BN not contesting Penanti by-election unconvincing unless Najib ends all “political games” and holds Perak state-wide polls

The Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak is advocating that Umno and Barisan Nasional not contest the Penanti state by-election in Penang following the resignation of Parti Keadilan Rakyat’s Mohamad  Fairus Khairuddin as Penanti state assemblyman, giving as reasons that such a by-election was not in accordance with the spirit of the Constitution and a waste of public funds.

Led by the Gerakan “Super Minister” Tan Sri Dr. Koh Tsu Koon,  who praised Najib for the “good idea for BN not to participate in a by-election caused by strategic intrigue or aimed at resolving Pakatan Rakyat’s internal predicament”, the other Barisan Nasional parties  quickly competed to express support for Najib.

The only lone voice was MIC President, Datuk Seri Samy Vellu who said BN should contest in Penanti to safeguard its integrity, prestige and image as the BN should not be “frightened of the opposition”.  Samy’s views must have panicked the other MIC leaders, causing the  MIC secretary-general and Human Resources Minister Datuk Dr. S. Subramaniam to openly declare support for Najib’s “no contest” idea to contain Samy’s “damage”.

The mainstream media also swung into action to support Najib by reporting that the five by-elections since the March general elections last year have cost Malaysian taxpayers RM33.4 million, comprising:

Election Commission

Police

Permatang Pauh

	RM409,000

			RM 2.5 million

Kuala Terengganu

	RM580,000

			RM11.5 million

Bukit Gantang

	RM600,000

			RM  7    million

Bukit Selambau

	RM400,000

			RM  5     million

Batang Ai

		RM400,000

			RM  5     million

   Total

		RM2.4 million

	RM31 million = RM33.4 million

Actually, the total expenses incurred in the five by-elections are many times the total of RM33.1 million- easily by six or seven-fold – if the election expenditures of the competing political parties are taken into consideration.

The expenses incurred by the Pakatan Rakyat in the five by-elections would be negligible when compared to the  total  of RM33.4 million incurred together by the Election Commission and the Police.

Pakatan Rakyat candidates do not exceed the maximum expenditures permitted candidates under election laws – which is RM200,000 for a parliamentary candidate and  RM100,000 for a state assembly candidate. This  would mean a ceiling of RM800,000 for three parliamentary and two state assembly by-elections held since the general election last year.

How much did Barisan Nasional spend for the five by-elections, using not only party funds but also public funds, resources and machinery?

It has been estimated that the Barisan Nasional spent RM70 million in Batang Ai by-election alone. I will not be surprised if an independent and professional audit comes to a total figure of Barisan Nasional expenditures for the five by-elections in the region of some RM200 million, i.e. six or seven-fold of the RM33.4 million incurred jointly by the Election Commission and Police.

The Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department responsible for Law and Parliament, Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz is even talking about amendments to the Constitution to stop by-elections except in specific cases like if a member of parliament or state assembly member dies, is declared bankrupt or is disqualified because of criminal convictions.
(Nanyang)

Nazri forgets that the Barisan Nasional does not command two-thirds parliamentary majority and it cannot amend the Constitution at its whim and fancy.

The problem is not the holding of by-elections but the corruption of the entire electoral  process where elections and by-elections have become obscenely expensive. For Barisan Nasional, a by-election is a just splurge of money, not just in millions of ringgit but tens of millions of ringgit, often with  the misuse and abuse of public funds!

If the election law is strictly enforced, with each candidate limited to RM200,000 for Parliament and RM100,000 for state assembly contest, and political parties banned from incurring any expenditures, and the expenditures for the Election Commission and the Police as incurred in the five by-elections slashed by 50% and 80% respectively, the question of by-elections being “a waste of time, energy and money” would not arise.

The ballooning of election expenditures to prohibitive levels for Barisan Nasional candidates is one indicator of how corruption in Malaysia has completely  got out of hand in the past decade!

Najib’s talk of the Penanti by-election as against “the spirit of the Constitution” and his disapproval of “political games” are most artful and  artificial  as he had been the practitioner of the most divisive “political games” in recent history – the two-and-a-half-month-long  political and constitutional stalemate in Perak as a result of the undemocratic, unethical, illegal and constitutional power grab orchestrated by him in early February, producing two Mentris Besar,  two Perak Assembly secretaries and one Democracy Tree!

It is  utterly hypocritical to talk about “the spirit of the Constitution” on the one hand while on the other, precipitating the unethical, undemocratic and illegal power grab in Perak, based on the defection and disloyalty of three Assembly members who have gone into hiding and dared not appear publicly in the past 10 weeks because of their guilty conscience!

Although Najib talks glibly about  “too much politicking in our country when we should instead be concentrating on restoring the economy and ensuring the country’s future”, Umno politicking is going on unchecked as evident from the worsening of the Trengganu Umno crisis with 10 Umno State Assemblymen increasing to 17 (including Exco members) who want to topple Terengganu Mentri Besar, Datuk Ahmad Said.

This is why all talk of the Barisan Nasional not contesting Penanti by-election because it is against the spirit of the Constitution and a waste of  public funds are  most unconvincing unless Najib is prepared to end all “political games” and undo the worst case of “too much politicking” by dissolving the Perak State Assembly to allow Perakians to elect the government of their choice.

Far from winding down , the Perak political and constitutional stalemate is heading towards a new confrontation.  Although the Federal Court decision on Thursday purportedly to declare that the Perak Speaker V. Sivakumar’s decision on Feb. 18, 2009 to suspend the usurper Mentri Besar Datuk Zambry Abdul Kadiar by 18 months and his six executive councillors by 12 months were invalid, the Federal Court declined to issue another  declaration sought that  the Tree State Assembly on March 3 and  its resolution to suspend Zambry and the six exco members were also invalid.  As such Zamry and his six exco members remain suspended from the Perak State Assembly!

If Najib is sincere and serious in wanting all Malaysians to “fight economics” and stop “fight politics” in the face of the worst global economic recession in a century, let him meet Pakatan Rakyat leaders to work out a political understanding to end all “political games” during this period, covering not only Penanti by-election but also the undemocratic, unethical, illegal and unconstitutional power grab in Perak!

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 19 April 2009, 4:08 pm and is filed under
Corruption
,
Elections
,
Najib Razak
,
Pakatan Rakyat
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Khir Toyo – “I am actually a very simple man”

[
Marina Mahathir’s blog
drew my  attention to the
Sunday Star
reporter Shahanaaz Habib’s
interview
 with former Selangor Mentri Besar Datuk Seri Khir Toyo on the can of worms opened up by the Selangor Select Committee on Competence, Accountability and Transparency (Selcat) hearings on the financial scandals of Balkis (the former Selangor Elected Representatives Wives Welfare Association) and that the interview online has more in it than the one in the print version.

Marina is right, there is indeed more in the
online interview
with Khir who described himself as: “I’m actually a very simple man”.  It is a must read
(below)

Malaysians would be assured of a better future for themselves and future generations if they could be spared of such “simple men” and their ilk!

I agree with Marina when she asked: “I’m just wondering why the MACC hasn’t pulled him up for questioning yet. Or do they actually find his explanations plausible?”

Can we have an answer from the MACC Chief Commissioner, Datuk Seri Ahmad Said Hamdan, if he can spare a moment from his preoccupation with “car and cows”?

Shahanaaz deserves credit for a most extraordinarily insightful and revealing interview.  I don’t think there has been another interview in the history of Malaysian journalism which has been so self-incriminating as well as exposing the hypocrisy, shallowness and pomposity of the person interviewed. Shabas. ]

Sunday April 19, 2009

Khir has his say on allegations

By SHAHANAAZ HABIB

Former Selangor Mentri Besar Datuk Seri Dr Khir Toyo has come under a lot fire recently for purportedly misusing the state agencies’ funds for costly trips, family holidays and personal gain – something he vehemently denies.

Pakatan Rakyat which wrested the state in the March 8 2008 general election has set up a Select Committee on Competence, Accountability and Transparency (Selcat) to probe the financial dealings of Balkis (the former Selangor Elected Representatives Wives Welfare Association headed by Dr Khir’s wife), to see if there was any wrongdoing or element of criminal breach of trust in the charity organisation.

Last month, the bosses of Permodalan Negeri Selangor Bhd (PNSB), Kumpulan Darul Ehsan Bhd (KDEB) and PKNS and others testified at the Selcat hearing and some of their disclosures were shocking – that RM1.7mil was paid for DisneyWorld and DisneyLand “technical” trips, RM200,000 for a Jogjakarta trip and that they paid the air tickets for Dr Khir’s maid to go on the trips and that they got instructions from the (then) Mentri Besar to sponsor Balkis events.

Denying any wrongdoing, Dr Khir who chose not to attend the Selcat inquiry, gives his side of the story. He also says that he will never forgive Pakatan Rakyat until he dies for smearing his reputation.

Q: It has been a year since the general election with Selangor having fallen to Pakatan Rakyat, how do you see the whole political scenario?

A:
 I think there are mixed feelings among the public. Some believe Pakatan Rakyat (PR) is doing quite well but some do not. This is based on perception. PR managed to give a good perception about themselves to the public. The low income group are happy because a lot of goodies have been given to them but the business or corporate community in Selangor are not happy because they obviously see the economy shrinking. That is so apparent. Lately the urban areas are beginning to see that the local authorities have failed to improve their basic services.

Q: You contested the Umno Youth Chief post and came in second. What do you think of Khairy Jamaluddin as the new Youth Chief and Datuk Mukhriz Mahathir as deputy minister?

A:
 Khairy has won and I think he needs to work hard. Without his father-in-law (Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi), I think he needs to work even harder. But first he needs to clear the perception about him. I think the Malaysian public still cannot accept him as Youth chief.

