Judges Can Fly – in the face of Rule 137 of the Federal Court Rules! (Part 2)

By
NH Chan

A thorough and critical consideration of the Federal Court’s inconsistent and dishonest approach to Rule 137 of the Rules of the Federal Court 1995 as it relates to section 51 and 51A of the Criminal Procedure Code and the Federal Court decisions in Adorna Properties v Kobchai Sosothikul [2006] 1 MLJ 417 and Asean Security Paper Mills Sdn Bhd v Mitsui Sumitomo Insurance (Malaysia) Bhd [2008] 5 AMR 377. This is the concluding part.

The two misguided decisions are Adorna Properties v Kobchai Sosothikul [2006] 1 MLJ 417 and Asean Security Paper Mills Sdn Bhd v Mitsui Sumitomo Insurance (Malaysia) Bhd [2008] 5 AMR 377. Practicing lawyers will tell you that not too long ago the Federal Court have been exercising their inherent powers to right a wrong which is to prevent injustice as envisaged in Rule 137.

In the case of Adorna Properties Sdn Bhd v Kobchai Sosothikul [2006] 1 MLJ 417 (PS Gill and Rahmah Hussein FCJJ and Richard Malanjum JCA, as he was then) Mr. Kobchai Sosothikul – who was substituted for his late mother Mrs. Boonsom Boonyanit – applied under rule 137 of the Federal Court Rules 1955 to review the Federal Court’s decision in Adorna Properties v Boonsom Boonyanit. PS Gill FCJ (who delivered the judgment of the court) dismissed the application for review. He said:

Our reasons may be shortly stated. Firstly, although the consequence and effect of the main judgment [What main judgment? There is only Eusoff Chin’s judgment] may be harsh when viewed without the benefit of the relevant statutory provision, we do not think this is a case where “grave injustice had occasioned” due to clear infringement of any principle of law thereby making it permissible for successive application to be made under the said rule. Without going into the merits of this application we find that the substance of the main judgment revolves in the interpretation of s 340 subsection (3) including the proviso thereof of the National Land Code 1965.

And having read the reasoning therein and bearing in mind the words used in the said subsection including the proviso we are not convinced that the interpretation given in the main judgment is patently wrong thereby resulting in grave injustice thus warranting successive applications under rule 137. And even if we are wrong [in] our view it should be left to another occasion to further debate on the issue. For now we are of the opinion that … this is not a proper case for us to proceed to hear the merits or to grant the order as sought for.

This is the silliest judgment I have ever read. But then this is not surprising at all these days considering that we are being surrounded by a bunch of idiots in high places. This is what I said in How to Judge the Judges, p 92:

By this endorsement of the judgment of Chief Justice Eusoff Chin, PS Gill FCJ has revealed his own ignorance of the law, or should I say, his lack of understanding of plain English. The understanding of plain English in this respect is as simple as giving the words of s 340(3) and its proviso their natural and ordinary meaning. You do not have to be a lawyer to be able to do that.

The facts of the Adorna case are well known. Recently the Federal Court held in another case that Adorna is no longer good law. But PS Gill FCJ – the judge who has revealed himself to be an ignoramus in the law – was not convinced that the decision of Eusoff Chin in Adorna was patently wrong “thereby resulting in grave injustice thus warranting successive applications under rule 137.”

The late Mrs. Boonyanit who is the registered owner had lost her two plots of land in Tanjong Bungah, Penang because some unscrupulous person had forged her signature and transferred the two plots to Adorna Properties. Such registered titles now in the name of Adorna are clearly defeasible (it means “capable of being defeated or rendered void”) because the registration of the transfer from the forger to Adorna was obtained by forgery. If it is defeasible it can be set aside. Yet she lost her action to render void the registration of the transfer to Adorna.

