Books and politicians

By
Hafidz Baharom

[email protected]

The Nut Graph

WHAT’S the difference between a book and a politician?

This was a question posed to me recently by a close friend after having one too many beers. Somehow, the mind gets more creative when it’s intoxicated.

Well, I said the first major difference was that I find books interesting to read. From Bill Maher’s New Rules to Lewis Black’s Nothing’s Sacred, political satire is definitely alive in Western comedy. Heck, these books are even selling well.

On the other hand, I view the Malaysian politician as someone with minimum knowledge and memory, but who can outspew a rabid spitting camel.

Take the former Member of Parliament (MP) for Jerai, Datuk Paduka Badruddin Amiruldin. Recall the 2007 Umno general assembly, during which delegate Zaleha Hussin implied that the uniforms for Air Asia’s women flight attendants were a tad skimpy.

I’m not sure if it was plain idiocy or whether he was merely gatal, but our dear Badruddin
agreed
: “Yes, we can see a tunnel under her skirt.” Perhaps if he was at a bar after a few shots of vodka, I’d understand. But to be sober at the Umno general assembly and say this in front of the media?

But then, this was not the first time Badruddin, who is Umno deputy permanent chair, had done something stupid. If in doubt, watch the video below and wait for the moment — slightly after the first minute — when he utters his now immortal lines: “Malaysia ini negara Islam.You tidak suka, you keluar dari Malaysia!”

So I guess the first major difference between books and politicians is that books also can be loud, abrasive and vulgar. But at least all of it is hidden behind a cover.

The second difference

Now when a book has factual errors, there are usually people out there, like myself, who will simply write to the publisher. We point out the error, and usually the publisher apologises and promises it will be fixed in the next printed edition.

Politicians, however, won’t even allow people to correct them, and simply try to run away from the situation at hand. A case in point would be Kinabatangan MP Datuk Bung Mokhtar Radin and his rude hand gesture:

Even though enough numbers of Malaysians tune in to the parliamentary debates, now aired live every morning, they were all apparently wrong, according to Bung. He was quoted in
theSun
as saying: “No, I don’t know what is their interpretation, but it was nothing for me, I [just gestured] like that (hand gesture).”

So that’s probably the second major difference between a book and a politician. A book can be corrected, but obviously a Malaysian politician would rather die than admit he has done something wrong.

The third difference

Books have printed words. Once something appears in print, it’s harder to twist it. But our politicians will readily twist their words to try and save themselves, or use them against others.

Let’s take Ipoh Timur MP Lim Kit Siang. There are many tales about the DAP supremo, but most endearing would be his continuous calls for salary cuts. In December 2007, he asked for former (thank God) Minister of Information Datuk Seri Zainuddin Maidin’s salary to be cut by RM10 for not upholding media freedom. (I wonder why some people still say “press freedom” instead of “media freedom”. There’s a big difference. Writer Alliance for Media Independence, take note.)

Anyways, Kit Siang went through his motion, and somewhere along the way, the words “go blog” and “goblok” got mixed up. And then of course,
pandemonium
erupted.

I won’t judge what the heck was said until I’ve read the
Hansard
records, which are basically verbatim transcripts of parliamentary proceedings. Unfortunately, I’ve been reading the Hansard documents for 3, 4 and 6 Dec 2007, and have yet to find a record of this whole argument. Also surprising is that there is no Hansard record for 5 Dec. Not quite sure why.

This is definitely another great difference between books and politicians. At least in books, you can see how a word is spelt and thus have more assurance about its specific usage. Well, except law books. Those could spin the head of any layperson.

So after mentioning all of this to my friend, he maintained that there was still one major difference between a book and a politician. By this point I was getting irritated because I thought I had raised some grand points. Plus, we had missed last call and I was getting sober real fast.

The clincher

So finally he looks at me and says: “A book has something that any normal human being has, but never a politician. Do you know what it is?”

“What?”

“A spine.”

We have politicians who constantly make empty promises. From the promise of anti-corruption and the continuous promotion of Islam Hadhari, to the failure to improve our public transport system and even the continuous raising of prices and tariffs — this administration has broken all its promises made before the 2004 elections, and also pre-March 2008. It is no wonder that the ruling coalition lost its two-thirds majority in the Dewan Rakyat.

We have had some very insulting remarks being hurled at third-generation (or more) Chinese Malaysians. We have an education minister who thought that raising an unsheathed keris, a declaration of war in the ancient Malay sultanates, is a sign to protect Malays (he later mentioned it could protect non-Malays, too). And we have, on a constant basis, ministers and deputy ministers blaming the bad press they get from their actions on bloggers.

The worst part is that none of them have the backbone to admit that they are wrong.

Spineless

No one from Umno stood up to tell Prime Minister and Umno president Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi that perhaps they shouldn’t have supported mat rempits over those whose car windows had been smashed by them.

No component party from the Barisan Nasional — except Gerakan — protested when a Sin Chew Daily reporter was detained under the ISA “for her own protection”.

Not a single one of them complained about our lockups allegedly serving
Alpo
until Teresa Kok brought it up during her detention.

None of them supported Datuk Zaid Ibrahim when he said that the judiciary needed to be cleansed to restore its integrity.

None of them stood with Datuk Sharir Abdul Samad when he supported the motion to refer former Jasin MP Datuk Mohd Said Yusof to the disciplinary board for his “
close one eye
” comment.

We don’t even see Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim apologising to the people now that he hasn’t formed government by his self-imposed deadline. Nor do we see anyone from the Public Relations — sorry, Pakatan Rakyat — coming up any more to say that they are taking over the government. Why is that?

With the obvious absence of a backbone, one has to wonder who exactly these people would stand up for. Obviously, it’s not for us, the voters who got them there in the first place.

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 23 October 2008, 5:48 pm and is filed under
Parliament
,
Politics
,
Teresa Kok
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Only one BN MP signs petition for debate on ISA

Only one BN MP signs petition for debate on ISA

Fauwaz Abdul Aziz

Oct 23, 08 4:19pm

Malaysiakini

One Barisan Nasional member of parliament was among 76 other MPs who signed an opposition-initiated petition calling for a debate of the review and repeal of the Internal Security Act (ISA) in the Dewan Rakyat when it reconvenes after the Deepavali break.

Revealing this today, Lim Kit Siang (DAP-Ipoh Timur) said while it is “historic” that as many as one-third of all MPs inked their support for the debate, the signatures did not reflect the public pronouncements of several top leaders of Barisan component parties who have called for a review of the preventive detention law.

“I am disappointed that up until now, only one Barisan Nasional MP has been willing to support this letter to the prime minister (Abdullah Ahmad Badawi), as this is not a commitment to abolish the ISA… but only a call to debate whether the ISA should be reviewed or repealed.”

Lim declined to reveal the identity of the sole Barisan MP who had signed the petition.

The DAP leader said this at a press conference held at Parliament lobby today. Lim was flanked by Kamaruddin Jaffar (PAS-Tumpat) and Saifuddin Nasution Ismail (PKR-Machang) and a dozen other Pakatan MPs.

The petition – the first of two on the issue that will be submitted soon to Abdullah who, as prime minister, decides the order of motions to be deliberated by the Dewan Rakyat – is the work of a parliamentary caucus set up to effect the release of Teresa Kok (DAP-Seputeh) from ISA detention.

Kok was detained for a week in mid-September under the ISA, ostensibly in relation to claims that she had gotten involved in moves to stop or lower the volume of azans (calls to prayer) from certain mosques. Both Kok and the said mosques have denied the allegations.

Following Kok’s release on Sep 19, the caucus has instead focused on the complete abolition of the ISA.

Lim noted that the situation does not bode well for MCA and Gerakan, whose top leaders have called for a review of the ISA, that their MPs had not shown more support for the petition.

Lim said the failure of these two parties to translate the resolutions made at recent annual conferences – to push for a review of the ISA – would be tantamount to betraying their delegates.

“It means they have betrayed the mandate of the annual MCA and Gerakan delegates’ conference,” Lim said, adding that 74 Pakatan MPs signed the petition. The signatures of the remaining Pakatan MPs could not be obtained as they were overseas at the time.

BN MPs ‘afraid’ to show support

Fong Po Kuan (DAP-Batu Gajah) later revealed that 23 Barisan MPs and cabinet ministers who were approached had refused to sign the petition.

“Some said while they personally agreed with our action, they did not dare to place their signature because they have not received any instructions from the top (Barisan leadership) regarding the matter,” said Johari Abdul (PKR-Sungai Petani).

Kok, who submitted the motion to debate the ISA, said the “oppression” of even MPs by the authorities using the act should be looked at seriously by both Barisan and Pakatan parliamentarians.

“Members of parliament must defend their rights and integrity as elected representatives,” she said.

On another matter, Lim said he would like to meet with Home Minister Syed Hamid Albar to seek clarification regarding the revocation of Hindu Rights Action Force (Hindraf) leader P Waythamoorthy’s passport.

Hindraf yesterday showed documents allegedly showing Waythamoorthy’s passport had been revoked by the Malaysian authorities.

Following the ‘disclosure’, Lim called for Syed Hamid to be referred to the Dewan Rakyat’s Special Privileges Committee for lying to the House.

Syed Hamid, however, was reported today to have said he – responding to moves by “relevant authorities” to cancel Waythamoorty’s passport – had directed that there be no such revocation so that Waythamoorthy could travel back to Malaysia freely.

He also lambasted Lim for claiming otherwise.

Still on the issue of Hindraf, Lim said there have been no additional facts or developments to warrant banning Hindraf if no reason had been uncovered in the past several months.

On the controversy surrounding the RM2.3 billion Eurocopter deal, Lim called for the Public Accounts Committee headed by Azmi Khalid (BN-Padang Besar) to work overtime in ensuring its investigations into the matter would be completed so that the issue could be debated in Parliament before it adjourns in December.

(2)
Only one BN lawmaker supports ISA debate

The Malaysian Insider

By
Shannon Teoh

KUALA LUMPUR, Oct 23 — A Barisan Nasional MP and two independents are among 77 mostly opposition legislators who have so far signed a petition to the Prime Minister calling for a debate in Parliament to review or repeal the Internal Security Act.