As for Mukhriz – it’s simple. There must be ‘keturunan’ (lineage). His father (former Prime Minister Tun Mahathir Mohamad) was there (in the seat of power) so his child too must be there. That’s Malaysian politics for you. It’s happened before and it’s happened again. It’s a normal thing.

Q: Some say you are arrogant because you used the broom award to shame departments, boasted before the March 8 general elections that there will be zero opposition in Selangor and in a forum after the election you challenged the new PR government to investigate you from head to toe.

A:
The broom award was decided by the state government officers and personally I think it was good because that department (that was shamed for non-performance by winning the broom award) got number one placing for performance the following year. The broom award was just to change the mind set.

As for the zero opposition, as Mentri Besar and state Barisan Nasional chairman if I say we are weak, all my people will be disheartened and dispirited. As a general, even if you lose the war, you must still say that you have not. That’s the way to handle perception, feelings and the spirit of our ‘soldiers’. Psychologically everyone does that from Mussolin to Sukarno. How can you lead and say we are going to lose. We will not say that we are not going to lose even if we think we are. It’s a strategy.

As for the forum, some people were saying I am corrupt and they will boo me if I say that I am not. The situation at that time was very wild. So I said what I said to keep their mouths shut. Actually, I am not arrogant but I have my own character in politics.

SELCAT

Q: You have been at the centre of a lot of controversy lately. How have you been responding?

A:
It’s all politically motivated. Pakatan Rakyat is trying to hide their own wrongdoings. The present MB (Tan Sri Khalid Ibrahim) also has a case, one of the exco member also has a case. They are trying to cover up all these things.

For example, the Balkis issue. I am not even a member and Balkis has already been dissolved and the dissolution has been approved by ROS. I was investigated by the police over the Balkis issue and the police found no wrongdoing but still Pakatan is harping on it. But I am not worried. As for the trips (which has now become controversial), as far as I am concerned I paid for my own children.

Q: Why did you not go to the Selcat inquiry to defend yourself?

A:
 My lawyer advised me not to go. It is a one-sided hearing. Selcat called me on Balkis issue but I am not a Balkis member so there is no locus standi for me to talk. I cannot clear my name because it is a structured hearing. Selcat is made up of my political opponents. The only two Barisan members in it went for the hearing the first day and stayed away after that. And Selcat wants me – their enemy – to appear before them? If you and I are fighting, would you have something good to say about me? If I go to Selcat, it is like I serah diri (surrender) before my political enemy. They are not interested in the truth. They are just trying to look for kesalahan orang (find fault). If they are after the truth, they would have had professionals not politicians conducting the hearing. If it was conducted by ex-judges and non-partisan ex-top civil servants, then I would have gone. But in this case, tell me why should I go to the lion’s den? Besides, Selcat did not get the approval from the AG to set it up.

Q: But this comes under the Selangor state government and assembly, surely they don’t need the A-G’s approval to set up Selcat?

A:
 I checked with my lawyer. Any law that involves enforcement must be done by the Federal government first of all. They have said they want to jail people and stated that they can jail up to two years and fine RM2,000. Who is going to jail the person? Does the state have the authority to do this? Surely this comes under the police. Selangor has a Public Accounts Committee – why can’t use that mechanism? But they formed Selcat just to pick on people.

Q: You say there is no locus standi for you to attend an inquiry on Balkis but some of the money in question came from PNSB of which you were the chairman?

A:
This falls under the Registrar of Societies. For example I am an Umno member and if I donate money to say MIC do I have the right to ask questions about the money of MIC and ask details about the MIC management? I can’t. This is a donation from a private company to Balkis. That’s why there is no locus standi. In fact even the state government doesn’t have the right to ask these questions because they are not members. I have checked with my lawyer. They can’t.

Q: But (former Selangor MB) Tan Sri Mat Taib’s wife, Puan Sri Asbi (Rohani Asnan) who was Balkis president (until 1997) attended the Selcat hearing?

A:
That is up to her. I asked the lawyer’s opinion and (he advised me against it) and so I wrote a letter to Selcat explaining why I was not coming. Because I am not a Balkis member so how can they can ask me about Balkis issues.

Q: What was the purpose of the Dec 17-24 2007 DisneyWorld, Miami Beach and Honolulu trip?

A:
 It was a technical visit. It was for investment purposes, river management, canal city and the theme park. We wanted to make a second Klang Valley in Selangor – an RM1bil canal city from Sungai Kuala Langat to Sungai Klang which is about 16km. There was to be an artificial beach, a river fishing area, boating, a garden in the middle and cycling lane and walkways. The water level would be maintained throughout the year. You should have a look at the canal city plan. It is very nice. So the trip was to visit water feature development areas so that we know how to do it technically in Selangor and translate the concept to reality. That is why we had in our delegation the Yang Di-Pertua (YDP) of Kuala Langat, of Sepang, the DO Sepang, the DO Kuala Langat, town planners and technical officers. They want to see with their own eyes what it looks like, only then can they execute. My trips are always multi-purpose. We meet the business community there to try and get more investments.

Q: Why didn’t (PNSB CEO) Datin Khairiyah (Abu Hassan) say that? When Selcat asked the purpose of trip, she said it was to study the theme park and did not mention river management?

A:
 She made a mistake. She has to look through the minutes of PNSB again. The trip was partly to study the theme park and partly to study river management and canal city project. I am very sure about that. I am the one attending the programme so I know this.

Q: Datin Khairiyah said your delegation did not meet anyone from the Disney World management team?

A:
The arrangement was done by the PNSB management. On the itinerary, there was supposed to be a meeting with them but I don’t know why they cancelled it. You cannot blame me for it.

Q: You said you do not know why they cancelled a meeting with the Theme Park management?

A:
 Yes. I don’t know. The PNSB management should know. They sent a Recce team there earlier and everything should have been okay.

Q: It cost RM366,000 to send the Recce team ahead and yet they could not organise a meeting with the Disney World Theme Park? Are you saying the PNSB officers are not competent?

A:
The Recce team was decided by management not by board.

Q: Why couldn’t they just call or e-mail to fix an appointment? Why do they have to go all the way there to fix the programme?

A:
All this was decided by the management. I am the chairman (of the board) and they are the ones who set the programme and I just go for it. In fact sometimes the programme just comes to my table where to meet etc and I just follow. I did not ask for this and that. The PNSB management decided and I just followed.

Q: The Canal Development project between Sungai Kuala Langat and the Klang River is not something new. It was already proposed in 2006 and universities like UKM and Uniten have already had papers on it and discussions on the concept.

A:
Yes, but after one year, the officers still did not understand the technical things about how to manage river development and all that. They wanted to have a look at what it is. That’s why I brought the technical team to study and look in detail water feature developments. A year ago we had already completed the concept of the canal city, only after this (concept paper) was completed that we go and visit.

Q: Why go to Miami Beach and Honolulu and not Venice Italy which is known for its canals?

A:
PNSB suggested this to us. I don’t choose. I just follow. In fact, I had to put it off a few times because I had no time. We wanted to learn about water-feature development. We were planning an artificial beach in the Canal City so we went to these beaches (Miami and Hawaii) to learn how to develop these areas – like how many feet development should it be from the water and how to maintain the sand. In Malaysia, we tend to develop right to the water front, when in fact you must leave at least a 20 to 30 feet distance from the water. We also don’t want development projects to cause river banks to collapse (due to a lack of technical planning in developing the area around it). The technical department didn’t approve the project because they couldn’t understand the concept and couldn’t visualise it, so we said ‘then okay let’s go and learn from them’ (the experts).

Q: Why was the delegation so big? Why not bring only 10 or so people?

A:
I don’t remember how many came along. When we went, developers came along too. They too want to learn about the river development and canal city development. On my part, I brought along two District Officers, Town Planner, YDP, the state secretary and the PNSB board of directors. The developers, of course, paid their own way.

Q: And why not just bring the experts down to Selangor to train the officers?

A:
The thing is the technical group here do not understand the concept. They want to have a look at such projects themselves so that is why we brought them there. Besides, bringing consultants and experts down would be more expensive. The canal project is about RM1bil and foreign consultants and experts would cost about 18% of that. And that does not even include the cost of flying them down. Another thing too is that we also need to expose our officers because they are the ones who are going to approve the project. These departments need to see the project otherwise they won’t approve.

Q: Are the trips to reward the officers?

A:
No. There must be a purpose to the trips. We bring officers in charge of the Kuala Langat and the Klang River area. And now because of that, they are better and better because they have more knowledge. Otherwise the officers do not know how to do it. If you talk about the barrage, the officers cannot visualise what it is like. They need to go there and learn. That is the problem with our officers these days. If we don’t give them the exposure, they don’t know. You should have a look at the canal city plan. The concept is the first in Malaysia on how to combine water, humans and development. We had the concept already in 2006 and now the trips are how do to translate that to reality. That’s why we brought YDPs, District Officers, the town planner, the state secretary and the PNSB board of directors. We can have sand, the canal and development.

Q: So the officers are sufficiently knowledgable now?

A:
We have had discussions with MTES (Majlis Tindakan Ekonomi Selangor). In fact, because of their exposure, many regulations in development have been changed. Instead of having the river running along behind the house near the kitchen area, the front of the house is built to face the river. We managed to change so many concepts. It’s good exposure.

Q: Why did you not ask the officers who went on the trip to go to Selcat to give their side of the story?

A:
 Selcat did not call them. That’s why I think it’s all political motivated. They could have called the state secretary or the others who went on the trip. But the hearing was very structured. The questions were very structured. They didn’t want to find out who is right or wrong. All they wanted was a one-sided story. The purpose is just to tarnish my name. That’s all.

