and other forms of discrimination are outdated.

When the constitutional law expert Abdul Aziz Bari opined that Malay Rulers should be publicly scrutinised, the Malay daily, Utusan Malaysia, slammed him for being “disrespectful”.

Abdul Aziz had said the role played by the sultan in the Selangor Islamic Affairs Department (Jais) raid on the Damansara Utama Methodist Church (DUMC) dinner was “unconventional” and that taxpayers had every right to judge how their rulers executed their constitutional powers.

He said, “Under the Sedition Act 1948, it is fine to criticise the rulers so long as it does not advocate the abolition of the institution (of monarchy).”

Mindful of the political implications, the self-styled defender of the faith, Senator Ezam Mohd Noor joined Utusan in condemning Abdul Aziz Bari and also Malaysiakini, for publishing his remarks. He lodged a police report for both to be investigated under the Sedition Act because they threatened national security with their incitement to “hate royals”.

Ezam is a career politician who makes a living out of leap-frogging from one political party to another (1998, 2007 and 2008). His less than perfect credentials include waging jihad against Malaysiakini and Malaysian Insider, when he threatened to torch their offices for their “anti-Jais stance”.

His selective amnesia conveniently ignored former prime minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad’s dressing-down of the sultans in 1993, when practically all in Umno were unanimous about curbing the powers of our royalty.

Mahathir poses as a Malay and in his typical divisive fashion, clipped the wings of the sultans then. But today, Mahathir himself castigated Abdul Aziz for his comments about the Jais raid.

Mahathir should recall the speech he made at the Dewan Rakyat in February 1993, when he publicly humiliated the nation’s nine rulers for their various infractions, before stripping them of their powers.

That didn’t stop Kinabatangan MP Bung Mokhtar Radin, the husband of Zizie Ezette, joining in the rebuke of Malaysiakini and Abdul Aziz.

Bung Mokhtar said, “Freedom of speech is allowed among academics but he (Abdul Aziz) made his criticism at the wrong time and place, he is not a constitutional expert, just an expert at twisting facts.”

Few will forget how this controversial MP issued several denials, that his new hair-cut, dyed hair and sporty look, was because he was courting a film starlet.

Bung didn’t mind twisting the definition of marriage when he broke the law by committing polygamy. He subsequently twisted the syariah ruling and escaped with a rap on the knuckles and a minimal fine.

Nevertheless, the DUMC decree was not the only “unconventional” royal incident.

The long-term repercussions of the Perak debacle of 2008 have left deep scars in the psyche of Malaysians. Other allegations of royal misdeeds, which are rarely reported in Malaysia, have been chronicled elsewhere and make disturbing reading.

Recently, within a fortnight of each other, two sultans were offended by the actions or remarks of third parties.

Last month, the sultan of Johor was offended when Penang Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng alleged, during a private conversation at a private function, that “a Singaporean was likely to get kidnapped in Johor, and that in comparison, Penang was more attractive for travel and business”.

Stifling Malay freedom of thought and expression

The sultan said, “Yes, I was offended when I got to know about that statement, but I don’t want to react, because as a ruler, I shouldn’t be dragged into politics.”

Johor-born Deputy Prime Minister Muhyiddin Yassin, milked the predicament facing Lim for all its worth and urged Lim to apologise for being “irresponsible”. Muhyiddin claimed that whenever he was overseas, he refrained from ridiculing opposition-led states.

Lim has since apologised for offending the sultan but said that he would neither deny nor confirm the allegations, to prevent further misquotes.

Last week, the sultan of Selangor issued a press statement about the Jais raid on the DUMC, which said that no one would be prosecuted because of lack of evidence. He also said that he was “….gravely concerned and extremely offended by the attempts of certain parties to weaken the faith and belief of Muslims…”

Many questions remain unanswered. Why should Muslims at the dinner be counselled if there was no evidence of proselytising? If there were attempts to proselytise, shouldn’t the offenders be punished? What about the legality of the Jais raid?