The anti-ISA parliamentary caucus did not, however, reveal the name of the BN MP, but chairman Lim Kit Siang of the DAP said he hopes to get more MPs from the BN to sign the petition and make it a bipartisan effort.

Lim told reporters in the Parliament lobby today that 77 MPs had signed a petition calling for Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi to prioritise a motion to debate the review and repeal of the Internal Security Act when the House reconvenes next Wednesday.

“This includes one BN MP, two independents and 74 Pakatan Rakyat MPs,” the Ipoh Timur MP said, explaining later that other PR legislators were out of town and unable to sign the petition.

He also revealed that the two independents were Datuk Dr Chua Soon Bui and Eric Enchin Majimbun, the MPs from SAPP, which recently exited the BN coalition.

“If more than a third of MPs show their desire to debate this issue, then the Prime Minister must make it a top priority if parliamentary democracy has any meaning here. If he says no, he is completely irresponsible.

“I regret that only one BN MP has supported the motion,” the DAP parliamentary leader said, adding that it was not even a motion to abolish the ISA but merely to debate it.

Caucus secretary Fong Po Kuan also stated that 23 BN MPs had been approached so far to sign the petition but only one agreed.

PKR Sungai Petani MP Johari Abdul said that “some personally agreed but did not dare sign as they needed to see what those above had to say. Maybe in three or four days they will change their mind.”

“At their national delegates conferences, both Gerakan and MCA called for a repeal of the ISA. By not supporting this petition their ministers and MPs have betrayed the trust of their delegates,” Lim added.

He also threw a challenge to Gerakan and MCA MPs, saying he hoped they would prove him wrong.

“I will willingly retract my statement if they sign the petition,” he said.

PKR strategist Saifuddin Nasution Ismail added that the debate was important as the law clashes with universal values of justice and one must be given rights such as a fair trial and right of appeal.

“These are clearly not available in this Act. If this issue cannot be discussed in Parliament, then I do not know where else,” he said.

Pas secretary-general Datuk Kamaruddin Jaafar recalled that Datuk Bung Mokhtar (BN-Kinabantangan) had raised the issue of the ISA and it had caused a big debate in Dewan Rakyat.

“This is because it is such a hot topic so there is no reason for the government to deny the desire of such a large number of MPs,” he said.

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 23 October 2008, 4:55 pm and is filed under
DAP
,
Defence
,
Hindraf
,
Human Rights
,
Parliament
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Parliament – don’t vote  single ringgit for RM2.3 billion Eurocopters without PAC/parliamentary approval

Public Accounts Committee (PAC)  Chairman Datuk Seri
Azmi Khalid
has said that the Defence Secretary-General Datuk Abdu Bakar Abdullah will be among those called to assist the PAC to scrutinize the Eurocopter deal.

It is no exaggeration to say that this will be the most important investigation in PAC history, as for the first time since Merdeka 51 years ago, a major government contract – the RM2.3 billion 12 Cougar EC725 helicopter deal to replace the Nuri helicopters – will hinge on the report of the PAC following its scrutiny into the Eurocopter deal.

This is the only implication of the Cabinet decision at its  meeting last Friday (17th October 2008) giving
“the green light”
to the PAC to  investigate the Eurocopter deal.

Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak said in Pekan on Sunday that at his suggestion, the Cabinet “has agreed” to the PAC scrutiny as “it was better for the PAC to inquire into the deal”.

Najib said: “The PAC can make its own conclusion of the purchase after studying the various issues involved in the deal.”

This must means the suspension of the Eurocopter deal as well as a freeze on the Letter of Intent (LOI) issued by the Defence Ministry for the 12 Cougar helicopters, as it will be a mockery of the Cabinet decision as well as contempt of Parliament for the Defence Ministry to proceed with the deal without waiting for the outcome of the PAC investigation.

For this reason, it is not only MPs but the entire nation who are waiting for the outcome of the PAC scrutiny, as it is playing a very important role in the final decision whether the government should go through with the RM2.3 billion Eurocopter deal.

If the PAC  and Parliament disapprove of the Eurocopter deal but the government persists in going ahead with the procurement, then Parliament should refuse to approve a single ringgit  for the purchase of the RM2.3 billon  Eurocopters.

Has  the PAC  the expertise among the PAC members to do a professional scrutiny of the Eurocopter deal and must they  depend solely on professional and expert advice from the Defence Ministry and the Royal Malaysian Air Force in the inquiry?

It makes nonsense of an independent, professional parliamentary scrutiny of the Eurocopter deal if the PAC has to depend solely on the technical and  expert advice of  the Defence Ministry and the Royal Malaysian Air Force.

The PAC must have independent and professional advice from people knowledgeable and have working experience in the aviation industry, especially those who know about helicopter operations and the history of Nuri/RMAF such as an experienced  helicopter pilot.

The PAC should not just summon the officials of the Defence Ministry and RMAF, but also call up  representatives from the seven helicopter  tender bidders, for they will be the best persons to inform the PAC about the tender process, particularly whether it had been one-sided or unfair.

One
visitor
to my blog has suggested one aspect of the helicopter procurement which the PAC should investigate, viz:

“The PAC needs to study not only the tender process itself but also the thinking and policies that generated said tender which do not address the needs of the nation or the Armed Forces adequately.

“The Combat in CSAR (Combat Search And Rescue)  generally denotes the capability to retrieve personnel from hostile territory. Such helicopters are usually fitted with enhanced self-protection systems that are very expensive. The Nuri replacement does NOT need such systems as the likelihood of the RMAF conducting these missions is infinitesimal. In the trade, it is referred to as ‘gold plating’.

“What they do need is adequate numbers of aircraft to ensure availability and service coverage, which 12 does not.

“MINDEF has much more explaining to do than just how Eurocopter got the tender.”

Another comment
on my blog touched on another area which the PAC must take on board in its scrutiny to ensure accountability, integrity and good governance, viz:

“The Defence Ministry Sec-Gen conveniently left out the fact that there is a middleman involved in this deal. We need to pressure the government to reveal who is behind this local company. Also, my understanding is that there is a separate contract for maintenance, spart parts and training which is separate from the RM 2.3 billion. We need to know which local company is involved in this separate contract.”

The PAC must able to address these issues in its report on the scrutiny of the Eurocopter deal.

According to Azmi,  two days have been fixed for the PAC inquiry into the RM2.3 billion Eurocopter deal, next Wednesday and Thursday (Oct. 29 and 30), and he thinks that two days are adequate for the PAC to wrap up its scrutiny.

I am quite dubious that a two-day hearing is adequate.

The Defence Ministry secretary-general has issued a statement defending the decision to procure the Eurocopters after the evaluation of the seven bids in three parts – the technical evaluation committee, the offset evaluation committee and the price evaluation committee.

If the PAC is to do a thorough and professional scrutiny, it would have to study the seven tender bids and their respective merits in each of the three separate evaluation of technical, offset and price, including the submissions by the representatives of the seven helicopter tenderers.

Or is the PAC going to depend solely on the testimony from the Mindef and RMAF?  Then the PAC will not be able to produce a satisfactory and acceptable report.

In any event, the PAC should table in Parliament  its report on the RM2.3 billion 12 Cougar EC725 helicopter deal latest by end of November to allow MPs to study and decide whether to have a full debate of the PAC report before end of the budget meeting on Dec. 18, as under the Standing Orders, a 14-day notice is required for a motion to debate the PAC report, whether to accept or reject it.

                This entry was posted on Friday, 24 October 2008, 12:52 pm and is filed under
Defence
,
Good Governance
,
Parliament
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


BN MP who signed petition revealed

BN MP who signed petition revealed

Andrew Ong

Oct 25, 08 5:16pm

Billy Abit Jol is the sole Barisan Nasional MP to have signed the petition urging the prime minister to prioritise the debate on the Internal Security Act when Parliament reconvenes on Wednesday.

The petition signed by 85 MPs – 81 from Pakatan Rakyat, three independents and one from BN – was delivered to Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi’s office yesterday morning.

Billy Abit is a five-term MP for Hulu Rajang and vice-president of Parti Rakyat Sarawak.

His signing of the petition was revealed by Ipoh Timor MP and DAP stalwart Lim Kit Siang when the latter officiated the DAP Jalong branch this morning.

Contacted later, Lim said that Billy Abit’s identity was not revealed before the submission out of “courtesy” to the prime minister.

“I would like to praise Billy Abit for his principles and courageous stand in putting national interest ahead of party interest,” said Lim.

Other MPs intimidated?

He said that he hoped Billy Abit’s act would serve as an example to other Barisan MPs and ministers.

Lim also took a swipe at MCA and Gerakan’s newly elected top leaders for refusing to sign the petition, despite having calling for and passing resolutions on the ISA during their respective annual party meetings earlier this month.

“I want to ask these leaders whether their MPs, ministers and deputy ministers have been intimidated into not supporting the petition,” he said.

“If their MPs are not allowed to support the call for a debate, which does not mean they are committed to a repeal or review, then all their brave talk at their respective conferences that they want to be articulate and outspoken is just hogwash”.

Both MCA and Gerakan spoke feverishly against abuse of the ISA and called for a review of the controversial law. Abdullah however has ruled out reviewing the law in the near future.

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 25 October 2008, 7:47 pm and is filed under
Human Rights
,
Parliament
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


RM5 billion EPF funds to  ValueCap – nation-wide protest

On Monday, Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak announced that the government would inject RM5 billion from the Employees Provident Fund (EPF) to double the size of the highly-secretive government fund, ValueCap Sdn Bhd to RM10 billion to prop up the stock market.

The Malaysian Trade Union Congress (MTUC) President,
Syed Shahir Syed Mohamud
 has rightly come to the forefront to condemn the government’s move to boost up  ValueCap to support the local stock market using RM5 billion from EPF, “as the provident fund is the custodian of the workers’ money and not some sort of ‘automated teller machine’ for the government”.

This is the second government attempt to raid the EPF to support ValueCap to prop up the stock market since the idea of ValueCap was first mooted  by the Mahathir administration at the end of 2002 to shore up the stock market and bail out ailing companies.