Q: How come PNSB paid RM110,000 for your presidential suite in Honolulu?

A:
 I am not sure. It was all organised by them. And I didn’t ask. I didn’t even get to enjoy the suite or the facilities. I just used it for sleeping. I returned from the programme at midnight and by 8am I am up.

Q: People are shocked by the RM1.7mil spent for the Disney trips?

A:
That was decided by the management. I am actually a very simple man. I do not ask for these kind of things. Maybe they said as a chairman, that is my entitlement and they did that.

Q: You say you are a simple man but people would disagree because you fly first class and stay at expensive presidential suites?

A:
You must remember when I was the (PNSB) chairman. I have my entitlement. If I were to reduce my entitlement to what an officer gets then what is the officer going to reduce to? I am the chairman. There is the deputy chairman, board of directors, government officers going along. If I fly business class (not first class), then what happens to my state secretary? He will complain. If I am travelling alone it is easier. But I am travelling with a group of people and if I downgrade myself – it’s a problem for the others. But I never ask (for the pricey presidential suites or first class flights). Whatever they provide, I go along with. I just tell them to give me a full itinerary on these trips. I want a full programme with investors and companies.

Q: But isn’t the RM1.7mil spent on the Disney trips wasteful?

A:
No. The trip has so many purpose. Look at the effect, the officers got good exposure. And we get to bring investments to the state. Usually when I go on these trips, my programme is packed from morning to midnight to visit companies, factories, business associates, governors. That’s how we have increased the state’s investments from RM4bil a year to more than RM6 to RM7 bil a year. The RM1.7mil spent used proper channels and we got RM50bil investment (over the last eight years). If we spend RM5 mil for trips but it brings in RM50bil worth of investment, what’s wrong with that? Just look at Selangor now. The RM11.8bil last year was the result of my investment not Pakatan’s. They just try to take credit for it. But now investments have dwindled to RM6bil. I worry that it’s going to wind down to RM4bil. And we used to get RM17mil from sand mining but when PKR took over the state, they got only RM3mil. And they promised the people that they could collect RM250mil for sand mining. As far as I am concerned all the trips I made bring a lot of development to Selangor and introduced new concepts. The ideas come from these trips. I stopped over in Dubai for few days because I got the Sepang Gold Coast idea from Dubai’s The Palm development. I don’t know why the state cancelled the River Canal City project. They should proceed because it can spur the economy.

Q: During the technical trip you went to Kennedy Space Center and visited Disneyworld?

A:
Selcat should get every information and see the real itinerary of our visit. I am not crazy to use government money for leisure trips. Sometimes on a technical trip, we have meetings after meetings for six hours or the whole day and if there is a break in between, we can fit in some leisure time too. Why not? I am a workaholic and when officers accompany on these trips they get angry because it is one meeting at 8am, followed by another at 10am, another business lunch, followed by more meetings and at night official dinners. Every one of my trips so far is like that. You can ask my state secretary or officers to confirm this.

Q: Why did your family and maid go along on these ‘technical’ trips?

A:
 When I move around, I do bring my family but all that is paid by me.

Q: But PNSB said they paid the flight for your children and maid for the trips?

A:
As far as I am concerned I paid for my maid and children. I don’t know why she (Datin Khairiyah) would say they paid. Maybe she is against me. And why would the management pay? I paid for the flights. So why did the PNSB management pay again? Look, I am the chairman. I am not the management so I wouldn’t know if they paid for it again or not. But the management should take responsibility for that. They shouldn’t pay my personal expenses or flight tickets for my maid and children. If they pay for my family and don’t inform me, how am I supposed to know they did that (because I am not part of that decision making process).

Q: So you are denying that state funds were used for the maid?

A:
I checked and the answer is ‘no’.

Q: What was the purpose of RM201,000 Jogjakarta trip?

A:
 The trip was to study the batik industry and also river management. There was a garbage problem at Kuala Selangor where there is the fireflies (attraction) and we wanted to see how to take care of that. Their (Jogjakarta) river management is very good. It was JPS (the Irrigation and Drainage Department) that asked us to go for the trip.

Q: On that Jogjakarta trip, Malaysia paid RM10,000 to Indonesian dancers to welcome the Malaysian delegation. Isn’t that odd?

A:
You shouldn’t ask me. I was there as a guest . I don’t know the details. I am the Mentri Besar and I don’t ask all that. I didn’t know RM10,000 was paid for the welcoming ceremony. All that was decided by management. That trip, the itinerary was all decided by the management. I am the chairman so I am in the board. The board meets only about three to four times a year but it is the management (of which I am not a part of) that runs the company. They meet almost monthly. I attend their meeting only three to four times a year.

Q: Your former chief secretary Norzatun Ain Mohd Kassim told the Selcat inquiry that you asked her to write a letter from your office on behalf Balkis to seek an AP bring in RM40,000 worth of imported Indonesian batik which was being held at Port Klang but this was finally rejected by MITI because it had to protect the local batik industry. But doesn’t this shows a misuse of your office?

A:
I can assure you there was no letter from me to Miti. In any case the AP was not approved, so it is a non issue.

Q: PNSB’s Datin Khairiyah said PNSB paid RM14,900 for business class flight tickets to Melbourne for your wife to visit your son who is studying there?

A:
No. I have checked that up already. I am very sure that my wife’s ticket was paid by me for that trip.

Q: Then why would she say PNSB paid? And why did Datin Khairiyah accompany your wife?

A:
 I don’t why. She didn’t tell me. You should ask Datin (Khairiyah) why she went along. She can’t say there was an instruction from my wife because who is my wife to give such instructions.

Q: The Kumpulan Darul Ehsan Bhd (KDEB) said it spent RM550,000 sponsoring four Balkis dinners at Sunway Lagoon on July 24, Aug 2, 3, 4, 2007 while PNSB too donated another RM300,000 for them?

A:
 It was for fund raising and we got RM6mil for charity.

Q: Logically speaking why have four charity dinners held almost consecutively which cost a lot of money instead of just one?

A:
They had too many people coming for it so they had to break it up in smaller groups. If they do it at such a grand scale, it would cost even more so it was better to split it up and have small programmes with different guests.

Q: There was a Balkis event where KDEB paid RM25,000 for chocolates which were to be given as souvenirs while buying imported chocolates would have cost less?

A:
You can’t ask me all these details. I wouldn’t know. All this was decided by the management. For example, Tan Sri Khalid (Ibrahim) he wouldn’t know how much the chocolates cost. He wouldn’t have time for that.

Q: KDEB also paid RM17,000 for tickets for Balkis to go to China to buy artificial flowers and caps there when the company has a branch in Kepong. Why waste money when the ordering could have been done in Kepong?

A:
I really don’t know. But it must have been approved by the KDEB management. It might be cheaper to fly there and order it from there. You know how cheap things are in China. What costs 10 sen there costs RM10 here. I know my wife very well. She is very careful about accounting. She’s far-sighted and always thinking about how to save money. Perhaps that’s why she bought so many flowers and caps for the welfare programmes one shot – to save money And she gets really frustrated when the public thinks otherwise.

Q: PNSB said they had to give Balkis about RM1mil each year?

A:
Yes, that was a decision by PNSB. The 1mil is for charity. Balkis uses the money to help the needy. During Chinese New Year, they give RM100 to 1,000 poor Chinese, for Hari Raya they give money out to poor Malays and during Deepavali, it goes to poor Indians. And we don’t ask the people to sign invoices to show that they got the money. Balkis does many welfare programmes. They buy wheelchairs, and prosthetic limbs for the disabled and fund dialysis treatment for the needy.

Q: KDEB, PNSB and PKNS all said that they became like a ‘tukang bayar’ because whenever there was a request from Balkis they felt obliged to pay.

A:
They should have brought it to the board if they were unhappy. Balkis is a welfare organisation which does work for charity. These companies have put aside a certain amount for charity (under their Corporate Social Responsibility programme). And they can channel the money to any clubs or charity. They can sponsor sports, Balkis or give it to old folks homes. In fact, KDEB sponsors football programmes more than it does Balkis events. The companies decide where to give the money to. As far as I am concerned the money is not misused. And the money Balkis gets does go to the target group (welfare and they needy). That’s what is important.

Q: But this puts bodies like PNSB. KDEB, PKNS in a dilemma because you were after all their Mentri Besar (from 2000 until the March 8 general elections) so how can they say ‘no’ to Balkis. They had to accord Balkis, which is headed by your wife, special treatment?

A:
Even if Balkis made a request, the management has the right to turn it down. They can’t be ‘segan’ (embarrassed). Where does the money go? If the money goes to charity, then it’s okay. What’s wrong if it goes to the poor, old and the needy. But if it goes to certain people’s pocket that’s a different matter. What the company donates goes to charity and not to individual’s pocket. Balkis does not benefit from it. Sometimes, the money is not enough and Balkis has to top it up with their own money.

Q: But did you make calls and give verbal instructions to these bodies to fund Balkis activities?

A:
No I never made any instructions. It was all done through the board of directors and went through the proper procedures. I am very sure about that. For me, in the eight years, I never called a single officer up and asked them to do things without going it through meetings first. I discuss everything in the board and jot things down. I don’t like not to be responsible for what was decided so I would jot down every instruction. And I give instructions in the meeting not outside.

Q: But the bosses at PNSB and KDEB said they received many requests from you, verbal instructions to pay for Balkis?

A:
No. Can they prove it? Which letters have I signed?

Q: They said the requests were verbal?

A:
 No. Never. You can check my phone bill. I never call. They are trying to save their own skin. I never call. Instructions must be written. I never use my office for my own personal gain. I never do that. Maybe some officer down the line just said “the MB said to do it”.