It appears that a ‘sticking plaster’ was used to patch up the deep wound that this farce exposed and Malaysians on both sides of the religious divide are offended. Who will deliver the apology?

On a wider scale, the rakyat is ‘offended’ when the authorities neglect corruption, crime, injustice, ill-treatment of women, nepotism, cronyism and the bumbling service given by the bloated bureaucracy.

At a forum called “Challenges for Penang to become the Intellectual Hub of the Region”, former Perlis mufti Mohd Asri Zainal Abidin blamed “restrictions imposed by the authorities” for stifling Malay freedom of thought and expression.

He said “The Malays are influenced by feudal values of the past… these values include loyalty to the King. I am not saying monarchy is wrong. But the attitude of ampu (brown nosing/apple polishing) towards political leaders and royalty contribute to this restriction (on intellectual development)”.

Ariffin Omar, a history lecturer at the Malaysian Defence University, agreed that the Malays lacked cultural and political freedom, and their underdeveloped economic status stifled their intellectual development.

Ariffin said, “But what happens here is that when you speak your mind, you are persecuted, a traitor of the nation. Why is there no maturity in politics?

“When will people start to think critically and debate on important issues and find solutions to address the problems of the community?”

Ariffin has probably noticed that we are slowly opening up our minds and it is Umno/BN and the rulers, who need to be mature and stop calling us traitors.

Lesser royals, who wish to remain anonymous, have intimated that they are disturbed by the abuse of power by officials in the corridors of the palace.

So it appears everyone is at least united by one thing: Fear.

Fear silences the majority from speaking the obvious. Fear of losing a way of life stops the authorities from allowing the Malays to progress intellectually.

Ariffin correctly surmised, “It is not the government but the people who have the power to determine the future of the country.”

——————————————————————————–

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

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 22 October 2011, 11:23 am and is filed under
Constitution
,
Mariam Mokhtar
,
university
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


MCA and hudud: Final part

By
Stanley Koh

October 22, 2011 | Free Malaysia Today

At a 2006 forum to discuss problems that non-Muslims face as Malaysian officialdom continues to assert the predominance of Islam in the country, a prominent scholar acknowledged – “with “sadness”, he said – that there was great confusion about the religion, especially among Muslims themselves.

Syed Ali Tawfik al-Attas, director-general of the Institute of Islamic Understanding (Ikim), said that Muslim administrators and Islamic activists generally had a poor understanding of the Islamic view of “knowledge” even as they examined the religion with a fine-tooth comb.

“That is the problem with the Muslim world,” he declared.

He explained that in Islamic scholarship, knowledge is generally separated into three types: interpretation of the meaning of what is perceived, revealed knowledge, and derived knowledge that is beneficial. This effectively means that non-beneficial knowledge is not construed as knowledge.

He stressed the importance of having the correct understanding of such terminologies as “freedom”, “democracy” and “Islamisation” and the equal importance of recognising that they were open to different conceptualisations.

Citing an example, he said the word the Arabs use for “democracy” could be translated as “preservation of the mind”, which implies a wealth of meanings.

“Yet, this preservation is today limited to halal-haram issues,” he said, adding that this was one symptom of “the truncation and tragedy of Islam”.

The forum that Syed Ali addressed, which was organised by a group of think-tanks, shed much light on issues raised during the 2001 forum that MCA held following Dr Mahathir Mohamad’s declaration that Malaysia was an Islamic state.

Many of those issues centred around the unhappiness of non-Muslims with the arrogance of the civil service in deciding on and implementing policies that affected the religious practices of non-Muslims.

Syed Ali’s presentation made it quite clear that such arrogance was born of ignorance.

The Moorthy controversy

Referring to the case of Everest climber Maniam Moorthy, who died in 2005 and was buried as a Muslim in the face of his family’s objections, Syed Ali said it would not have been such a big issue if the officials in charge had been more knowledgeable and less arrogant.