In response to widespread criticism and objections that EPF funds would be involved in the ValueCap operations, the EPF on 20th  November 2002 came out with a
strong denial
 clarifying  that it had not appointed ValueCap Sdn Bhd to manage the EPF’s investment fund.  It also denied any EPF involvement  in the KLSE to shore up the stock market.

The EPF declared:

“The EPF invests in companies with sound fundamentals, long-term growth potential and competent management. The EPF is always prudent and professional in its approach when investing members’ savings. The Fund ensures that the investments are safe, not exposed to high risks and gives reasonable returns to its members for their retirement.”

Why are EPF funds being used now to do what EPF had declared six years ago that it would not do – “The EPF’s investments are not used to bail out ailing companies”?

Why is EPF departing from its  “prudent and professional approach when investing members’ savings”?

The ValueCap operations has been in existence for some six years but it had always been shrouded in secrecy, with no accountability or transparency whatsoever to Parliament or the nation, which is totally against  the principles of good governance and parliamentary responsibility.

When the new government asset management company, equally owned by government agencies Khazanah Nasional Bhd, Permodalan Nasional Bhd and Kumpulan Wang Amanah Pencen commenced operations on 10th January 2003, Malaysians were told that ValueCap had started with a RM10 billion cash fund allocation.

Second Finance Minister, Tan Sri Nor Mohamed Yakcop, who was then Economic Adviser to the Prime Minister, was reported by New Straits Times of 17th January 2003 as saying that ValueCap’s three shareholders had transferred the RM10 billion to it equally “in actual cash, and not in the form of shares” when “quashing rumours that the company did not yet have the full amount available”.

Why then are Malaysians suddenly told five years later that ValueCap had only RM5 billion  and not RM10 billion investment fund?  Where have the balance of the RM5  billion  gone to?

This is not the only instance of the totally opaque nature of ValueCap operations, avoiding accountability though managing  public funds.

The Public Accounts Committee should undertake an in-depth scrutiny of the operations, management and investments of ValueCap for the past five years and table a full report before the end of the current meeting of Parliament to enable MPs to decide whether it should be allowed to raid RM5 billion from the EPF for its new tranche of operations.

EPF monies are easy government targets for bail-outs, whether for ailing companies or to recoup losses as a result of financial scandals.

The eighties provide a good example as it started the era of disastrous government intervention in the market coupled with the lack of accountability, transparency and good governance – a recipe which produced  the Maminco scandal (RM600 million losses in a secretive but foolhardy and expensive foray  to  corner the international tin market in London), the EPF-Makuwasa scandal (multi-million ringgit EPF losses when EPF funds were hijacked  unethically and illegally for  stock market operations in trying to recoup losses resulting from the Maminco scandal), the RM2.5 billion Bumiputra Malaysia Finance (BMF) scandal which involved the murder in Hong Kong of a Malaysian auditor Jalil Ibrahim and the Bank Negara forex exchange market operation scandal (RM30 billion losses caused single-handedly by Nor Mohamed who was running the forex speculation operation in Bank Negara at the time).

The 12 million EPF members cannot allow their life-savings to be imperilled by stock market speculation activities using the EPF funds, which stand at some RM340 billion.

DAP will  launch a nation-wide campaign to protest the RM5 billion EPF loan to ValueCap to prop up share prices and to protect  the RM340 billion life savings of 12 million EPF members

The protest-cum-protection campaign will start from Ipoh next Friday and will be taken to the whole country to urge the government not to hijack the workers’ hard-earned life-savings  and “coffin money” to prop up or bail out ailing companies facing bad times with a collapsing stock market with the onset of the worst global economic crisis in 80 years.

(Speech at the DAP Solidarity Dinner at Sauk, Perak on Friday, October 24, 2008)

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 25 October 2008, 7:41 am and is filed under
EPF
,
Good Governance
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Deepavali greetings  – 3  Makkal Sakti wishes

Deepavali wishes to Hindu Malaysians and all Malaysians – Makkal Sakti so that good can triumph over evil in our motherland.

For the second consecutive year, Malaysian Hindus as well as Malaysians generally will be celebrating Deepavali in a somber mood.

Malaysian Deepavali this year  has again made international news particularly in India over the arrest and release  of
P Vwaishhnnavi
, the six-year-old niece of detained Hindraf leader P Uthayakumar, her mother K Shanti, as well as the Deepavali-eve
release on bail
of ten persons after two days in police custody, over Vwaishhnnavi’s attempt on Friday to submit a letter to the Prime Minister in  Putrajaya appealing for the release of the five Hindraf leaders under the Internal Security Act (ISA).

Malaysian Home Minister, Datuk Seri Syed Hamid Albar cannot be more wrong when he said in a recent
Malaysiakini interview
that he has got the support of peace-loving members of the  Indian community for the government’s ban on Hindraf.

What had Hindraf done in the past seven months since Hamid became Home Minister after the March general election to  justify the government ban of  Hindraf, when such action was not deemed appropriate or necessary before the general election?

Hamid’s interview is most unfortunate, misleading and even mischievous as he is suggesting that only those who are not “peace-loving” would oppose the government’s Hindraf ban.

I am peace-loving but I am opposed to the government’s Hindraf ban.

Are there no Barisan Nasional Ministers and leaders who dare to tell Hamid that they are peace-loving but they are opposed to the ban of Hindraf?

No wonder the MIC leaders, in particular its President Datuk Seri S. Samy Vellu have become so irrelevant when they dare not even communicate such a simple point to the Home Minister.

What is the use of having a MIC Minister in Cabinet when such wrongful perception by Hamid could not be rectified in Cabinet at the first available opportunity?

Let this Deepavali be purposeful and meaningful in the eternal battle for light to triumph over darkness.

I make three Deepavali wishes:

Firstly, let the first Cabinet meeting after the Deepavali  on Friday rectify the misperception of the Home Minister by making clear that members of the Indian community and Malaysian nation who want the government to revoke the ban on Hindraf are both peace-loving and justice-loving!

Secondly, the government ban on Hindraf should be lifted immediately as part of a comprehensive government programme to resolve the long-standing political, economic, educational, social, cultural and religious grievances of the Indian community which have made them into a new underclass marginalizing  them from the mainstream of national development.

Thirdly,immediate and unconditional  release of the Hindraf Five from ISA detention.  They should be tried in open court for any offences under  the law but not detained without trial in Kamunting  Detention Centre.

                This entry was posted on Monday, 27 October 2008, 11:09 am and is filed under
Hindraf
,
Human Rights
,
Indians
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


On or off, PAC inquiry into RM2.3b 12 EC725 helicopter deal must go on

Yesterday,
The Malaysian Insider
reported that Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak had decided  over the weekend to “cut out the EC725 military helicopter contract” when the government “reviewed its expenses in light of falling revenues from crude oil and palm oil and slowing economic growth for the next few years”.

Today’s
Bernama
 carried a more qualified report, “Govt yet to discuss helicopter purchase”, quoting a government source as saying that “In the wake of the global economic crisis, the government will have to discuss further whether to go ahead with the purchase of new helicopters to replace the ageing Nuris in the Royal Malaysian Air Force (RMAF)”.

The government source said the discussion will need the involvement of the Defence Ministry and the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi who is the Defence Minister.

The source said the procurement of the new helicopters was only at the letter of intent stage (LOI) and no letter of award (LOA) had been made to any party.

Regardless of whether the RM2.3 billion 12 Cougar EC725 Eurocopter deal is on or off, the Parliamentary Public  Accounts Committee (PAC) inquiry into the deal, fixed for two days on Wednesday and Thursday, must be held as scheduled as larger  issues are involved concerning national integrity and proper  billion-ringgit defence procurement process.

Even if the helicopter deal is cancelled, PAC is duty-bound to investigate into the highly dubious and controversial procurement process as it runs counter to all principles of accountability, transparency, integrity and good governance.

The objective of the PAC investigation should be to identify, if there exist, irregularities or oversights, to ensure the integrity of the Defence Ministry and RMAF are  intact, and should such faults are discovered, to recommend the  adherence of standard procedures or benchmarking for future tender exercise since such purchases involved a huge sum of the country’s funds.

Parliament and the nation are entitled to a searching and no-holds-barred PAC inquiry to produce a report to be tabled by the end of November which can answer many controversial questions, including:

1.	The bid price from Eurocopter, including delivery charges amounts to Euro 233,345,390, which is around RM1.1 billion. Why has total price ballooned becoming RM2.3 billion? Has the other half RM1.2 billion allocated to middleman for maintenance service over the next 40 years?

2.	Why is Malaysia paying over twice the price for the EC 725 helicopters as compared to Brazil, which is getting 50 EC725 helicopters at RM84 million per aircraft as compared to the RM193 million price tag for the RM2.3 billion Eurocopter deal?  Shouldn’t Malaysia be getting over 100 EC725 helicopters at the Brazilian price instead of just 12?

Following the nation-wide furore over the helicopter deal, the PAC has itself come under the spotlight as to its performance, efficacy and usefulness.

As one
comment
 queried on my blog:

What happened to RM4.6 billion Port Klang Free Zone scandal issue even bigger than the RM2.3 billion 12 Cougar EC725 helicopter deal?

The last time PAC reported they were dissatisfied with the outcome of investigations. I thought there independent auditors (was it Price WaterHouse??) appointed at beginning this year to audit. What is the outcome?

What about PAC’s earlier investigation into Middle Ring Road II?

I understand PAC will besides EC725 helicopter deal also investigate the other mega deals highlighted by Opposition in the 2009 budget debate – Maybank purchase of Bank International Indonesia (BII) and RM11.3 billion high-speed broadband contract to TM Bhd?

Has PAC the resources and expertise to do all these? Wouldn’t investigation of BII’s acquisition be closing the barn door after horses have bolted?

On record has PAC done anything to prevent consummation of scandal tainted mega deals or has its investigations so far brought any one especially the big wigs to account?

The PAC Chairman Datuk Azmi Khalid should give a response to this query.

                This entry was posted on Monday, 27 October 2008, 12:52 pm and is filed under
Defence
,
Good Governance
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


No Umno/MCA/Gerakan/MIC MP to emulate Billy Abit Joo?