Q: PNSB, KDEB, PKNS are all saying ‘yes you did’ but you are saying ‘no I didn’t’. Who is telling the truth?

A:
 I never call. If you want to be sure you can check my phone bills throughout the years.

Q: So you are saying that they are all ganging up against you?

A:
That’s the problem. They want to protect themselves. That’s why I can’t go to Selcat because Selcat is my enemy. It’s not transparent.

Q: If this is the case, aren’t you angry with them for doing this?

A:
No, why should I be angry. I don’t even have any power anymore (as I lost the Mentri Besar post).

Q: It was also disclosed at the Selcat inquiry that PNSB had to pay the salaries of three workers who worked exclusively for Balkis?

A: They are actually PNSB staff. They were just loaned to Balkis to help out like once a week or something like that. They are not doing it full time.

Q: There was also this Chinese New Year event organised by Balkis that you went to officiate where your wife who is the Balkis president asked PNSB to sponsor a RM3,600 Summerman suit for you as a souvenir for officiating the function?

A:
 That is a token of appreciation. It was decided by the management. My wife would never make such a request. I am very sure of that. My wife doesn’t interfere at all. She doesn’t go to my office. When I officiate a function, I don’t have a clue what I would get as a souvenir. It is up to the management to decide what to give. And my wife is certainly not involved in the management of PNSB (so how can she influence a decision on gifts) Actually I appreciate books as a souvenir. For me that is best. If I attend a function and if they give me some other gift, it would be very rude to reject it. But I appreciate books most and I have my own library now.

Q: When say the Prime Minister and his wife comes for functions in the state, do you give out expensive gifts costing RM40,000 to RM60,000? There were reports that KDEB had paid RM65,000 for songket for dignitiaries at a Balkis function?

A:
We have to give them something special from Selangor. Every state is doing that. That’s normal.

Q: Why did PNSB give you a Patek Philip watch worth RM159,000?

A:
I told them they shouldn’t have done that and I turned it down immediately. It was too expensive a gift. I was quite surprised. I never asked for anything that’s why I returned the watch. I told them you better sell the watch back and get the money back.

Q: What is behind the RM338,000 Balkis organised Sporting event where RM131,000 was spent on tracksuits?

A:
 It was a Bakti programme. States take turns organising it every year. It is attended by the wives of the ministers and the Prime Minister and deputy Prime Minister turn up with their wives. And we gave out a tee-shirt and a tracksuit. When Kedah hosted it, they gave the sports attire, so did Penang. And when it was Selangor’s turn, we too would give. It is after all once in 14 years. And there were four teams so that is why there were track suits in four colours.

Q: There was a report that Balkis received RM100,000 for a SPM programme?

A:
 These kids come from needy background and because of the Balkis programme some of them got all As.

Q: Have you spoken to your wife about the Balkis issue and what has she been saying?

A:
She said everything has been done according to procedure and no money has spent for her own purpose. It was all done for the welfare programme to give the needy.

Q: When is she going to clear her name?

A:
There is no need. If we answer, then someone will say something else and it will go on and on. Let God decide who is right.

Q: Why did you buy 12 units of the Al Marwa Tower in Mecca for RM25mil when PNSB had only given approval for the purchase of 5 units for RM8mil?

A:
 When I was in Mecca, there was this offer from this Mecca group for the apartments. So many people came and were fighting for it because it was in a prime area. It was on a first come first serve basis and we (PNSB) wanted to get five. Then one of the Indonesian companies withdrew and their seven units were offered to us and we took it. But settlement had be done in cash and within 14 days otherwise we would lose the deposit. At that time PNSB did not have enough money so instead of losing the deposit we got another buyer to buy it within 14 days. The apartment is in Mecca so only Muslims can buy it. For that reason too, the apartment units cannot be under the PNSB name because there are non-Muslim directors in PNSB. This is why as chairman I put it under my name. The name should be under whoever is the PNSB chairman and now that’s Tan Sri Khalid Ibrahim. I signed three times to transfer the name to his. In fact, I was the one who requested for the transfer of name for the apartment units. I had called state secretary and said ‘let’s settle this because the apartments do not belong to me and I don’t want it.” That’s the whole story.

Q: Was it a good investment?

A:
Yes, very good. Now I think the five units which cost RM8mil in 2007 are now easily worth RM12mil easily. It’s very exclusive. It’s the only property near the Kaabah and just about 60m away from the Holy Mosque. You can see the Holy Mosque from the apartment. And we fought like hell to get the units.

Q: PR has raised questions on the transaction about whether it contravened the Exchange Control Act and Anti Money Laundering Act?

A:
 How can we transfer such a huge amount of money from here to Mecca without approval from Bank Negara? Come on lah. We are talking about RM25mil. So was I wrong to go after a good investment. The value has more than doubled now. I personally stood in the queue for four hours to get it. One Arab man offered me RM200,000 just to change the name of the booking to him but I refused. That’s why I am really frustrated and that’s why I won’t forgive Pakatan. I don’t get a single sen from it. It was for the state. The intention was for investment.

Q: There are lots of questions over the numerous technical trips you made overseas to US, Paris, Hong Kong, Tokyo which are costly?

A:
As far as I am concerned all the trips have all been very successful. That’s why I bring a lot of officers to give them exposure. The trips are multi-purpose and bring in investment and give us ideas. I did nothing wrong so I have nothing to worry about. As for the personal trips, I made my own.

Q: Do you agree that the issue has smeared your reputation?

A:
 Yes, That’s why I won’t forgive them till I die, until Akhirat (the end of the world). The people will come to know the truth later on. The people are restless and fed up with this kind of gutter politics.

Q: Are you suing the state government?

A:
 I am looking into it.

Q: This issue has tarnished not just your image but also that of Umno?

A:
That’s why I won’t forgive them. Maybe when they got into power, they forget that God is there. When you do something bad to people, one day God will do something bad to you. Wait and see. Time will decide.

Q: How are you going to repair your reputation?

A:
I will go down to the people. I will talk to them about what Pakatan is doing to the country, to the state now. They bohong banyak (lie a lot). They said they were planning RM10bil for the Klang River development programme and I have waited more than 3 months and there is nothing. Don’t bluff the people. That is the whole reason they want to suspend me so that I will not raise the issue.

Q: Is your conscience clear?

A:
Very clear. If they do this to me and expect me to keep quiet, they are talking to the wrong person. I will continue to speak up because I love Selangor very much. I will talk because I know what they are doing. Even if they suspend me from the state assembly, they can’t prevent me from talking to the public. I will keep talking. Because far as I am concerned my job is to advise and tegur (criticise).

Q: Do you think people will believe you?

A: I think so. I still got the number two spot in the Umno Youth Chief elections. As for the public, when I go around I still draw in crowds. For example when I went to campaign in the Bukit Gantang by-election, so many people came to my ceramah. This happens everywhere I go.

Some of the other allegations

1. Buying 12 units of Al-Marwa Tower in Mecca for RM25mil when PNSB only gave approval for the purchase of five units for RM8mil.

2. State companies made to pick up the tab for extravagant gifts to VVIP guests costing up to RM65,000.

3. A Balkis request that PNSB sponsor a RM3,600 Summerman suit to be given to Dr Khir as a souvenir for officiating a Balkis Chinese New Year function.

4. Using the MB’s office on behalf of Balkis to request for approval from MITI for an AP to bring in RM40,000 worth of Indonesian batik.

5. PNSB paid RM338,000 for a Balkis sporting event, including RM131,000 for tracksuits for participants.

6. KDEB paid RM25,000 for chocolates as souvenirs for a Balkis event when imported chocolates would have cost less.

7. Balkis getting RM1mil a year in donation from the state companies.

8. PNSB forking out RM100,000 for a Balkis sponsored SPM programme.

9. Expensive trips overseas including to Paris, Tokyo, Morocco and Hong Kong.

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 19 April 2009, 11:12 pm and is filed under
Corruption
,
Media
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Rampant crime in Taman Bunga Raya, Taman Desa Setapak & around the Wangsa Maju LRT station

Letters

by
Undergraduate of Universiti Tunku Abdul Rahman

I am a Universiti Tunku Abdul Rahman student at the Kuala Lumpur campus in Setapak. I am writing this email to you to highlight to you on the rampant acts of crime happening in areas highly populated by students such as Taman Bunga Raya, which is located beside the Tunku Abdul Rahman College campus and the Universiti Tunku Abdul Rahman campus.

On Friday, 17 April 2009, 2 of my coursemates (1 male & 1 female) became victims of snatched theft and assault. Both of them were on their way to buy their breakfast at Taman Bunga Raya when four men on two motorcycles tried to rob the female student of her handphone but failed.

However, the robbers returned and attacked the female student with a parang. She sufferred injuries on her head, shoulder and finger. Luckily, there was a Good Samaritan that help to admit her at the Tawakal Hospital in Jalan Pahang. She required some 20 stitches as a result of her injuries.

Meanwhile, the robbers successfully snatched the handphone and wallet of the male student.

The crime rate in areas such as Taman Bunga Raya, Taman Desa Setapak and also around the Wangsa Maju LRT station is increasing drasitcally with these criminals targetting residents here who are mainly students college and university not only for their money or valuable belongings, but also assaulting these innocent victims. This is not the only case that happened as every now and then, we heard of snatch thefts happening in these areas.

Surely, the incident when a Tunku Abdul Rahman College student was robbed, assaulted and killed near the Wangsa Maju LRT station some 3 years ago is still fresh in everyone’s mind. Despite the promises by the authorities to curb crime in the area, the situation seems to be not improving at all.

I am concerned  that the safety of the residents in these areas are at stake. I hope YB can highlight this issue to the relevant authorities or bring up the matter in Parliament with the hope that the problem is solved once and for all for the benefit of everyone.