Is this not the gravest injustice committed against Mrs. Boonyanit by Eusoff Chin who gave a perverse decision through a false interpretation of section 340 of the National Land Code? Despite the unjust decision of Eusoff Chin in Adorna, PS Gill held that Eusoff Chin was not patently wrong as would result “in grave injustice thus warranting” the application of rule 137.

The other errant Federal Court decision on rule 137 is Asean Security Paper Mills Sdn Bhd v Mitsui Sumitomo Insurance (Malaysia) Bhd [2008] 5 AMR 377 (Abdul Hamid Mohamad CJ, Zaki Tun Azmi PCA (as he then was) and Zulkefli Ahmad Makinuddin FCJ). This is what Abdul Hamid Mohamad CJ said, at p 381:

In an application for a review by this court of its own decision, the court must be satisfied that it is a case that falls within the limited grounds and very exceptional circumstances in which a review may be made. Only if it does, that the court reviews its own earlier judgment.

But that is not what Rule 137 says. Rule 137 is emphatic that the Federal Court has the power to hear or to make an order to prevent injustice or to prevent an abuse of the process of the Court. However, this Federal Court ignored the Rule completely. Instead, it substitutes its own perverse prerequisite for any review of its own decision.

In a Rule 137 application, the aggrieved party is only concerned with whether an injustice was occasioned by the earlier decision of the Federal Court as in Adorna Properties v Boonsom Boonyanit or whether the process of the Court has been abused as disclosed in the Ayer Molek case.

The “limited grounds and very exceptional circumstances” has nothing to do with the application of Rule 137 at all. The conditions were manufactured by the bad judges of the Federal Court themselves in order to conceal the true intent or purpose of Rule 137 which is to avert an injustice or to prevent an abuse of the process of the court.

As usual the judges of the highest court in the land have shown their incompetence by missing the point altogether. The point is not “the limited grounds and very exceptional circumstances in which a review may be made.” The point, in truth and reality, is whether the earlier decision has occasioned an injustice or whether it has abused the process of the court.

In fact, these judges have missed the point when they considered the application of Rule 137 in Asean Security Paper Mills v Mitsui Sumitomo Insurance. It resulted in a grave injustice to the insurance companies who had to pay a huge amount of money to an unscrupulous arsonist who had made a claim on his company’s fire policy. You will find my critique of this decision in How to Judge the Judges, 2nd ed., pp xxxix to xliii.

But what is most appalling is that the Federal Court supports the unjust decision of PS Gill FCJ in Adorna Properties v Kobchai Sosothikul where PS Gill held that the unjust judgment of Eusoff Chin was not a suitable case for review. PS Gill said at p 507 of the report:

If the application of r 137 is made liberally the likely consequence would be chaos to our system of judicial hierarchy. There would then be nothing to prevent any aggrieved litigant from challenging any decision on the ground of “injustice” vide r 137.

Only an unjust, or a stupid, judge would ever say that injustice is not a ground to apply for a review of the decision of the Federal Court under Rule 137. And the judges of the Federal Court in Asean Security Paper Mills v Mitsui Sumitomo Insurance are as revolting for approving PS Gill in Adorna v Kobchai Sosothikul. This is how Chief Justice Hamid Mohamad puts it, p 382:

… where there is clear infringement of statutory law. In this respect, a clear example would be where the court has mistakenly applied a repealed law. But, where it is a matter of interpretation or application of the law, it is in my view not a suitable case for review. The judgment of this court in Adorna Properties Sdn Bhd v Kobchai Sosothikul [2005] 1 AMR 501 does throw some light in this respect. (I have supplied the emphasis)

It seems that bad judges are birds of a feather. They flock together and support each other.

An uphill struggle for Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim in his fight for justice before an unjust judiciary

On Thursday 25 February 2010 the Federal Court unanimously decided not to review its January 29 decision barring Anwar Ibrahim from access to the documents “which would be tendered as part of the evidence for the prosecution” and “a written statement of facts favourable to the defence” which he is entitled to under section 51A(1)(b) and (c) of the Criminal Procedure Code. Such evidence would include CCTV footage, medical reports and witness statements from the prosecution.