Is there not a single Umno, MCA, Gerakan or MIC MP (including Minister/Deputy Minister) in Peninsular Malaysia  who dare to emulate Sarawak BN MP, Billy Abit Joo (Parti Rakyat Sarawak) to support a parliamentary debate on the review of the Internal Security Act (ISA) – and if so, why do they want to get elected into Parliament?

Barisan Nasional MPs from whichever component party cannot remain blind, deaf and dumb to the increasingly widespread and popular demand from all sectors of Malaysian society  for review and repeal of the draconian Internal Security Act, which stands as a symbol of  the lack of democracy and rule of law in the country.

Yesterday, October 27, was the 21st anniversary of the Operation Lalang mass ISA arrests in 1987, with 13 MPs among 106 persons arrested under the infamous detention-without-trial law.

If the BN MPs suffer from amnesia of history of what happened two decades ago, they cannot be unaware of the blatant and  scandalous abuse of the ISA only last month when the ISA was used against the latest trio of ISA victims – Sin Chew senior reporter Tan Hoon Ching, DAP MP for Seputeh Teresa Kok and blogger Raja Petra Kamaruddin on completely baseless grounds.

In recent weeks, MCA and Gerakan leaders have been making headlines with their demands for the review and repeal of ISA – but all these noises are made just for “syiok sendiri” and out of the hearing or presence of top Umno leaders.

Both MCA and Gerakan annual conferences this month passed resolutions on the review of the ISA but this is only for party and public relations  consumption but  never meant to be pursued seriously in Parliament or Cabinet.

This is why there is not a single MCA or Gerakan MP (including Minister/deputy Minister) who can emulate  Billy Abit Joo to put his signature to support the requisition for a priority debate in Parliament on the review and repeal of ISA.

The requisition, which has the support of 85 MPs (81 Pakatan Rakyat, three  Independent and one Barisan Nasional) is not committing any MP to a stand to repeal the ISA but only to support priority debate in Parliament on whether the ISA should be reviewed and repealed.

Even MPs who want to retain  the ISA can support the requisition for a priority parliamentary debate on the ISA as it is very clear that there has been radical deviation from the  original purpose and character of the ISA when it was enacted by Parliament in 1960 – what more, in the case of MPs in MCA and Gerakan who have just been entrusted by their national delegates  with the specific mandate to demand the review and even repeal of  ISA?

I reject the explanation by the new MCA Youth chief and Deputy Education Minister, Datuk Dr. Wee Ka Siong why MCA MPs cannot join 85 MPs (including Billy Abit Joo) to requisition  the holding of a parliamentary debate on the review of the  ISA.

He claimed that the MCA have “our own way of resolving matters”, that “the right forum is the Cabinet”, even claiming authority for this approach  by declaring that Malaysia is following the Westminster model of parliamentary democracy.

Everybody knows that the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi had publicly slapped down the call for review of the ISA when he spoke at the opening of the 55th MCA General Assembly ten days ago.

Which of the four MCA Ministers is going to raise the MCA General Assembly resolution for a review of the ISA in the Cabinet?  I am sure none, especially as one MCA Minister is not very sure about his Cabinet tenure after losing out in the MCA Deputy President election while the new MCA President, Datuk Seri Ong Tee Kiat would be more preoccupied about ensuring “smooth sailing” for  his recommendations to the Prime Minister  for MCA appointments in government.

If MCA Ministers dare not raise the ISA review in Cabinet and MCA Deputy Ministers and MPs dare not even support a requisition for priority parliamentary debate on a ISA review, what is the use of having MCA represented in Parliament?

As for Malaysia practising Westminster model of parliamentary democracy, let me remind not just MCA but all BN Ministers, Deputy Ministers and MPs that this had not prevented some 140 Labour Party MPs from voting against the British government’s motion on Iraq War in March 2003 on a matter of conscience and public policy.

Nobody is asking any MCA or BN MP to go against the Barisan Nasional government but to support a requisition to the Prime Minister that there should be priority parliamentary debate on the question of a review of the ISA.

Let Presidents of UMNO, MCA, Gerakan, MIC and the Sabah and Sarawak BN component parties declare whether they have prohibited their  MPs from supporting the requisition by 85 MPs for an urgent debate on the ISA review?

If this is an impossible mission to  them, then there should be an immediate stop to all the chest-thumping claims by UMNO, MCA, Gerakan and  MIC leaders that they have learnt the lessons of the March 8 “political tsunami” and that they are going to be articulate and outspoken as they are nothing but just hogwash!

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 28 October 2008, 12:28 pm and is filed under
Human Rights
,
Parliament
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


PAC Chairman Azmi should withdraw from PAC Eurocopter Inquiry because of “close proximity”

Datuk Azmi Khalid, the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee (PAC), should personally withdraw from the PAC inquiry into the RM2.3 billion 12 Cougar EC725 Eurocopter deal because of his “close proximity” to the Executive as two-term member of the Cabinet until seven months ago.

Azmi’s background as a two-term Cabinet Minister under Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi  would be important considerations to the Prime Minister  why Azmi is regarded as politically suitable, stable, reliable and trustworthy candidate as PAC Chairman although from the perspective of established parliamentary conventions in mature democracies, these same factors  would be regarded as precisely the reason why he is not suitable or qualified for the post.

In fact, in mature and developed parliamentary democracies, the Chairman of PAC is invariably from a senior Opposition MP, and not an MP from the administration, let alone a person who had just been a  two-term Minister under the Prime Minister-of-the-day.

Credibility is greatly stretched for anyone to believe  that a two-term Minister would be prepared to be very zealous to conduct a no-holds-barred PAC investigation into any major government irregularity or impropriety like the RM2.3 billion 12 Cougar EC725 Eurocopter deal – especially as Azmi was a Minister in  the original Cabinet decision of 18th July 2007 to phase out the Nuri fleet of helicopters after the latest Nuri helicopter crash the week before.

As the maxim  goes, justice must not only be done but must be seen to be done. Any hint of conflict-of-interest whether arising from “close proximity” as a two-term Cabinet Member of the Prime Minister-of-the-day or other reasons should be avoided at all costs.

Azmi Khalid should  therefore withdraw  from any PAC inquiry into the RM2.3 billion Cougar EC725 Eurocopter deal, and the full responsibility for conducting the helicopter investigation should devolve  to the Deputy PAC Chairman Dr. Tan Seng Giaw (DAP – Kepong).

Two weeks ago, after the Parliamentary Opposition Leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim and I queried the propriety and integrity of the Cougar EC725 helicopter deal in Parliament, the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi said that he would probe allegations that there were irregularities in the  multi-billion ringgit defence procurement.

The silence of Abdullah, who is also Defence Minister, in the past fortnight on this issue has been deafening.

Abdullah had also said that  the Anti-Corruption Agency will also look into the helicopter deal.

Has this been done?

The PAC investigation into the RM2.3 billion Cougar EC725 Eurocopter helicopter deal cannot be used as an excuse for Abdullah as the Defence Minister to avoid giving  a proper reply to the issues raised by Pakatan Rakyat MPs on the deal during the budget debate.

I for one will be looking forward to Abdullah’s response  to the various queries raised in Parliament and outside on the RM2.3 billion Cougar EC725 Eurocopter deal during the four-day Ministerial replies in Parliament starting tomorrow.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 28 October 2008, 3:50 pm and is filed under
Defence
,
Good Governance
,
Parliament
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


How did RM1.1 billion Eurocopter deal balloon to RM1.67 billion even before issue of LOI?

The Prime Minister-cum-Defence Minister, Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi announced yesterday that the defence procurement of 12 Cougar EC725
Eurocopter helicopters had been put on hold
 until better economic times – making history of the shortest-lived multi-billion ringgit defence deal between the issue of Letter of Intent (LOI) and its cancellation.

He has created more queries about the Eurocopter deal now put on hold, which must be answered either by Abdullah in the Defence Ministry reply in the budget debate in Parliament beginning today as well as the subject of the Public Accounts Committee inquiry into the Eurocopter deal, including:

1.	Abdullah said that the Eurocopter deal is worth RM1.67 billion and not RM2.3 billion.  This figure is also at variance with the price quoted by the Defence Ministry secretary-general Datuk Abu Bakar Abdullah who said last week that the tender price of the Eurocopter helicopters was RM1.l billion. How did the RM1.1 billion Eurocopter deal balloon to RM1.67 billion even before the issue of LOI?

2.	Abdullah contradicted
Abu Bakar as the latter had said that Eurocopter bid was selected in preference over the other six tender bids
 because “the company had a complete tender offer that obtained the highest marks based on technical evaluation, an offset package while also being at a reasonable price”.

Eurocopter had announced that its “offset package” if successful in the helicopter procurement is a RM250 million investment in Malaysia, including upgrading Eurocopter Malaysia’s maintenance, repair and overhaul (MRO) capacity in its Subang facility.

However, Abdullah denied the “offset package” was a factor, stating that the government did not ask for a RM350 million development package  from Eurocopter for the Subang Aviation Park, adding: “Whatever they want to do, it is up to them. As far as I have been told, they offered it in the tender, we did not ask for it.”

The PAC should inquire into the “offset” dimension of the tender and report on the comparative “offset packages” of all the tender bids for the helicopter procurement.

3.	Abdullah also justified the price as compared to the 50 Super Cougars procured by Brazil – at RM141 million per Cougar helicopter (at RM1.67 billion)  for Malaysia as compared to RM84 million per Super Cougar helicopter by Brazil, claiming that the 12 Eurocopter units ordered by Malaysia are more expensive as they had different specifications.

He said: “Our requirements are more advanced. That obviously would come with a higher price,” adding that the Malaysian Eurocopters would be capable of search and rescue missions, combat operations and other duties.

PAC should investigate and report on this matter.

4.	PAC should broaden its investigation into the history of Nuri helicopters crashes in the past 40 years, costing the government RM86.9 million in losses from 15 crashes, involving 70 officers and personnel apart from 19 deaths.