He explained that in Islam it does not matter where one is buried. He said the Moorthy controversy illustrated how it was the mind of Muslims, and not Islam itself, that was limited.

At the MCA forum, representatives from the Inter-Religious Council of Christianity, Hinduism, Sikhism and Buddhism spoke of difficulties in getting approval for land on which to build places of worship and even for the renovation of those places.

Rev Wong Kheng Kong said civil servants carried out their work with a clear bias for Islam instead of sticking to the constitutional provisions on religious rights. He feared that Mahathir’s declaration would make matters worse.

“There is a need to have an absolute definition of the declaration,” Wong said. “Otherwise, things will be up to the whims and fancies of people in power. There will be problems. Civil servants are already interpreting the laws with an Islamic bias. For example, no other building can be taller than a mosque.”

He cited various other problems faced by non-Muslims, including their having to adhere to Islamic norms in attire and the preparation of food.

Hachenran Singh, who represented the Sikhs in the inter-religious council, lamented that non-Muslims under an Islamic state would be considered “protected persons” instead of “full citizens”.

A representative for the Hindus complained that non-Muslims were not allowed to practise Syariah law even if they had the qualification.

Shad Saleem Faruqi of Universiti Teknologi Mara advised non-Muslims to seek judicial reviews if they felt they had been victimised by overzealous civil servants.

“Civil servants must give reasons for their decisions,” he said. “If the reasons are frivolous, I think a judicial review is possible.”

Abdul Hamid Othman of the Prime Minister’s Department said the government was aware that some administrators suffered from an excess of zeal. He claimed that there had been occasions when the Prime Minister stepped in personally to ensure the release of funds allocated for non-Muslim houses of worship.

“When we talk about the Islamic state, the most important thing is administration of the lives of citizens,” he said. Essentially, he explained, an Islamic government has a duty towards God to ensure that it administers with justice for everyone.

Political purpose

Several speakers at the MCA forum described Mahathir’s declaration as an example of the exploitation of religion for political ends.

“If you tell us that this declaration is a joke and that the PM has made a joke because he wants just the Malay votes, then, in two months the topic will be closed,” said a speaker from the inter-religious council.

“But if the government is serious in making the declaration, then I think there is a big problem.

“How come our non-Malay leaders do not have the courage – and maybe the dignity, I don’t know, I hope not, but with a sense of dignity at least – to stand up and say to the PM, ‘There is something wrong with the declaration’?”

Zainah Anwar of Sisters in Islam said there was a need for “younger voices” among Muslims to question and challenge misinterpretations of religious beliefs and practices.

Is labelling more important than ensuring a fair and equitable governance, which is what Islam espouses? Should Mahathir‘s declaration remind us of these words of Alice in Wonderland: “How can you make your words mean different things?”

It seems that to the MCA leadership the answer should sound like this: “Yes, you can. It depends on who is in charge.”

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 22 October 2011, 4:46 pm and is filed under
Islamic state
,
MCA
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


MCA and hudud: Part 3

By
Stanley Koh

October 21, 2011 | Free Malaysia Today

Few will disagree that politicians are often trapped in history and history in them. MCA politicians should take heed. Unfortunately, when they throw stones at their rivals, they often forget that they live in a house of glass.

When in 1993 the Kelantan government proposed the law allowing hudud punishments, the two Umno representatives in the state assembly supported it. The law, formally called the Syariah Criminal Code (11) Enactment 1993, was passed in November of that year.

There was no public outcry and the MCA leadership did not threaten to leave Barisan Nasional. The only justification for the silence was that the then prime minister, Dr Mahathir Mohamad, had already objected to the passing of the bill.

Fast forward to the present. MCA President Dr Chua Soi Lek recently said he would pull his party out of BN if its political master, Umno, ever decided to impose hudud. Is he in fact trying to rehash the anti-hudud position that his party took during the campaign for the 1999 general election? The results showed that the ruse worked.