Anwar Ibrahim made the application for the evidence to be delivered to him by the prosecution under section 51A (1) (b) and (c) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The Code was amended in 2006 to add this new provision: section 51A. It reads:

51A. (1) The prosecution shall before the commencement of the trial deliver to the accused the following documents:

(a) a copy of the information made under section 107 relating to the commission of the offence to which the accused is charged, if any;

(b) a copy of any document which would be tendered as part of the evidence for the prosecution; and

(c) a written statement of facts favourable to the defence of the accused signed under the hand of the Public Prosecutor or any person conducting the prosecution. (The emphasis is supplied by me)

(2) Notwithstanding paragraph (c), the prosecution may not supply any fact favourable to the accused if its supply would be contrary to public interest.

As rational members of the general public you would say at once that the words in section 51A (1)(b) and (c) are clear and unambiguous. They mean exactly what they say. Without a doubt Anwar Ibrahim is entitled to the documentary evidence and the statement he is asking under section 51A (1).

Yet when Anwar Ibrahim applied for the documentary evidence and written statement of facts to be supplied to him under section 51A(1)(b) and (c) the application was rejected by the Court of Appeal (Hasan bin Lah, Abu Samah bin Nordin and Sulaiman bin Daud JJCA) and by the Federal Court (Arifin Zakaria CJ (M), Raus Sharif and Abdull Hamid Embong FCJJ) on the spurious ground that section 51 of the Criminal Procedure Code has restricted the application of section 51A to within the confines of section 51.

In other words, so say the Federal Court, section 51A has no meaning other than what case law has already determined on section 51. This is how the Federal Court puts it:

47. The Appellant cannot say at this stage that his defence is going to be so and so and that he needs to have access to such and such documents and materials to prepare for the defence. One settled principle attached to the application for discovery under s.51 CPC is that, at this pre-trial stage, a roving and fishing inquiry for evidence is not permissible. A catch all net cannot be cast. The Appellant is not entitled to know by what means the prosecution proposes to prove the facts underlying the charge he faces. This remains the prerogative of the prosecution. Mohd Azmi J, at the intermediate appeal in PP v Raymond Chia [1985] 2 MLJ 63, described this situation neatly in this manner – “The important thing is to keep a proper balance between the right of the accused to know exactly what the charge is against him so as to give him reasonable opportunity to prepare his defence, and the right of the prosecution not to disclose their evidence and the manner in which they are to prove their case before trial in order to sustain our adversary system of criminal justice. To what extent the right of the prosecution not to disclose documents specifically referred to in the charge before trial is qualified by the right of the accused to be given reasonable opportunity to prepare his defence is of crucial importance in the administration of criminal justice.”

48. In our view, the Appellant has thus not met the dual requirements of necessity and desirability laid down in s.51 CPC. We concur with the finding of the Court of Appeal on this issue.

The judgment of the Federal Court makes no sense at all. It is a non sequitur. It is gibberish to us all.

And more importantly, Anwar Ibrahim applied under section 51A of the CPC, not under section 51. Therefore, “the dual requirements of necessity and desirability laid down in s 51 CPC” does not apply to his application.

For one thing, section 51A came into force in 2006. The case law relied on by the prosecution on section 51 were those cases decided by the courts well before section 51A ever existed.

Furthermore, section 51A states, “The prosecution shall before the commencement of the trial deliver to the accused … a copy of any document which would be tendered as part of the evidence for the prosecution” and “a written statement of facts favourable to the defence of the accused.” There is no ambiguity in those words. They mean exactly what they say. Now compare this with the wording of section 51 of the CPC. It reads:

51. Summons to produce document or other things.

(1) Whenever any Court or police officer making a police investigation considers that the production of any property or document is necessary or desirable for the purposes of any investigation, inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code by or before that Court or officer, such Court may issue a summons or such officer a written order to the person in whose possession or power such property or document is believed to be requiring him to attend and produce it or to produce it at the time and place stated in the summons or order.