The first Nuri helicopter crash was on 25th April 1969 killing four RMAF personnel while the last fatal one was in Genting Sampah on 13th July 2007 claiming six lives.  A RMAF inquiry concluded that there was no mechanical fault in the  Genting Sampah crash.

The PAC should submit a report to Parliament to study all the reasons for all the Nuri helicopter crashes, whether as a result of human error or mechanical and helicopter faults.

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 29 October 2008, 12:35 pm and is filed under
Defence
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Tunku Aziz: PKNS staff shouldn’t interfere

Malaysiakini

Oct 29, 08 1:09pm

Staff at the Selangor State Development Corporation (PKNS) should respect the menteri besar’s prerogative in appointing a non-Malay to head the state agency, said DAP vice-chairperson Tunku Abdul Aziz Ibrahim.

“I hope the menteri besar’s decision is respected by all and the PKNS staff will focus on doing their work professionally instead of questioning the prerogative of the state government to appoint the most suitable person for the post,” he said in a statement today.

Tunku Abdul Aziz was commenting on protests by six staff bodies against the appointment of the corporation’s deputy corporate affairs and accounting manager Low Siew Moi as acting general manager.

The decision by Selangor Menteri Besar Khalid Ibrahim to appoint Low was met with objection from the corporation’s own staff who submitted a protest memorandum to him.

At the same time Selangor PAS wanted to suggest its own candidate besides helping the state government find a suitable candidate.

Tunku Abdul Aziz expressed “great concerns” over the opposition shown by the staff bodies and opposition coalition partner PAS against Low’s appointment on the grounds that the post should be filled up by a bumiputera.

Tunku Abdul Aziz said that the opposition based on someone’s ethnic background augured badly for ethnic relations and national unity.

“The interference by the senior staff of PKNS runs counter to established management practices and may well be the result of the race-based policies and indoctrination that the nation had been subjected to for the better part of 50 years or so,” he said.

‘Blind prejudice’

Tunku Abdul Aziz urged Malaysians to put aside “blind prejudices” and recognise that progress required the recognition for efforts and contributions of all citizens regardles of ethnicity or gender.

On the contrary, he said that a culture had developed where merit was overlooked while “less than relevant considerations” such as ethnicity and religion were prioritised.

“It is indeed sad that while we have progressed in economic and material terms, our nation is still bound to old ways of thinking and acting that have no place in a modern democratic society,” he said.

The Selangor government, in particular Khalid, has come under fire from various groups and media over Low’s appointment.

Filling the gap

In a statement yesterday, Khalid defended Low’s appointment, adding that she was the most suitable candidate to fill the post for the time being.

Khalid said Low’s appointment should not be an issue because it was only temporary as she was needed to stand in to replace the void left by the current PKNS general manager Harun Salim would be retiring at the end of the month.

Low, who is due to retire this year, was given an extention to undertake the new post.

Khalid had explained that if both Low and Harun retired at about the same time, it could affect to smooth running of PKNS.

Thus the state had asked Low to defer her retirement by a year until a suitable bumiputera successor was found, he had said.

Low was also quoted in the media as saying that a bumiputera candidate should be appointed to continue steering the government agency.

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 29 October 2008, 3:10 pm and is filed under
Good Governance
,
nation building
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Eurocopter deal – shameful episode in Parliament

Deputy Defence Minister Datuk Wira Abu Seman Yusof was literally
grilled
 in Parliament for over two hours over the billion-ringgit 12  Cougar EC725 Europter helicopters deal as he was totally at sea and unable to answer the most elementary of questions, such as

(i) Why three sets of different figures for the 12 Cougar helicopter deal – RM1.1 billion given by Defence Ministry Secretary-General Datuk Abu Bakar Abdullah; RM1.67 billion given by the Prime Minister-cum-Defence Minister; and RM1.604 billion stated by Abu Seman Yusof in Parliament today;

(ii) Why no physical evaluation or test flights for the short-listed helicopters; or as I said in Parlaiment, getting Malaysia into the Guinness Book of Records as probably the only government in the world to order sophisticated and expensive aircrafts without any test flight although such physical evaluation for the short-listed tenderers was one of the conditions specified in the tender docunment.

Abu Seman was dumbstruck when asked both questions and was unable to give any sensible reply. It was a most shameful episode in Parliament.

It  has to be left to the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister to try to immediately repair the damage created by the deputy Defence Minister by answering these two questions outside Parliament, as in the following  report
:

The Malaysian Insider

Thursday October 30 2008

PM admits price mistake, Najib says RMAF pilots tested Eurocopters at Lima

By Debra Chong

KUALA LUMPUR, Oct 30 – Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Badawi admitted he had made an error when he spoke of the package price of the much-disputed Eurocopter helicopter deal and which had caused an uproar among Opposition lawmakers in Parliament.

Abdullah who is also the Defence Minister said he was informed by officials in the Defence Ministry this morning on his slip.

The correct figure is RM1.604 billion, but he had thought it was RM1.67 billion and had rounded it up to RM1.7 billion.

“I apologise for my mistake,” he said.

Asked to respond to the opposition’s calls for him to explain the price discrepancy inside the Dewan Rakyat, Abdullah said it was unnecessary as he had already announced that the deal would be deferred to a later date.

He pointed out that the price would be renegotiated again as and when the government finally decides to purchase the helicopters.

“This is academic,” he said.

Speaking at the same press conference, Deputy Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak also denied claims that no physical evaluation was conducted on Eurocopter aircraft.

Najib who until last month held the Minister of Defence portfolio emphasised that the Eurocopter EC725 Cougar was not a new or ‘experimental’ aircraft. He noted that many countries had tested it out, including in combat in Afghanistan.

He said that Royal Malaysian Air Force pilots had tested it in local flight at the Langkawi International Marine Aerospace (Lima) show previously.

Asked to comment on calls by the Opposition for an independent expert panel to evaluate the procurement process, Najib said: “They are making too much a big deal out of it.”

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 30 October 2008, 8:21 pm and is filed under
Parliament
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Procurement of 21 police helicopters shelved

After the shelving of the RM1.67 billion 12 Cougar EC725 Eurocopter deal of the Royal Malaysian Air Force, the next project being deferred is the purchase of 21 police helicopters for the Royal Malaysian Police.

This was revealed by  the Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, Datuk Amirsham Aziz just before Parliament ended at 10 pm last night, after I had asked him during his winding-up speech on the 2009 budget what are the other projects which are being shelved because of the global financial crisis to enable the government to reallocate public expenditures.

The police request for 21 new helicopters was revealed by the Inspector-General of Police, Tan Sri Musa Hassan in August, as reported in the following report of
Utusan Malaysia
 on 13th August 2008:

21 helikopter awasi perairan

LABUAN 12 Ogos – Polis Diraja Malaysia (PDRM) akan menambah 21 buah helikopter bagi meningkatkan kecekapan operasinya terutama di dalam mengawasi perairan negara, kata Ketua Polis Negara, Tan Sri Musa Hassan.

Menurut Musa, cadangan untuk membeli helikopter itu telah diluluskan oleh Kabinet baru-baru ini dan kerajaan akan memutuskan pembelian aset tersebut kemudian.

‘‘Pada masa ini kita (PDRM) mempunyai 12 buah helikopter dan jumlah itu tidak mencukupi memandangkan tugas pasukan semakin mencabar,” katanya kepada pemberita selepas acara menembak sempena lawatan wakil media ke Pulau Layang-layang, dekat sini hari ini.

When did the Cabinet approve the purchase of 21 helicopters for the Police,  what were the allocations approved, the helicopters preferred and the procurement process decided upon before the project is shelved?

What are the other government mega-projects which have been shelved by the national economic executive council meeting chaired by the Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi on Oct. 13 “to prioritise spending to weather the current global financial crisis”?

Who are the members of the national economic executive council?

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 30 October 2008, 9:09 am and is filed under
Parliament
,
Police
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Syed Hamid Albar vs. Hindraf on Indian marginalization

by
H Lee

So Home Minister Syed Hamid Albar – in a decision, as he puts it, of self-sacrifice for the sake of protecting society – has banned Hindraf.

Similar home ministerial valour must have been present when he chose to detain Raja Petra, Teresa Kok, Tan Hoon Cheng and hundreds of others under the ISA.

Many Malaysians have expressed their outrage at the latest cruel and callous act of repression against a civil group which has highlighted the continuing plight of marginalised Malaysian Indians.

I would like to examine an aspect: the assertion that Malaysian Indians are not marginalised and are actually doing better than Bumiputera Malaysians, and thus, they have no grounds to feel

aggrieved, let alone angry. This is a cynical and specious claim.

We should first take note of the often ignored fact that the Malaysian Indian community is diverse, stratified and complex. Like any other.

Some are rich, some are part of the middle class, some are poor; some are posited in the mainstream, some are at the margins – and some are beyond the margins, trapped in urban squalor. The imperative question is whether the concerns of the Indian poor are being addressed by our

government’s attitudes and policies.

But the ruling regime would rather treat groups as monolithic blobs, then go about brandishing statistics to preempt debate – and stamp the lowly back into their place.

And so, in dismissing Hindraf’s cause, Syed Hamid invoked the reality of high proportions of Indians among registered legal professionals (21.4 percent) and among doctors (18.4 percent), and the ratio of Indian to Bumiputera household incomes, of… 1.20. That’s right, according to 2007 household income survey data, Indian households on average have 20 percent more income than Bumiputera households.

Is there something wrong with these figures? Why has the message of Hindraf resonated when official data paint opposing images of social mobility and nice averages?

There is no need to question the numbers, but every need to handle them responsibly, within context and in recognition of their limited scope. These bits of information provide no basis to conclude that all of the community is doing well and should therefore shut up and get on with their happy lives.

In fact, we do have evidence that Malaysians Indians are struggling as much as others to earn a decent living.

Averaging numbers

Of course there are many Indian lawyers and doctors – who’s not cognisant of that? But there are far more Indian labourers, factory workers, and others at the low reaches of the labour market.

It is highly probable that the household income of the Indian community is propped up by the high earnings of professionals and managers.

Meagre family incomes of displaced agricultural workers and urban elementary workers get shrouded in the process of averaging the incomes of all Indian families.

Consider some changes that have taken place in the past decade or so.