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 19 April 2009, 11:39 pm and is filed under
Crime
,
Letters
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


EC – prove it is not mouthpiece/tool of BN

The  time has come for the Election Commission to demonstrate that it is not the mouthpiece or tool of the Barisan Nasional government but an independent, impartial and professional Election Commission as intended by the Constitution.

Election Commission deputy chairman Datuk Wan Ahmad Wan Omar was quoted in the Star today as saying that the time has come to amend existing laws to prevent abuse by political parties that force elected representatives to quit their parliamentary or state seats.

He said the move by a wakil rakyat to vacate a seat to fulfil a party’s agenda should be discouraged as the cost of holding by-elections had become a burden to the country.
(Star)

It is most disappointing that since the appointment of Tan Sri Abdul Aziz Yusuf as the  new Chairman for the Election Commission at the beginning of the year, the Election Commission has made decisions and taken actions which have further undermined public confidence in its  independence, impartiality and professionalism – which is quite an “achievement” considering the canyon the Election Commission had plunged into in terms of public confidence under the former Chairman.

The recent refrain by the Election Commission Chairman and Deputy Chairman, echoing the Prime Minister and the Barisan Nasional leaders, that the cost of by-elections had become a burden to the country must be challenged.

In the past few days, the mainstream media have reported that the five by-elections held since the March 8 general elections had  cost Malaysian taxpayers RM33.4 million, comprising:

Election Commission

Police

Permatang Pauh

	RM409,000

			RM 2.5 million

Kuala Terengganu

	RM580,000

			RM11.5 million

Bukit Gantang

	RM600,000

			RM  7    million

Bukit Selambau

	RM400,000

			RM  5     million

Batang Ai

		RM400,000

			RM  5     million

   Total

		RM2.4 million

	RM31 million = RM33.4 million

Actually, the total expenses incurred in the five by-elections are many times the total of RM33.1 million- easily by six or seven-fold – if the election expenditures of the competing political parties are taken into consideration.

The expenses incurred by the Pakatan Rakyat in the five by-elections would be negligible when compared to the  total  of RM33.4 million incurred together by the Election Commission and the Police.

Pakatan Rakyat candidates do not exceed the maximum expenditures permitted candidates under election laws – which is RM200,000 for a parliamentary candidate and  RM100,000 for a state assembly candidate. This  would mean a ceiling of RM800,000 for three parliamentary and two state assembly by-elections held since the general election last year.

How much did Barisan Nasional spend for the five by-elections, using not only party funds but also public funds, resources and machinery?

It has been estimated that the Barisan Nasional spent RM70 million in Batang Ai by-election alone. I will not be surprised if an independent and professional audit comes to a total figure of Barisan Nasional expenditures for the five by-elections in the region of some RM200 million, i.e. six or seven-fold of the RM33.4 million incurred jointly by the Election Commission and Police.

The problem is not the holding of by-elections but the corruption of the entire electoral  process where elections and by-elections have become obscenely expensive. For Barisan Nasional, a by-election is a just splurge of money, not just in millions of ringgit but tens of millions of ringgit, often with  the misuse and abuse of public funds!

If the election law is strictly enforced, with each candidate limited to RM200,000 for Parliament and RM100,000 for state assembly contest, and political parties banned from incurring any expenditures, and the expenditures for the Election Commission and the Police as incurred in the five by-elections slashed by 50% and 80% respectively, the question of by-elections being “a waste of time, energy and money” would not arise.

The ballooning of election expenditures to prohibitive levels for Barisan Nasional candidates is one indicator of how corruption in Malaysia has completely  got out of hand in the past decade!

It is open secret that the four recent by-elections held this year under the new Election Commission Chairman  were no different from previous elections and by-elections, that the election law limiting expenditures to RM200,000 per parliamentary and RM100,000 per state assembly seats were flouted by Barisan Nasional candidates, to the extent that actual Barisan Nasional expenditures run into tens of millions of ringgit each.

Had the Election Commission ever prosecuted and disqualified any Barisan Nasional candidate, whether for parliamentary and state assembly elections, for election offences for violating the election law limiting expenditures by 10,  50 or even  100 times since the new law was passed five years ago?

The cost of by-elections would not have become so burdensome if the Election Commission and Police are thrifty and economical in their expenditures.

Why was the Police spending RM11.5 million in the Kuala Terengganu by-election? In fact, Parliament was told on Feb. 18  that the police had spent  RM4 million  more, i.e. RM15.53  million, in the Kuala Terenggtanu by-election.

The Star of Feb. 19,  2009, under the headline
“RM15 million for safe polls”
 reported:

POLICE operations for the Kuala Terengganu by-election on Jan 17 cost the Government some RM15.53mil, Deputy Home Minister Datuk Chor Chee Heung said.

Chor told Amran Ab Ghani (PKR – Tanah Merah) that among others, the expenditure covered costs for transport, communications and utilities, rental of canopies, supply of food and drinks, accommodation and living allowances.

“For the Kuala Terengganu by-election, the police mobilised 3,376 personnel from all divisions, including the Special Branch, Narcotics and the Criminal Investigation Department.

“Because of the extra security measures maintained by the police at the time, no untoward incident was reported,” he said.

The police also mobilised two helicopters, three armoured personnel carriers, 68 patrol cars, 296 motorcycles and 3,376 side arm rifles for the by-election.

This is not the only case of under-reporting of police expenditures in by-elections. The mainstream media in the past few days reported that  police expenditures in the Permatang Puah by-election were RM2.5 million.

This is under-reported by four or five-fold if Chor had not misled Parliament, as  evident from the same Star report on his  same answer to  Parliament on Feb. 18:

To a question from Dr Puad Zarkashi (BN – Batu Pahat), Chor said although the sum spent in Kuala Terengganu was slightly higher than for the by-election in Permatang Pauh, it was worth it because there was no tension felt at all during the campaigning period.

Can the new Home Minister Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Hussein explain the two great discrepancies in police expenditures in the two by-elections – RM4 million in Kuala Terengganu by-election and some RM10 million in Permatang Pauh by-election?

The time has come for the Election Commission to stop  being a mouthpiece or tool of Barisan Nasional.

The Election Commission must demonstrate its independence, impartiality and professionalism and convene an all-party roundtable  conference to introduce far-reaching reforms to election laws and the electoral system so that Malaysians can be proud of a free, fair and clean election system and to stop playing to the tune of the Barisan Nasional government to unilaterally and arbitrarily amend laws at its whim and fancy.

                This entry was posted on Monday, 20 April 2009, 1:59 pm and is filed under
Elections
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Saya Pun Melayu!  Me Too!

by
M. Bakri Musa

Book Review:

Saya Pun Melayu (I Am Also A Malay)

Foreword by Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah.

ZI Publications Sdn Bhd, Petaling Jaya, 2009.  312 pages.  RM 35.00

The Annual UMNO General Assembly is also the season for the release of new books on local politics written in Malay.  It must be a profitable venue and time, for the number of new titles keeps growing each year.

            Foreigners may mistake this to reflect a healthy intellectual discourse, or at least a vigorous political debate.  The reality however, is far different.  With such titillating titles as “50 Dalil Mengapa XYZ Tidak Layak …”  (Fifty Reason s Why XYZ Is Unfit For … ) and the promiscuous use of “half-past six English,” this “genre” poisons the political atmosphere, quite apart from degrading our national language.

            As for content, these books are nothing more than warong kopi (coffee shop) gossips transcribed.  Observers and political scientists hoping to gain an insight on Malaysian politics would do well to avoid these books.  And they have.  These books will never be cited in reputable publications or quoted by respected commentators.

            Enter Zaid Ibrahim’s Saya Pun Melayu (I Am Also A Malay).  It too was released to coincide with the recent UMNO General Assembly.  There the similarity ends.  This gem of a diamond sparkles with insights and wisdom.  Like a diamond, this book too has innumerable multifaceted sharp edges that cut through rock-headed politicians.  I would be insulting Zaid if I were to compare his thoughtful and well written book to the thrash that littered the hallways of Dewan Merdeka, where the recent Assembly took place.

Greater Impact Than The Malay Dilemma

A more appropriate comparison would be Mahathir’s The Malay Dilemma, written some 40 years ago and also at a time when UMNO and Malays were going through a critical crisis.  This book will have an even greater impact than The Malay Dilemma.

            Like Mahathir’s, the first run of this book quickly sold out, but unlike Mahathir’s, this book has not been banned.  This is not due to any greater enlightenment on the part of the authorities today, rather a tribute to Zaid’s skillful and subtle approach.  Whereas Mahathir is frontal and polemical, meant more to shock if not insult readers, Zaid, ever the accomplished corporate lawyer, takes a softer and polite approach.  In contrast to Mahathir’s anger and indignant rhetoric, Zaid is more sorrowful and disappointment over UMNO’s current malaise.  Zaid persuades us with his rational arguments; Mahathir barrages us with his accusations.  Mahathir caters to our baser emotions and sense of victimization; Zaid to our intellect and pristine values of our culture.

            Our culture goes for Zaid’s halus ways, of subtleties and obliqueness.  Thus he is devastatingly effective, as for example in upbraiding his former cabinet colleagues who are lawyers.  Rais Yatim, Syed Hamid Albar, Hishammuddin Hussein, and Azalina Othman, among others, are chastised for failing to live up to their professional ethics and obligations as shown by their disrespect for the due process of law and basic human rights.  In Malay, Zaid’s polite criticisms are very damning.  It would be difficult to maintain this tone with this style had the book been written in English.  The translator should ponder this point.