(2) Any person required under this section merely to produce any property or document shall be deemed to have complied with the requisition if he causes the property or document to be produced instead of attending personally to produce the same.

(3) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to affect the provisions of any law relating for the time being in force or to apply to any postal article, telegram or other document in the custody of the postal or telegraph authorities.

Anyone, unless he is an imbecile, can see immediately that section 51 and section 51A are as different as a chicken from a duck.

Since section 51A stands separate and apart from section 51, Anwar Ibrahim is, therefore, entitled to make his application solely under section 51A for all the documentary evidence before the commencement of his trial that would be tendered as part of the evidence for the prosecution. He is also entitled to a written statement of the facts favourable to his defence. Any denial of his statutory right by the Federal Court is an injustice to him. The decision of the Federal Court is unjust to Anwar Ibrahim because as a person who is the accused in a criminal prosecution he is entitled as of right, under the mandatory provisions of section 51A of the Criminal Procedure Code, to the documentary evidence “which would be tendered as part of the evidence for the prosecution” as well as to the “written statement of facts favourable to the defence of the accused”. Since Anwar Ibrahim has suffered injustice at the hands of both the Court of Appeal and the Federal Court for not applying the mandatory provisions of section 51A of the Criminal Procedure Code as they stand, The decision of the Federal Court in defiance of the clear provisions of section 51A is clearly an unjust decision.

On an application for review under Rule 137 the Federal Court has no option but to set aside the earlier decision of the Federal Court to prevent injustice. But in the instant case, the reviewing Federal Court has defied Rule 137 by not exercising the inherent powers of the Court to set aside the unjust decision of the earlier court and, as a result, has allowed an injustice to be perpetuated.

With judges such as these in the Malaysian judiciary where, to them, the principles of the law are not to be consonant with justice to be manipulated by them to uphold injustice, it is no wonder that the errant judges have forfeited the confidence of the people. The general public does not respect such judges anymore! They have put themselves beyond the pale. Just like pariahs.

Don’t you think they should be despised?

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 11 March 2010, 5:00 am and is filed under
Judiciary
,
NH Chan
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Malaysia in the Era of Globalization #5

By
M Baki Musa

Introduction and Overview

The Outline

This book has two parts. The first, “Perspectives on Development,” begins with the chapter exploring why some societies progress while others regress. The chapter following recaps the lessons of past societies that successfully overcame their stagnant conditions and then went on a trajectory of progress. The examples I choose are early Islam, the European Reformation, and the Meiji Restoration. The chapter after that covers three contemporary model states: two are positive examples—the “Asian tiger” (South Korea) and the “Celtic tiger” (Ireland) – while the third is a negative one, Argentina. I conclude this first part with a chapter on globalization, the prevailing and dominant force shaping the world today.

Globalization is now a reality. While there are many imperfections and inequities with the system, nonetheless for small nations like Malaysia it is best not to dwell on them. Suffice that Malaysia should concentrate on avoiding and minimizing the pitfalls, and on better preparing her citizens to face this new reality and its associated challenges. Once Malaysia is a full and active participant in globalization, then it will be in a better position to improve the system. Until then it would be presumptuous for Malaysians to presume to preach to the larger world. Besides, there are greater minds elsewhere now addressing the many inequities and translocations associated with globalization.

The second part, “Transforming Malaysia,” deals specifically with how Malaysia can best position itself for the next stage of development by taking full advantage of the many opportunities afforded through globalization and free trade. I begin with Chapter VI by taking stock of the nation, its assets and liabilities, paying particular attention to those factors that must of necessity be either assets or by default, they will become liabilities. For example, Malaysia’s plurality can be considered an asset if we leverage that to prepare our citizens to be tolerant of and adapt to the different cultures. That would prepare our citizens for globalization. On the other hand, our multiracial society could easily trip the nation into becoming another Bosnia if we allow our differences to divide us.