Five years earlier, the MCA publication Guardian featured an article by Dr Ling Liong Sik, in which the then party president remarked: “The MCA has always chosen partners who are moderates and are willing to discuss. Malaysia has no room for extremists and religious fanatics.”

Was he referring to PAS and hudud? The answer lies somewhere in a subsequent sentence: “The DAP, being a party of opportunistic bankrupt politicians who are constantly criticising for the sake of criticism, are a threat to the wellbeing of all Malaysians. I am grateful the hudud law issue has exposed the DAP.”

Taliban types

At the MCA-organised forum in 2001, held soon after Mahathir declared Malaysia an Islamic state, Abdul Hamid Othman of the Prime Minister’s Department suggested that MCA should watch out for “Taliban-type” Malays. “We must tell our people that we are already an Islamic state,” said the prime minister’s religious adviser.

He acknowledged that Mahathir’s announcement might frighten the non-Muslims but explained that the idea was to prevent the emergence of the Taliban types.

Hamid in fact tried to teach MCA how to explain the issue to its constituents. He said they should be told that the Malaysian-style Islamic state would be based on locally established traditions and practices as well as universal practices suitable for Malaysians. These would be unlike the practices associated with such countries as Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, which were, according to him, based on local traditions and not necessarily Islamic.

He noted that while men and women were segregated at Saudi airports, for instance, there was no such segregation inside the Grand Mosque in Mecca.

Zainah Anwar, the executive director of Sisters in Islam, spoke at length on the impact of Islam on legal and political systems and the concerns it raises.

Among other things, she said: “Islam 1,400 years ago granted women equal rights unheard of in other religions and societies—the right to divorce, rights of ownership and disposal of property, dowries and the banning of female infanticide.

“We believe that our fellow Malaysians who are non-Muslims have the right to seek clarification, understanding and to express their concerns, their confusion in these uncertain and difficult times as to what is going on in the Muslim world in general.”

She said one of the main concerns of her movement was the “injustice and discrimination” against Muslim women at the hands of religious authorities.

“The challenge for us today, and in many Muslim countries, is the main political conflict—not so much between Muslims and others, but rather among Muslims with contending visions of Islam and the shape of the nation state. And in this battle on what is Islam and who practices the right Islam, it is the status of women that is the first casualty.

“Hence, it is not surprising that in countries such as Malaysia, Indonesia, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Eqypt, Iran, Morocco and many others, Muslim women and women groups are at the forefront in challenging traditional religious authorities and governments in the use of Islam and interpretation of Islam that discriminate against women.

“For most Muslim women, rejecting religion is not an option. We are believers. As believers, we want to find liberation, truth and justice within our own faith. We feel strongly we have the right to reclaim our religion, redefine it, to participate and contribute to an understanding of Islam—how to codify and implement in ways that take into consideration the realities and experiences of our lives today.”

Constitutional guarantees

Zainah’s view was that the hudud provisions were discriminatory because women could not qualify as witnesses.

“The issue arises at a time when the Malaysian government, at least at the leadership level, recognises equality between men and women in this country and are responsive to calls by women groups to amend all laws discriminative against women.”

She said all Malaysians, regardless of religious persuasion, had the right to enjoy the constitutional guarantees of equality.

Zainah also expressed concern that religious authorities wielded too much power.

“The process of lawmaking on matters of religion reflects the fear and ignorance of many officials and politicians on Islam,” she said.

“They seem so ready and willing to abdicate their responsibilities and refuse to challenge any drafted legislation by the religious authorities no matter what the effect is. No matter if it violates the constitution, that it discriminates against women.

“In effect, many people, many Muslims equate the opinions of those in religious authority to the word of God. Therefore, they should not be challenged or questioned.

“This trend in law making—and policy making—is a reflection to me of the increasingly obscurantist trend of Islam that is taking root in Malaysia.”

She argued that the continuous demand for an Islamic social order could lead to conflicts at the political, social and government levels on what should constitute “true Islam”.