            The book is in three parts.  The first is the author’s reflection on and prescription for our nation’s current predicaments.  Zaid tackles such “hot” issues as Ketuanan Melayu (Malay hegemony), the rule of law, and the role of the monarchy in a democracy.  It also includes his very brief tenure as Abdullah Badawi’s Law Minister.

            The second is a brief memoir of sorts where he traced his humble origin in a village deep in Ulu Kelantan to become a highly successful corporate attorney who created the nation’s largest law firm.  It also includes his tenure in UMNO politics and his current philanthropic works, where he has been recognized by Forbes magazines as Asia’s Inaugural Heroes of Philanthropy.  The last part contains short profiles of Malaysians he admires (which includes former Chief Justice Salleh Abbas), his hopes on the future of Malays, and the current state of Malay, specifically UMNO, politics.

UMNO No Longer Represents Malays

One could be readily excused in assuming that those rent-seeking, keris-brandishing, and race-taunting types that infest UMNO represent the best if not the essence of the Malay race.  Or that the angry menacing Mat Rempits, the jungle version of Hell’s Angels so eagerly being embraced by UMNO Youth, are the future of Malays.

            Zaid’s ideas and approaches are the antithesis of UMNO’s.  In deliberately choosing the simple title, Zaid is emphasizing that his is also a legitimate if not the prevailing viewpoint.  To me, Zaid represents more of the essence of Malayness while those corrupt pseudo modernized UMNO types just happen to be Malays.  They are the ones who soil our culture and give it a bad odor.

            Zaid writes teasingly that he has already set a record of sorts by being the shortest serving cabinet minister!  Here is another observation also worthy of the record books.  He is the only minister whose reputation is enhanced on leaving office!  Not to belittle Zaid’s own fine personal qualities and considerable achievements, that says a lot on the caliber of people leading Malaysia today!

            Zaid takes to task UMNO leaders for presuming to speak on behalf of all Malays.  It is clear now that they do not.  In the chapter “Masa Depan Melayu” (The Future of Malays) in Part III, Zaid suggests that Malays must be outward looking, willing to learn from others, and not be obsessed with empty slogans like Ketuanan Melayu.  The road to Ketuanan Melayu, he writes, is not by shouting your lungs out at every gathering, rather through diligence, hard work, and most of all, superior education.

            Zaid relates his experience as a university student leader on a three-month trip to America visiting the top campuses (“Memburu Cita Cita, (Pursuing You Dreams) Chapter 8 Part II).  This was in the 1970s, the height of the anti-Vietnam protests.  He was struck that even though America was at war its government was still tolerant of dissent.

            Decades later as Abdullah’s Law Minister, he was appalled when the government he was a part of detained dissenters like Raja Petra and Teresa Kok under the ISA.  Not surprisingly, Zaid’s departure from the cabinet soon followed.

            I have met many Malaysians who have lived for many years in America and yet miss this important aspect of American exceptionalism.  Their America is the shopping malls, porno shops, and blighted downtowns.

            Zaid’s ideas and observations resonate with me, as well as many Malaysians.  Hear is the voice of a successful Malay professional and a member of the political elite.  That he now quits UMNO is a loss for it but a gain for Malaysia.  Another blessing is that he is now free to pursue his philanthropic works as well as his involvement in NGOs.  And being an effective critic of the government!

            To me the most valuable part of the book is his brief memoir (Part II).  Zaid clearly subscribes early to the values he writes about.  His divorced father took him away from the village to live with him in Kota Baru where he could attend an English school (Sultan Ismail College).  When he reached secondary level he felt the urge to leave, to see the greater world beyond.

            He chose English College in Johor Baru, at the very opposite end of the peninsula.  The school however accepts new students only if their families were transferred there.  So he wrote to the principal stating that indeed he had a “family” (his distant cousin) transferred to the Army base there.  His father willingly signed the letter for him and supported his decision.

            Unlike in Kota Baru where his classmates were almost exclusively Malays, down there he had an environment more reflective of Malaysia.  From there he went on to Sekolah Tun Razak in Ipoh for his Form Six, where he excelled in debates, and then to UiTM for his law studies.

            Except for about seven months in London at one of the Inns to qualify for the Bar, and the earlier trip to America, Zaid spent his formative years in Malaysia.  It is remarkable that he could have such an open and receptive attitude.  We have many who spent years at the best British universities only to return quickly to their old kampong mentality upon coming home.

Zaid has what the Stanford psychologist Carol Dweck refers to as a “growth mindset,” in contrast to a “fixed mindset.”  Those with the growth mindset believe that their fate is dependent on how adaptive they are in seizing opportunities, and on their ability to grow and gain from their experiences.  They do not believe that their fate is dependent on what nature had bestowed upon them, the benevolence of some remote emperor, or what had been written in the book of life.  The “fixed mindset” view their talent and ability as fixed, and that their lot in life is ultimately tied to their innate nature, especially their intelligence and ‘giftedness.’

Zaid is always learning from others and improving on what they had done.  He writes of his early experience articling in a prestigious law firm where he was offered a position.  That was definitely a career coup, a young lawyer’s dream.  What soured it were the whisperings among his colleagues that he was offered simply because the firm wanted to increase its Malay representation.  After much soul searching, Zaid declined the offer.  That must have shocked those senior partners.  Another “dumb” Malay refusing to seize opportunities, they must have thought!

Zaid too must have questioned himself a thousand times in the years following that tough decision, especially when he had difficulty trying to borrow from MARA (a measly RM25,000.00) to start his own firm.  In the end, he created ZICO, a law firm that easily bested the one where he articled.  Not only is it the largest, it is also one of the few that could handle the complex needs of multinational corporations, and the first to venture abroad.

That is where a growth mindset could lead you.

Going back to MARA, an institution I am a never a fan of, Zaid relates an incident visiting his alma mater soon after being appointed Law Minister.  He wanted to spend a few minutes to give the students a “pep talk.”  On the appointed day, he was surprised by the overflowing crowd.  Then as is typical, the Vice Chancellor, one Ibrahim Abu Shah (a “Dato’ Seri Prof. Dr.” no less!) hogged all the allotted time, pouring embarrassingly effusive praises on Zaid.  He was left with a scant few minutes!

A few months later, after Zaid resigned as a minister and gave his talk at the Asean Law Forum where he challenged the wisdom of Ketuanan Melayu, that same Ibrahim called Zaid a traitor to our race!  As Zaid says, our intellectuals are also now speaking like politicians.  Zaid may not realize this; they do so because they are essentially politicians who happen to wear academic robes.  Scholars and intellectuals they are not.

I wish all Malaysians would read this book.  Our policy makers would benefit more from reading this instead of the World Bank’s dense treatises on rural poverty.  The tribulations of his childhood that Zaid so well described are still very much the reality today for a vast number of young Malays.  Zaid was fortunate in that his father saw the value of a good education.  Many parents are trapped between needing their children to work to lessen the family’s burden and going to school.  If our government were to adopt programs like Mexico’s Progresa where parents are being paid for keeping their children in school, then we would help those parents make the right decision that would benefit them and the nation in the long term.

If UMNO members and leaders were to read this volume they might just be disabused of their delusion of Ketuanan Melayu and ethnocentric mindset.  On the other hand they might not like it when they realize their own stupidities.  For young Malays, Zaid is an aspiration, of what is within their grasp if only they could see through the fraud of Ketuanan Melayu that is being perpetrated upon them.  For non-Malays, this book might just erase some of their negative stereotypes of Malays they harbor.

I thoroughly enjoyed this book not only because of the remarkable personal story  but also for the style of writing.  Malays writers writing in Malay (and often also in English) tend to use non-declarative sentences.  Thus instead of saying, “I like vanilla ice cream!” they would write, “On matters of ice cream taste, I like vanilla!”  The latter takes nearly twice as many words, and the reader also has to shift gears.  Very irritating!

This book is a valuable contribution to the political discourse, and it comes at a time when it is badly needed.  Rest assured that this book will be talked about for years.

                This entry was posted on Monday, 20 April 2009, 9:05 am and is filed under
Bakri Musa
,
UMNO
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Worst of financial crisis is over?

Former U.S. presidential economic adviser: worst of financial crisis is over

Special Report: Boao Forum For Asia 2009

www.xinhuanet.com

    BOAO, Hainan, April 19 (Xinhua) — The worst of the financial crisis is finished, and the world is entering the time when things will get gradually better, John Rutledge, a former U.S. presidential economic advisor, said here Sunday.

    He made the remarks during an exclusive interview with Xinhua at the Boao Forum for Asia (BFA) in China’s southern province of Hainan.

    The recession in China has already “passed the bottom”, while the recession in the United States is “at the bottom”, he said while describing the current global economic condition.

    “The capital markets around the world are recovering very nicely,” he said, adding that the real economy and paycheck have not yet hit the bottom, but “very near bottom”, and will most certainly be improve by the end of the year.

    He is more optimistic about the prospect of China’s economy, as he is likely to raise the forecast of China’s economic growth rate in 2009 between 6 percent and 8 percent.

    “I think the recent signs suggest the number is too low,” he said, referring to his previous forecast between 5 percent and 6 percent.

    In terms of growth, Rutledge thinks China will come back fast, while the United States will revive more slowly.

    Rutledge also praised China’s massive stimulus package.

    “China has almost entirely aimed at construction and infrastructure. As Wen said, infrastructure will make more productivity later for the economic growth,” he said.

    Rutledge pointed out that China’s stimulus package is of great social value, as it is aimed directly at construction in an effort to raise the income of migrant workers.

    “They (migrant workers) transfer money they make from rich cities to families in small villages. It’s very important to keep the flow of money to help the less fortunate villages to grow,” he said.

    China does not need another stimulus package, as the current one is well-designed, fast, large, and it is aimed at people who “need help most”, he said.