The chapter following that deals with how best to enhance our most precious asset – our human capital. The chapter “Culture, Institutions, and Leadership” examines how those elements could be enhanced in preparation for globalization. As Islam is a major influence on Malay culture, I have a separate chapter examining its impact on law, education, and the economy. Because of the centrality of the institution of law, I devote an entire chapter on Freedom, Justice, and The Law. The last but one chapter is my plea for Malaysia to adopt the only economic system that has proven to be successful in alleviating poverty in the greatest number of people: free enterprise. I conclude with my specific prescription on how best to transform Malaysia. This is in the format of an open letter to Prime Minister Mahathir.

Malaysia’s goal at this stage should be a modest one. That is, how best to prepare its citizens to meet the challenges of and to benefit from globalization. This book is my small contribution towards this goal.

Next: Part I: Perspectives on Development

Chapter 2: Why Some Societies Progress, Others Regress

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 11 March 2010, 11:39 am and is filed under
Bakri Musa
,
globalisation
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Najib has forgotten his first promise as PM that “The era where the government knows best is over”

The Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak has forgotten his first promise as Prime Minister in April last year that “The era where the government knows best is over” when he gave an instinctive “No” to the proposal by the Penang Chief Minister and DAP Secretary-General Lim Guan Eng for the restoration of local government elections even without referring to his Cabinet.

This is most irresponsible on the Prime Minister’s part. The important issue of restoration of local government elections deserve more serious response from the Prime Minister, the Cabinet and the government.

In fact, one prominent article in a current magazine which belongs to  the Umno stable of media publications, has the  lead article: “Getting Local Councils to Deliver” and posing the question: “A recent survey showed that local councils are a big letdown to rate payers. Will having local council elections, or better, yet, the Government Transformation Plan, help?”

Najib’s instant and summary rejection of the idea of local government elections could be interpreted as  the Prime Minister having  little confidence or  even having utter contempt for  the Local Government Minister Datuk Seri Kong Cho Ha and  the KPI Minister, Tan Sri Dr. Koh Tsu Koon who is supposed to spearhead the 1Malaysia Government Transformation Programme (GTP) Roadmap.

Najib has not only forgotten what he himself pledged when he became Prime Minister last April, that “The era where the government knows best is over” and that “We can only achieve our ambition for Malaysia if the government and people, in a united effort, work together for success and progress”, there is further regression..

Najib seems to have abandoned the ethos of “The government knows best” in favour of “The Prime Minister knows best” as  it did not even occur to him to get the feedback of the Local Government Minister, the KPI Minister for GTP not to mention the entire Cabinet for a considered and appropriate response to the call  for the restoration of local government elections after a long lapse of 45 years!

It is a reflection of the utter impotence and lack of principle of Najib’s Ministers that not a single Cabinet Minister had raised this issue at yesterday’s Cabinet meeting to ask for a serious consideration of the proposal for the restoration of local government elections, especially as Bapa Malaysia and the first Prime Minister Tunk Abdul Rahman had made a definite and categorical assurance for local government elections on the end of Indonesian confrontation coupled with the recommendation of Athi Nahappan Royal Commission of Inquiry for an  elected local government system.

Najib should act more responsibility and be true to his pledge when he became Prime Minister that “The era where the government knows best is over” and agree to the establishment of an all-party task force to study and recommend how local government elections could be restored within 12 months.

The holding of local government elections by next year will be singularly significant for it would coincide with the 60th anniversary of the holding of the first elections in the country – the elections for the Municipal Council of George Town on Dec. 1, 1951.

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 11 March 2010, 2:32 pm and is filed under
Local Goverment
,
Najib Razak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


MCA’s harakiri and its repercussions on the Chinese

By
Dr Lim Teck Ghee

MCA is an ineffective political force in part because it has long played only a marginal role in the previous Malaysia Plans — implemented by the Umno-aligned, Malay dominated civil service — that have shaped socio-economic development in the country.