“We live in a country where people historically have been open to change and outside influences and fertilisation of cultures and religions, and who today can confidently embrace the challenges of change, diversity and pluralism,” she said.

“We have a government that at policy level believes in equality. Therefore, the kind of Islam that evolves in Malaysia must necessarily take into consideration the rights of other citizens in a democratic state. There are realities that do not exist in many other Muslim countries.

“We are in a privileged position and in a strong position to provide a model Islamic country.”

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 22 October 2011, 4:42 pm and is filed under
Islamic state
,
MCA
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Four Nations, Four Lessons

By N. GREGORY MANKIW

The New York Times

October 22, 2011

AS the economy languishes, politicians and pundits are debating what to do next. When we look around the world, it’s hard to find positive role models. But as we search for answers, it is useful to keep in mind those fates that we would like to avoid.

The recent economic histories of four nations are noteworthy: France, Greece, Japan and Zimbabwe. Each illustrates a kind of policy mistake that could, if we are not careful, presage the future of the United States economy. Think of them as the four horsemen of the economic apocalypse.

Let’s start with Zimbabwe. If there were an award for the world’s worst economic policy, it might well have won it several times over the past decade. In particular, in 2008 and 2009, it experienced truly spectacular hyperinflation. Prices rose so fast that the central bank eventually printed 100 trillion-dollar notes for people to carry. The nation has since abandoned using its own currency, but you can still buy one of those notes as a novelty item for about $5 (American, that is).

Some may find it hard to imagine that the United States would ever go down this route.
But reckless money creation is apparently a concern of Gov. Rick Perry of Texas, who is seeking the Republican nomination for president. He suggested in August that it would be “almost treasonous” if Ben S. Bernanke, chairman of the Federal Reserve, were to print too much money before the election. Mr. Perry is not alone in his concerns. Many on the right fear that the Fed’s recent policies aimed at fighting high unemployment will mainly serve to ignite excessive inflation.

Mr. Bernanke, however, is less worried about the United States turning into Zimbabwe than he is about it turning into Japan.

Those old enough to remember the 1980s will recall that Japan used to be an up-and-coming economic superpower. Many people then worried (too much, in my view) that Japan’s rapid growth was a threat to prosperity in the United States, in much the same way that many people worry today (too much, in my view) about rapid growth in China.

The concerns about Japanese hegemony came to a quick end after bubbles in the real estate and stock markets burst in the early 1990s. Since then, Japan has struggled to regain its footing. Critics of the Bank of Japan say it has been too focused on quelling phantom inflationary threats and insufficiently concerned about restoring robust economic growth.

One of those critics was Mr. Bernanke, before he became Fed chairman. Watching Japanese timidity and failures has surely made him more willing to experiment with unconventional forms of monetary policy in the aftermath of our own financial crisis.

The economists in the Obama administration are also well aware of the Japanese experience. That is one reason they are pushing for more stimulus spending to prop up the aggregate demand for goods and services.

Yet this fiscal policy comes with its own risks. The more we rely on deficit spending to keep the economy afloat, the more we risk the kind of sovereign debt crisis we have witnessed in Greece over the past year. The Standard & Poor’s downgrade of United States debt over the summer is a portent of what could lie ahead.  In the long run, we have to pay our debts — or face dire consequences.

To be sure, the bond market doesn’t seem particularly worried about the solvency of the federal government. It is still willing to lend to the United States at low rates of interest. But the same thing was true of Greece four years ago. Once the bond market starts changing its mind, the verdict can be swift, and can lead to a vicious circle of rising interest rates, increasing debt service and budget deficits, and falling confidence.

Bond markets are now giving the United States the benefit of the doubt, partly because other nations look even riskier, and partly in the belief that we will, in time, get our fiscal house in order. The big political question is how.

The nation faces a fundamental decision about priorities. To maintain current levels of taxation, we will need to substantially reduce spending on the social safety net, including Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and the new health care program sometimes called Obamacare. Alternatively, we can preserve the current social safety net and raise taxes substantially to pay for it. Or we may choose a combination of spending cuts and tax increases. This brings us to the last of our cautionary tales: France.