In 1995, 17.7 percent of employed Indians worked as agricultural labor, while 8.7 percent were in professional and technical occupations.

By 2005, only 4.9 percent of employed Indians were agricultural workers, but 20.1 percent worked as professionals and technicians.

Albeit rather cursorily, we gain some impression here of developments at two ends of the socio-economic hierarchy: the continuous urbanisation of a low-skilled former plantation workforce; a steadily growing presence in highly qualified jobs providing middle class living standards.

In what sort of jobs are most Indians working? Within communities, Indians registered the highest proportion of persons classified as production workers.

In 2005, 45.8 percent of employed Indians fell in this category, compared to 33.8 percent Chinese and 34.1 percent Bumiputera.

Due to the unfree state of information in this land, the most we can do with officially disclosed statistics is make deductions and inferences such as these.

We are still left with a knowledge gap.

However, a study by Branko Milanovic, a World Bank researcher and renowned scholar of global inequality, helps fill the void¹.

He analysed Malaysia’s household income data of 1997. This is from the national survey that the Statistics Department conducts twice in five years, from which all the inequality measurements we know are calculated.

One difference with the official accounts is that Milanovic focussed on individual earnings (wages, salaries and bonuses) instead of household income (the sum of household members’ earnings, property income and remittances). His findings are therefore more reflective of the earnings capacity of Malaysians in the labour market.

The housewife factor

The study analyses inequality more generally, but in the process finds something very striking: in 1997, the ratio of Indian to Bumiputera individual earnings was 0.98.

The official figure for Indian: Bumiputera household income was 1.41. In other words, the average earnings of individual Indians was basically the same as the average earnings of individual Bumiputera, even though average household incomes were quite unequal.

How might this be possible?

In terms of the gap between individual earnings inequality and household income inequality, we could postulate that combined earnings of Indians, especially in households with both spouses in professional jobs, raised their income to levels significantly higher than Bumiputera households.

This is a guess, and that’s as far as we can go with available data.

What’s not a guess is this objective report that average individual earnings of Indians and Bumiputeras were equal in 1997.

In 2007, with an Indian-to-Bumiputera household income ratio of 1.20, what might the inter-group earnings ratio look like? We don’t know, but it is more than likely that the ratio is less than 1.20.

It is possible that earnings are on average close to equal, or that Indian earnings are less than Bumiputera earnings.

Consider recent data on the distribution of employed persons by occupation.

In 2005, with 45.8 percent of the total employed Indians engaged as production workers and 4.9 percent as agricultural workers, it is plausible that average individual earnings are on par with the average among employed Bumiputera, of whom 34.1 percent are production workers and 15.2 percent are agricultural workers.

These two low-paying occupational groups account for about 50 percent of employed persons of both race groups.

Again, we won’t have a clear picture unless we have access to data and can engage in constructive discussion.

Hindraf has grounds

We have a clear enough picture, however, to affirm the plight of marginalised Indian households, whose tough circumstances in labour markets and poor living conditions are a shameful reality that cannot be garbed in middle-class statistics.

Hindraf has grounds for grievance – yes, even in the official data, if only we would take a more balanced and critical look.

And we could better understand this whole inequality thing, and devise fairer and more effective policies, if the ruling regime would release more information to our – um – knowledge society.

Resistance towards extending the same policies to members of the Indian community as currently provided to Bumiputera is partly predicated on official household income statistics.

But they give us an oversimplified and selective glimpse to a complex of problems.

It is high time to reevaluate the way we assess income and earnings and to aim assistance at the people who need or merit it most.

¹ Branko Milanovic (2006) “Inequality and Determinants of Earnings in Malaysia, 1984-97”, in the Asian Economic Journal, 20(2).

________________________________

H LEE is a postgraduate student in economics at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 30 October 2008, 10:17 am and is filed under
Hindraf
,
Indians
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Chor Chee Heung – another deputy minister who did not know what he was answering in Parliament?

Yesterday, Parliament was presented with the spectacle of a Deputy Minister winding up on behalf of his Ministry in the 2009 Budget debate  when he was totally out of his depths – Deputy Defence Minister Datuk Abu Seman Yusop on the current controversy over the billion-ringgit 12 Cougar EC725 Eurocopters.

As a result, both the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi and Deputy Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak had to subsequently  make supplementary statements outside the House to salvage the  damage caused by Abu Seman in  his “atrocious” parliamentary performance.

Immediately after lunch break yesterday, I had stood up in Parliament to ask Abu Seman the reason for three different sets of  figures for the Eurocopter deal, firstly, RM1.604 billion he mentioned in the House; secondly,  the RM1.1 billion cited by the Defence Ministry Secretary-General Datuk Abu Bakar Abdullah as reported in the media on 17th October 2008; and thirdly, the RM1.67 billion given by the Prime Minister-cum-Defence Minister on Tuesday, October 29, 2008.

When I had first pointed out the  difference in the deputy minister’s figures with the Defence Ministry secretary-general, Abu Seman was clearly caught by  surprise and I had to ask him whether he read newspapers last Saturday which reported Abu Bakar’s statement.

On the three sets of different figures, Abu Seman tried to wriggle out of the question by claiming that foreign exchange fluctuations factored in the differences in figure.

Abu Seman was dumbstruck when I shot down this untenable excuse, as I pointed out that the helicopter tender made it very clear that the bids would be evaluated as quoted in Malaysian ringgit based on the foreign exchange rate on the closing date of the bid.

Abu Seman was then  reduced to the plaintive protest:
“You can say what you want!”

How pathetic.

But Abu Seman was not the only Deputy Minister who was completely out of his depths in Parliament yesterday.

The Deputy Home Minister, Datuk Chor Chee Heung was not very much better.

I asked Chor to give details of the police helicopters “shelved” because of the global financial crisis to enable the government to reallocate public expenditures.

This is the
Star
 report today:

Cops defer plans to buy copters

POLICE have deferred plans to buy eight helicopters. The purchase will instead be made under the 10th Malaysia Plan.

A sum of RM272mil had originally been set aside to buy the helicopters.

Deputy Home Minister Datuk Chor Chee Heung revealed this when replying to Lim Kit Siang (DAP – Ipoh Timur).

He said the allegation that the helicopters were being bought at RM350mil in a direct negotiation deal was not true.

“The police intended to have the helicopters to increase efficiency but the purchase has been deferred,” he said when winding up the debate on the Budget.

Chor’s answer is at complete variance with that given by the Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, Datuk Amirsham Aziz the previous night.

Responding to my query, Amirsham had  said that the purchase of 21 police helicopters had been suspended in view of the looming economic crisis.

Why is Chor talking about eight police helicopters when Amirsham had talked about 21 police helicopters?

Another example of a  deputy minister who did  not know what he was answering in Parliament?

Is Chor unaware of police request for 21 police helicopters?

Like Abu Seman, Chor should keep abreast of newspaper  reports, particularly the statements  of his officers so as not to make a public exhibition of  the most embarrassing ignorance about goings-on in his Ministry.

I would refer Chor to the
Utusan Malaysia
report on of 13th August 2008 on the statement by the Inspector General of Police Tan Sri Musa Hassan that the Cabinet had approved 21 helicopters for the police, viz:

21 helikopter awasi perairan

LABUAN 12 Ogos – Polis Diraja Malaysia (PDRM) akan menambah 21 buah helikopter bagi meningkatkan kecekapan operasinya terutama di dalam mengawasi perairan negara, kata Ketua Polis Negara, Tan Sri Musa Hassan.

Menurut Musa, cadangan untuk membeli helikopter itu telah diluluskan oleh Kabinet baru-baru ini dan kerajaan akan memutuskan pembelian aset tersebut kemudian.

‘‘Pada masa ini kita (PDRM) mempunyai 12 buah helikopter dan jumlah itu tidak mencukupi memandangkan tugas pasukan semakin mencabar,” katanya kepada pemberita selepas acara menembak sempena lawatan wakil media ke Pulau Layang-layang, dekat sini hari ini.

Was Chor completely unaware of police plans to buy 21 helicopters, as appeared to be the case?

Malaysian taxpayers are entitled to better and higher standard of  parliamentary performance by government leaders.

In the reply of  the Defence and Home Ministries yesterday in the 2009 Budget debate in Parliament, the Ministers concerned, Defence Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi and Home Minister Datuk Seri Syed Hamid Albar, should have been in the House to reply personally instead of delegating to their deputy ministers who were  completely in the dark on important and sensitive developments in their Ministries.

                This entry was posted on Friday, 31 October 2008, 1:39 pm and is filed under
Defence
,
Parliament
,
Police
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


PAC Chairman Azmi – out to whitewash Eurocopter deal or get to bottom of new defence scandal

The Public Accounts Committee (PAC) Chairman Datuk Azmi Khalid has confirmed my worst fears about his suitability as head of the parliamentary watchdog committee as he had undermined his own credibility by claiming that the technical aspects of the billion-ringgit Cougar EC725 Eurocopters were
“above board”
 and
“professionally carried out”
 when the two-hour  parliamentary debate on the subject yesterday proved completely otherwise.

The Deputy Defence Minister Datuk Abu Seman Yusop
admitted
 in Parliament yesterday that the Eurocopter deal was sealed without conducting physical evaluation on the helicopters – no test flights were done nor were there any factory visits.

Outraged, I rose up in the House to flay  the government for trifling with the lives and safety of RMAF personnel who would have to use the helicopters, by failing to comply with its own tender requirements  for the helicopters to replace the Nuris, which clearly stipulated that the short-listed aircraft bidders would have to undergo stringent documentary as well as physical evaluation.

In response to my query, Abu Seman said three of the seven bidders for the international open tender for the utility helicopters capable of search and rescue and capable of being upgraded to combat search and rescue aircraft  had been short-listed but he refused to name the three aircrafts concerned.

This is clearly a gross  defect amounting to criminal negligence in the technical aspects of the Eurocopter selection, getting Malaysia into the Guinness Book of Records and making us  the laughing stock of the world as a country which procures expensive and sophisticated aircrafts without any test flight or physical evaluation – despite  this being  clearly stipulated as one vital criteria in the tender process!