    “We can declare victory, I would say,” said Rutledge, noting that the crisis would make integration between Asian countries closer and boost cooperation between governments.

    “This is where the stability of the Asian growth machine will be determined,” he said.

                This entry was posted on Monday, 20 April 2009, 4:29 pm and is filed under
Economics
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Rais Yatim – be Minister for Broadband instead of Minister for Propaganda and Blogs

Datuk Seri Dr. Rais Yatim was named Minister for Information, Communications, Arts and Culture in the Cabinet of  Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak 12 days ago.

Since then, “Arts” have been dropped from the longish name of his Ministry although the portfolio remains with him.

However, his pronouncements since becoming Minister for Information, Communications and Culture have raised eyebrows and questions whether he is turning back the clock of the information age, as illustrated by the following headlines of one newspaper in  the past few days:
“Rais warns of legal action against errant private groups and bloggers”
 (15 April 2009),
“Govt wants to ensure Internet not abused”
(16 April 2009),
“Rais: Do not abuse the Internet”
(17 April 2009).

Rais has been in the Cabinet of five  Prime Ministers, Tun Razak, Tun Hussein, Tun Mahathir, Tun Abdullah and now Najib.

He will end his Cabinet career in less than glorious terms if he regards his present stint as a Minister for  Propaganda and Blogs instead of being a Minister for Broadband.

At yesterday’s launch of Pikom’s (Malaysian IT Industry Association) National ICT Month, the Minister of Science, Technology and Innovation, Datuk Dr. Maximus Ongkili said
Malaysia is lagging in its efforts to achieve a 50% broadband penetration
 by the end of 2010.

He said:

“Things are rather slow. The concern of the broadband industry is that we need to move at a faster rate. The target is to achieve a 50% broadband penetration by next year.

“Currently, we are still at 22%, 26% at the most. It is outside my portfolio. I am looking into the strategy, policy and content but not the infrastructure for the industry.”

Whose baby is  it?  Of course, Rais who is now the Minister for Communications!

This concern should be expressed by Rais. Unfortunately, he seems to be totally unconcerned and indifferent about the abysmal rollout of broadband and only interested in the  rollback of information control like in the years of Mahathir premiership!

Rais must be reminded that we are now in the internet age and he should not try to resurrect the old media controls, which will be completely at cross purpose with the “vibrant, free and informed media” which Najib had committed his administration to as the “new way forward” three days after the latter was sworn in as Prime Minister.

It is most shocking that in his 12 days as Communications Minister, Rais has not a  single word for “broadband” which should be his most important and challenging portfolio, especially at a time when there is so much broadband development internationally.

Earlier this month, the Australian government announced a A$43 billion  new national broadband plan to  provide broadband speeds of 100 Mbps to about 90 per cent of Australian homes, schools, and businesses by 2018. The other 10 per cent will get broadband access via wireless technology.

In the United States, President Barack Obama has provided a US$7.2 billion “broadband”  stimulus  and begun the process of developing a holistic plan for improving broadband access nationwide.

In the United Kingdom, the government is committed to a Universal Service Obligation to provide broadband to every household with a minimum speed of 2Mbps, although one recent opinion survey revealed that  55% of the population believe 2Mbps will be too slow for a national minimum broadband speed.

What is Malaysia’s national average broadband speed?	Nobody is talking about 2Mbps – lucky if 512 or 256kbps without disruptions!

We just cannot compare with the national minimum or average broadband speeds of broadband power houses. Japan and South Korea, for instance, have download speeds of 63Mbps and 49Mbps respectively.

In 1996,  when Malaysia announced  the Multimedia Super Corridor concept, we were  at par with other countries in broadband penetration. Now Malaysia has been left far behind by broadband powerhouses with household broadband penetration, like South Korea (93%), Hong Kong (83.8%), Taiwan (76.8%) and Singapore (100%). Malaysia has only 21%.

These are issues Rais should give top priority, to turn Malaysia into a broadband power, both in broadband penetration rate as well as in broadband speed, if Malaysia is to enhance its competitiveness to take its rightful place in the global arena.

Malaysia will be crippled if we do not have  a real  Minister for Broadband.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 21 April 2009, 1:00 pm and is filed under
IT
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Tsu Koon/Subra – Have you heard of “Performance Now”?

Have  all Cabinet Ministers assimilated, internalized and understood  the new Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak’s overarching philosophy encapsulated in the slogan “1Malaysia. People First. Performance Now”?

There are at least three Cabinet Ministers who clearly have not.

This is why there could be such a
New Straits Times report
(never mind the bad English) below:

‘Conversion case will take a while to solve’

KUALA LUMPUR: It will be quiet a while before a solution is found into the case of the three children who were converted to Islam by their father without their mother’s knowledge.

Human Resources Minister Datuk Dr S. Subramaniam said yesterday that strategies had been identified to find a solution to the problem.

“We have identified the issues and discussed them but it will take a while before a solution can be found as it involves several agencies,” he said after a meeting with Ministers in the Prime Minister’s Department Tan Sri Dr Koh Tsu Koon (Unity) and Maj-Gen (R) Datuk Jamil Khir Baharom (Islamic Affairs).

The trio are members of a committee tasked with finding a solution to the problem.

The three-member committee was set up following a mother’s report that her children, aged 1 to 12, were converted to Islam without her knowledge by their father.

The mother, M. Indira Ghandi, 35, had turned to the Hindu Sangam branch in Ipoh after her husband, K. Patmanathan, 40, now Muhammad Ridzuan Abdullah, converted the children without their presence and without informing her.

He allegedly used the children’s birth certificates to get them converted. The children are said to be in the custody of their father.

Dr Subramaniam said the committee was doing its best to find a quick solution.

There are at least three Cabinet Ministers who clearly have not.

Tsu Koon, Subramaniam, Jamil – have you  heard of “Performance Now”?

This is not the first time such heart-wrenching cases occurred where irresponsible people used religion to evade their family responsibilities and commitments.

There had been a long list of unresolved controversies since  2005, from Moorthy to Subashini, Rayappan and now Indira Ghandi.

The rights and wrongs are very simple and straightforward. Why is the Barisan Nasional government taking five long years and still unable to resolve the injustices caused by irresponsible conversion of non-Muslims who are married through civil laws to evade obligations contracted in civil law marriages?

Clearly, the three Ministers of the new Najib Cabinet (including Super-Minister responsible for KPIs for Ministers) do not understand “Performance Now”.

But do  the rest of the 29-strong Cabinet and Najib himself understand the meaning of “Performance Now”?

The Cabinet meeting tomorrow will be the test whether it is not just Tsu Koon, Subramaniam and Jamil who do not understand “Performance Now”. The rest of the Cabinet including the Prime Minister will be  all in the same boat – if the Cabinet is incapable of resolving the Indira Ghandi issue, returning the year-old baby daughter Prasana Diksa to the mother and  restoring peace of mind to Indira and her two other children, Tevi Darsiny 12 and Karan Dinesh 11.

As DAP Perak State Assemblyman A. Sivanesan, Indira’s lawyer, said at our media conference with Indira and the children in Petaling Jaya earlier today,  the host of heart-breaking cases can be simply resolved by making it mandatory requirement for all those attempting to convert to produce evidence that the person has fulfilled his civil marriage commitments  when registering with the Islamic Department.

Over to you tomorrow, Najib Cabinet.  Performance Now!

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 21 April 2009, 6:29 pm and is filed under
Islam
,
Najib Razak
,
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.


Why there should be by-elections for Jelapang, Behrang and Changkat Jering (Perak) and  Kulai (Parliament)

When it was
reported
in the press this morning that Kedah Gerakan Youth had proposed amendments to the current elections laws, imposing monetary penalty of RM50,000 for state assemblymen and RM100,000 for MPs who resigned except in cases of death, illness or other conditions causing them unfit to perform their duties, I dismissed it as another example of scatterbrained ideas from those competing  as to who could come out with more stupid suggestions.

However
Bernama
 reported midday that the Deputy Minister for International Trade and Industry, Datuk Mukhriz Mahathir is also making the same proposal, saying that the Election Commission should fine state assemblymen or Member of Parliament who resign without just cause or valid reason.

Mukriz said the resignation of assemblymen and MPs has become a trend among the opposition, “apparently to continuously hog the limelight”.

Apparently,  Mukriz  and Kedah Gerakan Youth belong to a substantial group in the Barisan Nasional quite lacking in grey matters as to have such silly ideas – imagine Opposition MPs or Assemblymen resigning just to “hog the limelight” when his father, Dr. Mahathir Mohamad had amended the Constitution in 1990 to bar anyone who resigns as MP or State Assembly member from the right to stand for re-election for five years!

In Perak, there are three state  assembly members who have not dared to return to their constituencies for close to three months because they had betrayed the trust of the electorate when they defected from their respective parties to effect the unethical, undemocratic, illegal and unconstitutional power grab in Perak, creating an ongoing  political and constitutional scandal of two Perak Mentris Besar, two State Assembly secretaries and the Ipoh Democracy Tree.

When these three Perak Assembly members, Jelapang assemblywoman Hee Yit Foong, Behrang assemblyman Jamaluddin Mohd Radzi and Changkat Jering assemblyman Mohd Osman Mohd Jailu dare not walk their constituencies let alone serve  their constituents, aren’t these sufficient grounds to require them to resign to return the mandate to the voters instead of just “hogging” their seats?

I was in Kulai on Saturday night to attend a thousand-people DAP Branch dinner, and was told that  the Barisan Nasional MP for Kulai, Datuk Seri Ong Ka Ting had clearly no “heart” and interest to continue as the MP for the area, which was why he is not seen in the constituency or heard in Parliament after giving up his position as MCA President following the MCA debacle in the “political tsunami” in last year’s general election.