Here are two facts about the French economy. First, gross domestic product per capita in France is 29 percent less than it is in the United States, in large part because the French work many fewer hours over their lifetimes than Americans do. Second, the French are taxed more than Americans. In 2009, taxes were 24 percent of G.D.P. in the United States but 42 percent in France.

Economists debate whether higher taxation in France and other European nations is the cause of the reduced work effort and incomes there. Perhaps it is something else entirely — a certain joie de vivre that escapes the nose-to-the-grindstone American culture.

We may soon be running a natural experiment to find out. If American policy makers don’t rein in entitlement spending over the next several decades, they will have little choice but to raise taxes close to European levels. We can then see whether the next generation of Americans spends less time at work earning a living and more time sipping espresso in outdoor cafes.

N. Gregory Mankiw is a professor of economics at Harvard. He is advising Mitt Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts, in the campaign for the Republican presidential nomination.

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 23 October 2011, 7:27 pm and is filed under
Economics
,
Finance
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Is Muhyiddin fit to continue as  Education Minister  when he could violate a student’s child rights just  to serve a blatant  and dishonest political agenda?

I am indeed shocked and outraged by Deputy Prime Minister and Education Minister  Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin’s statement yesterday that Lim Guan Eng’s denying sexual harassment claims against his son (my grandson) was inadequate.

Let the Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak and every Cabinet Minister declare whether they agree with Muhyiddin or not – which will also be a measure of the quality of Cabinet Ministers Malaysians have.

The school principal concerned has denied that there was ever such an incident of sexual harassment involving my grandson. The Penang State Education Director Ahmad Tarmizi Kamaruddin also said yesterday that his department found no evidence to back the allegations  in several blogs.

The alleged victim Anya Corke, who is a 21-year-old Woman Grand Chessmaster in her third year in Wellesley College in the United States have rubbished the allegation, as she had not been in Malaysia for seven years and does not know Guan Eng or my grandson.

Can Muhyiddin explain what is “inadequate” when there is the total and unequivocal denial and rebuttal of the most irresponsible, diabolical and devilish allegation which could be hurled against an innocent 16-year-old student solely for the accusers to score political points against Guan Eng?

Admitting that he did not have the information on the allegations, Muhyiddin said that in such matters, “if we want to clear this up, we ask the police to investigate. If it is true that it had never happened, what do you have to worry about?”

Is the Education Minister saying that he does not trust his own subordinates, whether the school principal concerned or the Penang State Education Director who have categorically denied such allegations?

Malaysians want to know whether Najib and all other Cabinets endorse or dissociate themselves from Muhyiddin’s perverted illogic.

As I said at the Sabah DAP State Convention in Penampang this morning, going by Muhyiddin’s perverted illogic, if blogs accuse the Sabah and Sarawak Chief Ministers of corruption by accummulating great wealth disproportionate to their known sources of income, Datuk Seri Musa Aman and Tan Sri Taib Mahmud should be lodging police reports to clear their names.

Similarly, if blogs accused Muhyiddin of abuse of power and corruption when he was Johore Mentri Besar, Muhyddin should be lodging police reports to allow for re-opening of  full investigations to clear his name, going by his illogic of “If it is true that it had never happened, what do you have to worry about?”

Would Muhiyiddin dare to answer positively to both these questions?

However, I am  very intrigued by the reasons and motives of  Muhyiddin surfacing publicly to salvage the campaign of UMNO bloggers by trying to keep the issue alive, when the irresponsible and diabolical conspiracy to attack my grandson and Guan Eng has been exposed as a sheer lie and concoction.

As a responsible UMNO leader, Muhyiddin should have condemned the irresponsible and diabolical conspiracy of the UMNO blogs and cybertroopers by admittingthat they had concocted a downright lie against my grandson.