Abu Seman even conjured up
three reasons
to explain why there was no need for physical evaluation or test flights, viz:

·	First, there were complete documentations for the technical committee to make its assessment.

·	Second, the Royal Malaysian Air Force (RMAF) had enough data about helicopters in the market.

·	Third, to guarantee the integrity of the six-man technical committee so that it won’t be questioned by anyone.

These three reasons are so ludicrous, none of them  would have withstood cursory examination or minimal scrutiny!

Realising that the Deputy Defence Minister had made a fool of the government in Parliament yesterday, the Deputy Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak who was the Defence Minister at the time of the Eurocopter procurement, tried to salvage the situation by claiming outside the House that the Eurocopter was a proven helicopter, which is in service in many countries and had seen combat in Afghanistan. Furthermore, “our pilots have tried the helicopter during the Lima Maritime Series of Exhibition so they know its performance”.

Najib’s explanation is another “shocker” in a series of “shockers” in the most improper  Eurocopter procurement process, as everybody is wondering how “joy rides” at the Lima shows can be equated with the stringent physical evaluation of flight tests  matching international best practices as required in the tender document.

In any event, where were the physical evaluation and  test flights or just “joy rides” for the other two short-listed aircrafts – presumably Sikorsky S92 and  AgustaWestlands AW101  – done, and couldn’t the same claim that they are proven helicopters, seen service in many countries, and used in combat in war zones be given for these two other  helicopters as well?

What has been proven beyond a shadow of doubt in the grilling of Abu Seman in Parliament yesterday is that the technical aspects of the Eurocopter deal stinks, as they have been  done in a most unprofessional and unsatisfactory manner, going against best international practices and   principles of accountability and transparency as well as in utter disregard of the lives and safety of the RMAF personnel who will be using the helicopters.

How then can Azmi emerge from Wednesday’s meeting of the PAC on the Eurocopter deal to issue a certificate of fitness for its technical aspects as being “aboveboard” and “professionally carried out”  when it is the exact opposite in failing to pass muster in  not having any physical evaluation or test flight?

Instead of issuing a clean bill of health for the technical aspects of the Eurocopter deal, the PAC should be conducting a full-scale investigation as to why the vital tender requirement for a physical evaluation had been done away with, which officers had been responsible for such an outrageous decision, and up to what level had this exemption from having to carry out test flights and other physical evaluation for the three short-listed aircrafts been approved or authorized.

Were  the Defence Minister and the Cabinet privy to the unprecedented decision to procure the new helicopters without any test flight or physical evaluation?

It would appear that the two-hour debate and grilling of Abu Seman had elicited more  information than the two-day PAC examination of the Eurocopter deal – and if this is the case,  is PAC Chairman Azmi out to whitewash the Eurocopter deal or to diligently carry out the parliamentary mandate to get to the bottom of the impropriety and irregularity of the Eurocopter procurement including why there had been no  proper flight tests and physical evaluation before a selection is made?

                This entry was posted on Friday, 31 October 2008, 10:52 am and is filed under
Defence
,
Parliament
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Race And Islam

By
Farish A. Noor

It is odd, to say the least, that after more than fourteen centuries there remain some people who claim to be Muslims but who still have not internalised the universal values of Islam. Odder still that there remain those who on the one hand can embrace Islam’s universal claim of brotherhood (and sisterhood), but still cannot get around to understanding the simple idea that Islam and racism do not mix.

Evidence of such discrepancies can be found pretty much everywhere these days: It has, sadly, become the normative cultural norm in so many Muslim societies today that those who are fair are better off and given the privileges that they feel is the natural right of all light-skinned people. It is also interesting to note that Muslims tend to rejoice whenever a white American or European converts to Islam, but seem less enthusiastic in their recognition of the fact that thousands of Africans and Asians are converting to Islam every year.

Furthermore when it comes to governance and politics, it remains painfully clear that some Muslims still place blood and race above competency and merit till today; and that despite their profession of faith they remain embedded in the stagnant mode of racialised thinking that operates on the basis that some races are better than others.

One such case has popped up recently in multi-culti Malaysia, where a row was sparked off by the nomination of a Chinese woman – Low Siew Moi – as the head of a state institution linked to the economic management and development of the state of Selangor, the PKNS. Despite the fact that Low Siew Moi was selected by the Chief Minister of the state, Tan Sri Khalid, on the basis of merit; some quarters chose to publicly disagree with her appointment on the grounds that the Malay-Muslims of the state would object to the appointment. But objection on what grounds? On the basis that she is a Chinese woman?

Here the already convoluted waters of Malaysia’s racialised politics turns a shade murkier; for among those who objected to the appointment of Low Siew Moi were some members of the Malaysian Islamic party PAS.

Malaysia’s politics has been defined by racial concerns and the communitarian demands of the various religious and ethnic groups of the country since its independence in 1957. Over the past three decades, however, the tone and tenor of the country’s conservative, right-wing ethno-nationalist politics was further coloured by the Islamisation race in the country with the Malaysian government attempting to further inculcate Islamic values into the norms of governance in Malaysia as well.

Ironically however, Malaysia’s Islamisation programme seems to be more concerned with book-banning, fatwas on social behaviour (including the recent revelation that there may be a fatwa on Yoga soon, wait for it), and moral policing instead. Where, the Islamic scholar may ask, were the universal values of Islam in the midst of all this social engineering? Did the leaders of Malaysia not realise, or forget, the simple idea that Islam is an egalitarian faith that is colour-blind; and that the concept of ‘race’ is an alien idea in Islam?

The dilemma that Malaysia is facing now is the same dilemma faced by many other Muslim societies where the defence and promotion of Islam often goes hand-in-hand with the defence and promotion of the communitarian interests of Muslims. In Malaysia’s case, where Muslims are overwhelmingly Malay, then this also translates as the defence of Malay interests – to the extent of propagating the ethno-nationalist idea of Malay cultural dominance as well. Now what on earth is Islamic about this?

Here is where orthodox Muslim scholarship has to come in and make its timely intervention: For it has to be remembered that the success of Islam and the success of Muslims are two entirely different things, that may also clash and negate each other at times. The victory of Islam, so to speak, has to be understood as the victory of universal values such as egalitarianism and equality before God. The victory of Muslims, on the other hand, may at times be understood as political victories that may or may not conform to the standards of Islamic ethics. The defeat of the Kuwaitis at the hands of Saddam Hussein, for instance, was a case of one Muslim state defeating another: but was this a victory for Islam? Likewise, when Muslims openly and abrasively demand special rights and privileges for themselves at the cost of equality and meritocracy, is this really a victory for Islam?

Those who have criticised and opposed the appointment of Low Siew Moi as the head of PKNS on the grounds that the job should have been given to a Malay-Muslim instead should therefore look closely at themselves and ask: What is it that you are fighting for? Malay-Muslim dominance or a better form of governance that is based on merit and equality? The Islamic scholar will remind you that the latter is Islamic, while the former is not.

In any case, for Muslims to even think in racialised communitarian terms is a misnomer of sorts as such modes of communitarian, sectarian thinking has no real place in Islamic orthodoxy and ethics. To quote Tuan Guru Nik Aziz Nik Mat, spiritual leader of the Malaysian Islamic Party PAS: ‘tell me, what race was Adam?’. ‘Nuff said I think.

End.

                This entry was posted on Friday, 31 October 2008, 7:53 am and is filed under
Farish Noor
,
Islam
,
PAS
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Eurocopter inquiry – PAC should summon Najib

The Public Accounts Committee (PAC) should  summon  Deputy Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak  to its Eurocopter hearing and not just  call up civil servants as he is the Defence Minister at the time of the critical decision-making before the ministerial swap with Prime Minister  Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi  on Sept. 17 and who must bear final responsibility to Parliament for the Eurocopter deal.

The PAC postponed its second-day inquiry into the Eurcopter deal on Thursday because the Finance Ministry secretary-general Tan Sri Dr. Wan Abdul Aziz  Wan Abdullah did not turn up  to testify.

The PAC is right in demanding that the highest-ranking officer from the Finance Ministry should appear before it to testify, and Wan Abdul Aziz is setting a bad example of civil service leadership and guilty of contempt of Parliament in claiming that  he was
“busy with other duties”
!

What is the nature of Wan Abdul Aziz’s “busy with other duties” that he is prepared to commit parliamentary contempt by not appearing before the PAC when summoned?

However, why is the PAC not summoning Najib to testify and justify the extraordinary billion-ringgit 12 Cougar EC725 Eurocopters procurement – as in other “first-world Commonwealth Parliaments”, the appearance of the Minister concerned would have been the first item of such PAC inquiry?!

Is this another illustration why having a former Cabinet Minister to chair the PAC is most unsuitable, for it would be completely unthinkable for a political junior who had been used to taking orders from the Deputy Prime Minister for the past five years (and with Najib poised to become Primer Minister in another five months)  to summon his superior to appear before the PAC to give an account of his stewardship of the Defence Ministry over the controversial Eurocopter procurement!

If the PAC had been headed by a senior Opposition parliamentarian, there would be no such qualms and self-denying limitations, and Najib would be put to the test as to whether he fully believes in the concept of parliamentary democracy in responding positively to any PAC call to testify before it.

The PAC Chairman Datuk Azmi Khalid should not be browbeaten or influenced by both the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister who had clearly hinted that the PAC should not create waves in its  inquiry, as Abdullah has dismissed the three sets of different pricing for the Eurocopter deal given by the government as
“academic”
while Najib has sought to ridicule the Opposition for
“making a meal”
 of the Eurocopter procurement.

The PAC inquiry into the Eurocopter deal is neither “academic” nor “making a meal” for two important reasons:

1.	The Eurocopter deal raises very grave issues about propriety, accountability and professionalism in the decision-making process, whether at the technical, off-set or price stages, especially when it is now established that the government had not conducted physical and specification  inspections of the three short-listed aircrafts – the Cougar EC725, Sikorsky S92 and AgustaWestlands AW101.

Najib should appear before the PAC  fully armed to justify the procurement of the Eurocopters without any physical evaluation and test flights, citing previous instances in Defence Ministry of such exemptions or even cases of other governments buying billion-ringgit aircrafts without any test-flight.