In such circumstances, isn’t it best for the Kulai voters and the country that Ong Ka Ting resign and that a by-election held to elect the new MP for Kulai?

There can be no good reason why the three Perak assembly “frogs” or Ka Ting should be prevented by law from resigning as this would be tantamount to denying and depriving the people in these four constituencies proper representation in Parliament or State Assembly.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 21 April 2009, 5:20 pm and is filed under
Elections
,
MCA
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


EC – what moral right has it to propose law changes to deal with “unnecessary by-elections”?

The Election Commission and Barisan Nasional leaders are talking about “unnecessary by-elections” and even to amend laws to prevent them because the Barisan Nasional is on a losing streak after the March 8 general election “political tsunami” last year.

If the Barisan Nasional had won all the five by-elections held since the general elections last year, and is on a winning streak, neither the Election Commission nor the Barisan Nasional leaders hogging the media now about “unnecessary by-elections” would have uttered a single word!

I find it shocking that the Election Commission Chairman Tan Sri Abdul Aziz Mohd has told Sin Chew Daily that the Election Commission is very serious about silly proposals to amend current elections laws to impose monetary penalty of RM100,000 or higher to prevent such “unnecessary by-elections” except in cases of death, illness or other conditions causing MPs or Assemblymen to be unfit to perform their duties.

Abdul Aziz should focus the energies of the Election Commission on reforms of election laws and the electoral system to eradicate the loopholes and blemishes which have marred the holding of free, fair, clean and democratic elections instead of dancing to the tune of Barisan Nasional leaders who are afraid of contesting in the Penanti by-election.

If the Election Commission wants to pass judgments on whether elected representatives should resign or not for by-elections to be held, let Abdul Aziz state his stand on the two following cases:

Whether he agrees with the conduct of the three Perak State Assembly persons  who have not dared to return to the constituencies for close to three months because they had betrayed the trust of the electorate when they defected from their respective parties to effect the unethical, undemocratic, illegal and unconstitutional power grab in Perak.

Does Abdul Aziz agree that these three Perak Assembly members, Jelapang assemblywoman Hee Yit Foong, Behrang assemblyman Jamaluddin Mohd Radzi and Changkat Jering assemblyman Mohd Osman Mohd Jailu should resign to cause by-elections to be held to return the mandate to the voters when they even dare not walk their constituencies let alone serve their constituents?

The Barisan Nasional MP for Kulai, Datuk Seri Ong Ka Ting has  clearly lost  “heart” and interest to continue as the MP for the area after the MCA’s thrashing in the March general election political tsunami last year.

This is why he is not to seen in the constituency or heard in Parliament after giving up his position as MCA President.  Does the Election Commission agree that if Ka Ting wants to resign as Kulai MP, it is most proper that a by-election be held so as not to continue to deny the Kulai voters effective parliamentary representation?

If Abdul Aziz is not prepared to give his stand on these cases, what moral right has he and the Election Commission to pass judgment  as to whether the Penanti by-election is “unnecessary” or otherwise?

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 22 April 2009, 12:44 pm and is filed under
Constitution
,
Elections
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


MP Gobind’s one-year suspension without pay/privileges – will Federal Court be guilty of selective justice?

DAP MP for Puchong Gobind Singh Deo will initiate legal proceedings tomorrow morning to challenge his one-year suspension as Member of Parliament without parliamentary pay and privileges for his outburst against the then Deputy Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak over the Mongolian Altantuya Shaariibuu C4 murder case.

The one-year suspension of Gobind Singh Deo on March 16, 2009  was a blatant case of abuse of Barisan Nasional majority in Parliament, subjecting  Gobind to double jeopardy with a very harsh second punishment although he had earlier been punished by the Deputy Speaker, Datuk Ronald Kiandee with a one-day suspension.

The right and proper thing would have been  to refer Gobind to the Committee of Privileges instead of using the UMNO/BN brute majority to summarily punish Gobind by suspending him as an MP without pay and privileges.

When Parliament should have invoked its powers to deal summarily with violations of parliamentary privileges like the obstruction and menacing by  Selangor UMNO Youth goons of DAP MP for Bukit Gelugor Karpal Singh from carrying out his parliamentary duties in the parliamentary precincts  on Feb. 26, 2009 when this is very clearly provided for under the  Houses of Parliament (Privileges and Powers) Act 1952, the Barisan Nasional-majority Parliament failed to do so.

Up to now, these Selangor UMNO Youth goons have got away scot-free, as none of them has been penalized, although such  an offence is punishable with a seven-year jail sentence under Section 124 of the Penal Code.

Although the suspension of  Gobind for one year without pay and privileges was a black-lettered day for Parliament,  DAP had not earlier considered challenging the gross injustice in court, as we hold to the doctrine of separation of powers among the Executive,  Legislature and Judiciary, and in particular Article 63(1) of the Malaysian Constitution which stipulates: “The validity of any proceedings in either House of Parliament  or any committee thereof shall not be questioned in any court.”

Imagine our  shock and outrage, and those of  thinking Malaysians, when the Federal Court last Thursday, 16th April 2009 overturned the doctrine of separation of powers and ruled that the Perak Assembly Speaker V Sivakumar does not have the power to suspend usurper Perak Mentri Besar Datuk Zambry Abd Kadir and six state executive council members from attending the assembly.

As former Court of Appeal judge,
N.H.Chan
had written, this was a “perverse judgment of the Federal Court” because it was made in blatant defiance of Article 72 (1) of the Federal Constitution which says,”The validity of any proceedings in the Legislative Assembly of any State shall not be questioned in any court”.

If the Federal Court could disregard Article 72(1) on no court interference with State Assembly proceedings, how court Article 63(1) on no court interference with parliamentary proceedings stand?

The Federal Court has created a precedent which would justify the legal challenge of the unjust and oppressive one-year suspension of Gobind as MP without parliamentary pay and privileges.

Or is the Federal Court going to be  guilty of selective and discriminatory justice?

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 22 April 2009, 5:54 pm and is filed under
DAP
,
Judiciary
,
Parliament
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Tainted  Cabinet – no Minister who dare to raise RCI in Cabinet for Najib to “clear” his name?

In his
blog
 yesterday, former premier Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad alleged a campaign by  the Western Press on the  demonization of the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak.

Mahathir wrote:

1. The Western Press launched a concerted effort to demonise the new Prime Minister. From France to Britain to Australia, the articles are identical and carried the same message. The in-coming PM is said to be corrupt and involved in a murder case. The Australian writer says Malaysia is a “pariah” nation. I cannot believe that this demonisation by so many at the same time is a coincidence.

2. Included in the condemnation of the new PM is the allegation that he would bring back “Mahathirism”. By this the Western press seem to imply that the fourth PM was a dictator who detained for no reason, manipulated the judiciary, controlled the Press etc etc.

3. As the person concerned I will leave it to Malaysians to judge and to define “Mahathirism”. They are the constituents which Najib should care about. The foreign press has an agenda of their own. And their friends in Malaysia are feeding them with the anti-Najib stories as they fear Najib would put a stop to their control of the media.

4. Najib can expect to hear more of this kind of demonisation from the foreign press but it is what Malaysians think that counts. It is with them that Najib has to clear his name.

In typical Mahathirish selectivism, like his notorious case of
selective amnesia
when he appeared before the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Lingam videotapes scandal in January 2008, the former premier deliberately excluded  mention that the spate of articles critical of Najib, before and after he became Prime Minister, with regard to the swirling allegations haunting and hounding Najib, whether on corruption or his involvement in the Mongolian Altantuya Shaariibuu C4 murder case, appeared not only in the Western Press but also in the Asian, Asean and even African press, including India, Thailand, Philippines, Indonesia, Singapore, South Africa.

Of course, mention of these articles critical of Najib in the Asian, Asean and African press would spoil Mahathir’s case of a campaign of “demonization” against Najib by the Western Press, as he would have to amend and expand the allegation to accuse the International Press, including Asian, Asean and African press, of being part of this international campaign of “demonization” against Najib.

Does Mahathir want a full list of the spate of articles critical of Najib which have appeared in the non-Western press in Asia, Asean and Africa?

Be that as it may, Mahathir was very artful in making a public defence of his 22 years of premiership, when he said he would leave to Malaysians to judge whether they agreed that “Mahathirism” implied “that the fourth PM was a dictator who detained for no reason, manipulated the judiciary, controlled the Press etc etc”.

Malaysians do not need the Western press to define “Mahathirism” as there can be no doubt that it really meant “that the fourth PM was a dictator who detained for no reason, manipulated the judiciary, controlled the Press etc etc”.

How could  Mahathir deny the undeniable and defend the indefensible about “Mahathirism”, which is trying to make a come-back in the Najib premiership?

What is most pertinent in Mahathir’s blog, however, is his advice to Najib, viz: that  it is what Malaysians think that counts, and “It is with them that Najib has to clear his name”.

Up to now, Najib has not “cleared” his name with Malaysians with regard to the swirling allegations about his credibility, integrity and legitimacy to be Prime Minister in particular with regard to corruption and the Altantuya C4 murder case.

Mahathir had dismissed the former Abdullah Cabinet as a “half-past six Cabinet”. He has yet to dismiss the Najib Cabinet in similar terms although he had expressed his disappointment that it included several “unsavoury characters who had been accused of being corrupt in the previous government”.

With the Najib Cabinet tainted by “several unsavoury characters”, is  there not a single one  of the 28 Ministers who dare to raise in Cabinet the need for a Royal Commission of Inquiry to clear  Najib’s name with regard to swirling allegations worldwide about corruption and the Altantuya C4 murder case?

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 22 April 2009, 10:52 am and is filed under
Mahathir
,
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.