In trying to keep alive the lie against my grandson, it raises the question whether Muhyiddin had been involved in the diabolical conspiracy making use of the Umno blogs and cybertroops in the first place – whether Muhyiddin was one of the masterminds explaining  why is trying to keep the issue alive with his belated intervention and  perverse illogic.

Muhyiddin seems to have forgotten that he is also Education Minister who has responsibility to protect students under the Malaysia Child Act.  By being party to such an irresponsible attack on my 16-year-old grandson, Muhyiddin has failed his first duty as Education Minister.

He is probably the only Education Minister in the world who has violated the Child’s Rights of students, whether the Malaysia Child Act 2001 or the United Nations Convention of the Rights of the Children to ensure children and students a safe physical, emotional and mental environment.

Under such circumstances, is Muhyiddin fit to continue as Education Minister when he could violate a student’s child rights just  to serve a blatant and dishonest political agenda?

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 23 October 2011, 5:34 pm and is filed under
Corruption
,
Human Rights
,
Lim Guan Eng
,
Muhyiddin Yassin
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


The stupidest comment of ’em all

Comment by

Thomas Lee Seng Hock

I am simply amazed and stunned that a person of Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin’s status can come out with such a stupid comment on the case of Lim Guan Eng’s son.

The Deputy Prime Minister cum Education Minister has remarked that Guan Eng’s denial of the sexual harassment claims against his son was “inadequate”.

Muhyiddin told the media on Saturday 22 October 2011 that if the Penang chief minister “thinks it is important to correct the information, then he has to come up with a strong statement; mere denial is not enough.”

Either Muhyiddin cannot read or he is not so intelligent to understand what the media have been reporting during the last few days. Not only has the principal of the school where the alleged incident was said to have committed come out to refute the lies by the Umno bloggers, but the so-called victim whose photograph was used by the unethical and uncouth Umno people has also issued a strong statement refuting their wicked lies.

What “strong statement” does the deputy prime minister and Umno deputy president expect Guan Eng to out with to counter the evil personal assault against his son? Any simple person with just simple common sense will know that the whole mischievous fiasco was fabricated with the deceitful intent of sabotaging the political achievements of Guan Eng, especially so after the strong denial by the school principal and the firm refutation by the young lady named in the false accusation.

The most crude and crummy statement by the deputy prime minister is surely a very sad reflection of the quality of our federal leaders, whose intelligence is generally found wanting. How can we achieve the status of a developed nation and high-performance citizenry when our deputy prime minister, who is also the education minister, is a person of such irrational and irresponsible character?

Muhyiddin’s performance as education minister has been the subject of contemptuous ridicule and derision among the educated class and intelligentsia of the nation, especially his inconsistent and fickle policy on the use of the English language in the teaching of science and mathematics. His constant changing merry-go-round manaeuvre of the schooling system is confusing not only the students, but the teachers and parents, too.

Evaluating his comment on the case of Guan Eng’s son objectively will lead us to the conclusion that Muhyiddin is certainly not fit to be a government leader, and it is surely horrifying to think that he may even become the prime minister one day!

If we entrust the nation into the hand of such people, who lack the character, wisdom, intelligence, credibility, and integrity, then woes betide us.

And while I am on this issue of Guan Eng’s son, I want to say that the silence on the part of the prime minister and leaders of the Barisan Nasional component parties like the MCA and MIC is surely deafening.

The whole fiasco should be publicly censured and condemned by all right-thinking and righteous persons, but the Umno president is apparently condoning the dastardly diabolical smear campaign against Guan Eng and his son by keeping quiet. Any real and credible stateman would take a firm stand against such disgusting evil action on the part of the Umno bloggers, and express real strong revulsion and profound indignation on the matter. But not the Umno president or any of the Barisan Nasional component party leaders. So sad that these are the people on whom the destiny of the nation is dependent on now.