Otherwise, how is Najib to rebut serious charges that the Defence Ministry had acted in a most irresponsible manner in the procurement process in trifling with the lives and safety of RMAF personnel who would have to use the new helicopters?

2.	As Abdullah said that the price would be renegotiated again when the government finally decides to purchase the helicopters, the implication is very clear: the choice is still the Eurocopters!  This makes all the preceding transactions in the helicopter tender, in particular on technical, offset and price, all very relevant, as well as warranting a  full explanation from Najib as to why the government is “locked in” to the Eurocopter offer in future instead of calling a completely new international tender open to all interested aircraft manufacturers.

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 1 November 2008, 9:38 am and is filed under
Defence
,
Parliament
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Even more imperative Najib submit himself to RCI to clear him of all allegations from murder to corruption

Shah Alam High Court judge Datuk Mohd Zaki Md Yasin yesterday
acquitted
political analyst Abdul Razak Baginda  of the charge of abetment in the murder of Mongolian Altantuya Shaariibuu on October 19, 2006 on the ground that no evidence was adduced by the prosecution to contradict or challenge the
exculpatory parts
of  Razak’s  affidavit in his earlier  unsuccessful bail application.

The judge said: “In the absence of the rebuttal evidence against the statements, coupled with the fact that there is no legal onus for Razak to rebut any statutory presumptions, there is clearly no reason for the statements to be ignored and rejected”.

Most Malaysians are baffled by the very  technical reason for the acquittal.

While it would not be right for  anyone to prejudge the guilt or innocence of any person in the murder of Altantuya, the fact of the abominable and heinous murder of the Mongolian translator, shot twice in the head in a jungle clearing in Shah Alam and blown up with C4 explosives available only to the military, setting off  political, diplomatic and international reverberations that have not subsided , is a fact that cannot be extinguished.

With the acquittal of Razak Baginda in  the murder of Altantuya Shaariibuu,  it is even more imperative that the Prime Minister-in-waiting Datuk Seri Najib Razak  should submit himself to a Royal Commission of Inquiry on all the allegations ranging from murder to corruption dogging and haunting him and Malaysia.

I reiterate my call during the debate on the 2009 Budget  in Parliament for a Royal Commission of Inquiry to investigate and  clear Najib of all the allegations made against him so that he could take over as the sixth Prime Minster of Malaysia next March unencumbered by the weight of grave and serious allegations against him – whether locally or internationally.

Najib had all along pleaded innocence to all the allegations. He should all the more support the establishment of a Royal Commission of Inquiry which can more credibly and authoritatively vindicate  his innocence.

If Najib is still unprepared to agree to the establishment of a full-fledged Royal Commission of Inquiry to clear him of all the allegations ranging from murder to corruption haunting and hounding him, I would expect him to make a fulsome statement in Parliament on all these allegations when he speaks in the Dewan Rakyat  for the first time as Finance Minister and Prime Minister-in-waiting on Tuesday (November 4) during the government reply on the 2009 Budget debate, when he is to announce the government strategy for  the country for the global financial meltdown and the world’s worst economic crisis in 80 years.

Razak Baginda’s
“exculpatory statements”
 –

– Even though I had appointed P. Balasubramaniam, the harassment by Altantuya against my family and I did not stop. Hence, I asked DSP Musa Safri for help. I know Musa from my business dealings at the Malaysian Strategic Research Centre, a non-profit organisation.

– I asked DSP Musa for help to install a police beat box at my house and increase patrols in the area. I also sought help to be introduced to a police officer from the Brickfields police station as my house was under their jurisdiction.

– DSP Musa told me that he would introduce me to an officer who would help me.

– On Oct 26, 2006, in a meeting with Balasubramaniam and Dhiren Norendra (a lawyer), Balasubramaniam advised me to lodge a report to deport the deceased (Altantuya) from Malaysia. Dhiren and I refused.

– On Oct 17, 2006, the deceased came to my house and wanted to meet me. I was not at home at that time, and my wife learnt of her visit.

– On the night of Oct 17, 2006, I was at home with my family and there was a commotion outside the house.

– I called DSP Musa’s handphone but I could not get through. So I called Balasubramaniam and Dhiren to help me. As a result, a police patrol car arrived to settle the matter. I did not lodge a police report and Dhiren never advised me to do so.

– DSP Musa later called me and said that a police officer would call me to help me sort out my problem with the deceased. According to DSP Musa, the officer who would be calling me was the Brickfields district Criminal Investigation Department chief.

– On the morning of Oct 18, 2006, Azilah Hadri called me and introduced himself as the police officer who was referred by DSP Musa to help me with the harassment by the deceased.

– I subsequently met with Azilah at my office. I told him that the deceased had caused a commotion at my house, and asked him to conduct patrols around my house. I gave him my house address, my father’s name, the deceased’s name, “Hotel Malaya”, and where she stayed, based on the information given to me by Balasubramaniam. I also told Azilah that I had engaged Balasubramaniam and gave him his name and number. Before he left my office, Azilah asked me to contact him if she harassed my family and me again.

– On Oct 19, 2006, Balasubramaniam called me and told me that there was a commotion outside my house. I was out with my family at that time to break fast. So I called Azilah for help.

– Balasubramaniam told me that three plainclothes police officers came to my house in an unmarked car to take the deceased away. I believed they had taken her to the police station for interrogation.

– On Oct 20, 2006, I went to the deputy prime minister’s office for official duties and bumped into DSP Musa. I asked him what happened the night before and DSP Musa told me Azilah did not tell him anything. Several days later, I asked DSP Musa about the deceased, but his answer remained the same.

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 1 November 2008, 1:18 pm and is filed under
Crime
,
Judiciary
,
Najib Razak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


NEP cannot be equated with Article 153

A call for the review of NEP is not a call for the review of Article 153 or attack on Malay special rights. This is because NEP cannot be equated with Article 153.

This argument on the differences between Article 153 and the NEP surfaced  in Parliament on Wednesday, October 29th October 2008 in exchanges during the winding-up debate on the 2009 Budget involving two Ministers in the Prime Minister’s Department, Datuk Seri Nazri Abdullah and Senator Datuk Amirsham Aziz, as illustrated by the videos here.

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 1 November 2008, 1:38 pm and is filed under
Parliament
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Hindraf teddy bear more dangerous than Osama bin Laden?

This is a video clip of my parliamentary exchange with the Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz on the Hindraf ban and the detention of the five Hindraf leaders under the Internal Security Act on Wednesday (29.10.08) during the first-day Ministerial winding-up in the debate on the 2009 Budget.

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 2 November 2008, 6:03 pm and is filed under
Hindraf
,
Human Rights
,
ISA
,
Parliament
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


New politics of “Beyond NEP”

I am still recovering from my shock in Parliament on Thursday night when the Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, Datuk Amirsham Aziz  former CEO of Maybank, pleaded ignorance when I asked him whether he agreed that the New Economic Policy  (NEP) cannot be equated with Article 153 of the Constitution. Amirsham claimed that  he was no expert on constitutional law!

It is outrageous that after more than half-a-century of nationhood, Barisan Nasional (BN) Ministers  and leaders cannot or dare not answer a simple question – whether they agree that the NEP cannot be equated with Article 153 on special provision for Malays and the bumiputeras in Sabah and Sarawak.

As I argued in Parliament when I posed the question to Amirsham, if NEP is equated with Article 153, then Deputy Prime Minister-cum-Finance Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak would be guilty of challenging Article 153 and Malay special rights when he told Bloomberg recently that “all the elements of  NEP” would be phased out in stages, adding “If we do not change, the people will change us”.

The NEP had been a divisive instrument in  nation-building, even more so today, as it is being used to benefit rich and privileged Umnoputras rather than the poor bumiputras.

Amirsham was unable to give any satisfactory response to my contention that the methodology used by the Economic Planning Unit (EPU) to compute bumiputera equity figures was obsolete and unreliable, as Amirsham admitted that the EPU methodology used the par value of the shares some 40 years ago  in 1970 and the calculations excluded equity data from GLCs.

Independent professional studies have shown that  the target of 30% bumiputra equity ownership had been fulfilled, for instance:

·	the Asian Strategy and Leadership Institute (Asli) report by Prof. Dr. Lim Teck Ghee putting bumiputera equity ownership at about 45 per cent; and

·	the University of Malaya research study entitled “Bumiputeras in the Corporate Sector – Three decades of performance 1970-2000”, by Dr. M. Fazilah Abdul Samad that the 30 percent bumiputera equity ownership as targeted under the government’s New Economic Policy had already been achieved about a decade ago when it hit 33.7 percent in 1997.

The NEP has become not only a source of national discord and disunity  but an important factor causing inefficiency, waste and corruption as well as inhibiting Malaysia’s economic  growth and development.

After the  March 8 “political tsunami”, Malaysia must move into the new politics of “Beyond NEP” to create an united, just, competitive, progressive and prosperous Malaysia.

I fully agree with the  article in the
Star
 yesterday entitled

“Remove equity target”
, by P. Gunasegaram, giving three reasons why the BN Government should do away with the equity target for bumiputra ownership of companies under the  NEP, viz:

1.  The measurement itself is fatally flawed.

2.  As it is structured now, it involves too low a proportion of bumiputra population and leads to the well-known Ali Baba syndrome where the bumiputra participation is in name only while non-bumiputras run virtually the whole show.

3.	It puts far too much emphasis on an ephemeral, badly measured target at the expense of other, far more encompassing and important aims of the noble NEP, which include the eradication of poverty irrespective of race and the restructuring of society to eliminate the identification of race with economic function.

The message from the March 8 political tsunami is clear – the time has come for all Malaysians to rise above their differences to make a success of a Malaysian-centric nation-building programme and national economic policy which goes “Beyond NEP” to create a Bangsa Malaysia out of the diverses races and religions in the country.

(Speech 2  at the opening of the 2008 DAP Federal Territory State Convention at the Federal Hotel, Kuala Lumpur on Sunday, 2nd November 2008)

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 2 November 2008, 2:35 pm and is filed under
Economics
,
NEP
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.