Hence, I believe it is time that all true and patriotic Malaysians who love the country and call Malaysia their home should unite at the ballot box to create a political revolution to bring about a real transformation to the life and thoughts of the nation and its people. This has nothing to do with racial affiliation or religion affinity, but simply the coming together of all peace-loving Malaysians to bring about the installation of a competent, accountable and transparent (CAT) federal government comprising aficionado leaders who are morally righteous, truthful, honest, credible, incorruptible, and people-centric.

The fate of our nation lies in our hands, in how we vote at the next general election. We either break the long-time bondage of being under a crooked and corrupt regime, or we bring in a new era of transformed and transfigured people-centric administration operating on the profound democratic principle of government of the people, by the people, for the people.

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 23 October 2011, 9:01 am and is filed under
Crime
,
Lim Guan Eng
,
UMNO
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Audit: Not even 1pc Sabah computer labs completed

By
Shazwan Mustafa Kamal

The Malaysian Insider

Oct 24, 2011

KUALA LUMPUR, Oct 24 — Only two out of 300 computer laboratories for Sabah schools have been constructed since the government began its RM160.73 million project in April 2008, the Auditor-General’s report said today.

Sabah recorded the highest number of computer lab construction projects as well as costs, followed by Sarawak (RM49 million), Johor (RM10.88 million) and Selangor (RM11.95 million.)

The report added Sabah was the only state with unfinished computer labs, and that other states had long since completed the construction of the facilities in schools.

“The computer lab project in Sabah has failed to reach its objective because the contractor failed to prepare and deliver the project following the stipulated time frame,” the Auditor-General’s Report said.

The contract was awarded to TimeCom Holdings Sdn Bhd on June 15, 2007, and was scheduled to have been completed by April 30, 2008.

The report said the delay in the construction of labs has cost the government RM3.17 million in “liquidated and ascertained damages.”

                This entry was posted on Monday, 24 October 2011, 10:36 pm and is filed under
Auditor-General Report
,
Education
,
Parliament
,
Sabah
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Auditor-General: Putrajaya risked lives in delaying Bukit Jalil stadium roof repair

By
Debra Chong

The Malaysian Insider

Oct 24, 2011

KUALA LUMPUR, Oct 24 — Putrajaya risked public safety when it took four years to approve funds to repair the damaged roof at the Bukit Jalil National Stadium, the Auditor-General said in his report released today.

The report highlighted that the Merdeka Stadium Corporation (MSC), a federal statutory body responsible for the management of all national sports complexes, had applied to repair damage to the Bukit Jalil Stadium a total of four times since 2006.

The government finally approved RM30 million to repair the damaged stadium in December last year, the report added.

“The Auditor is of the view the delay in completing the roof repairs at Bukit Jalil National Stadium… was because the government did not approve the allocation applied for since 2006.

“This could jeopardise the comfort of users who would be exposed to the rain and endanger their safety if the roof collapsed especially for international events,” the report said.

The report said the 90,000-capacity stadium had a 10-year warranty for the German-made membrane roof cover, which expired in 2008, but noted MSC could not get a replacement roof because it was damaged by fireworks.

It noted too the stadium, which has hosted 2,100 events between 2008 and 2010, require other immediate repairs and pointed out rusty and loose cable screws holding up the roof.

The MSC had applied to the government twice last year to change its fireworks-damaged roof: the first time on February 8, for a budget of RM40 million; and again on September 20, for RM35 million under the 9th Malaysia Plan (9MP).

The government only granted it RM30 million in December 2010, under the 9MP.

However, the MSC only passed on the repair job to the Public Works Department — through the Youth and Sports Ministry — in April this year, citing lack of technical expertise, the Auditor-General’s Report said.

It urged the government to carry out immediate repairs to avoid endangering lives further.

This is not the first time a stadium has come under public scrutiny.

In June 2009, the Terengganu state stadium’s roof collapsed, damaging several cars, shortly over a year after it was officially opened by Yang di-Pertuan Agong Tuanku Mizan Zainal Abidin.

                This entry was posted on Monday, 24 October 2011, 11:05 pm and is filed under
Auditor-General Report
,
Parliament
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.