The Malaysian public, especially the Chinese, must be wondering if MCA can ever get its house in order so that it can attend to the important affairs of state, especially the economy.

Besides the economy which affects the wellbeing of all households in one way or another, there are many other issues that should occupy the time and attention of the party.

Rising religious tensions; increasing intolerance of Islamic zealots; growth of rightwing Malay NGOs and extremism; lack of education opportunities for young Chinese and other Malaysians – the list is formidable. Many of these issues have implications not only for the Chinese but for the whole country.

The Najib administration’s New Economic Model (NEM) is being touted as the way forward. Do the MCA leaders know or even care what is in the model?

Should the New Economic Policy (NEP) be a key part of the NEM as suggested by some Umno leaders? NEP was a policy that was supposed to have ended in 1990 but has in fact been continued with new labels during the past 20 years.

Is there a danger that NEM will in fact be a retreat to the obsolete NEP strategy as demanded by Perkasa? Will there be a continuation of the crony capitalism that has blighted the earlier economic model? The Deputy Prime Minister has said that no Malaysian will be sidelined by the NEM and that “every Malaysian will be given the opportunity to look at what is being proposed and can provide their input”.

Can the MCA vouch that the interests of all the communities will be safeguarded in the NEM?

Can MCA assure the party members and public that they have not only closely monitored the drafting of the soon to be unveiled NEM but also contributed to its final form? If so, what are the inputs the party has provided or has this crucial strategy been left to others to formulate while the party has been twiddling its thumbs in between the preoccupation with party games.

It will be interesting to know not only the party’s inputs but also the specific suggestions for the economic transformation of the country provided by the contenders jostling for party leadership.

Input to economic planning

There has been absolutely no word on NEM from MCA’s rival factions, so the public can be forgiven if they assume that these factions are either clueless or couldn’t give a damn as to what is in the new model.

The concern is not only with regard to NEM but more immediately, the 10th Malaysia Plan, which will decide on how public expenditure is to be spent during the next five years. What is the specific input of the MCA to this national blueprint?

For example, has the party consulted the best experts as well as the affected businesses on how to get the small and medium scale enterprises (SMEs) out from their low-value-added, low-wage and low-productivity structure?

And again, what inputs (assuming that the party leadership has been furnished with early drafts of the 10th Malaysia Plan by the Economic Planning Unit) have MCA provided on the plan? Presumably MCA has access to a wide range of expertise available from the Chinese business community and intelligentsia. This feedback if collated should be useful in providing pragmatic guidance on how to achieve a breakthrough in the many challenges we face.

For the coming MCA elections on March 28, the party members should insist that each of the candidates contesting key positions provide a full report card on their views on the NEM and 10th Malaysia Plan and how they intend to ensure that their policy proposals are taken up by the party and government.

This report card, including their record of service and accomplishments at the community and national level – rather than the dinners and other perks aimed at wooing supporters –should be the main focus of their campaign.

A disclosure of the candidate’s policy position on the major economic, social and political challenges that the country faces is the first step to realizing the party’s aspiration to be a credible political force.

Marginalizing itself or being marginalized?

The consensus of analysts is that the MCA has been an ineffective political force in part because it has only played a marginal role in the previous Malaysia Plans that have shaped socio-economic development in the country.

Because of Malay dominance of the civil service and the close relationship between Umno and the civil service, past development plans, for example, have been skewed against vernacular schools and education for the children of minority communities. At the same time, billions of dollars have been disproportionately spent on Mara junior science colleges and other Bumiputra elitist educational institutions.

Some of the outcomes of the earlier economic model and past development expenditure have been the failure of the country to grow to its full potential; the economic dominance of Umno- and MCA-affiliated tycoons and business interests; the widening income inequalities within all communities; and the extraordinary growth of a super rich and wealthy class.

The resulting inequalities and persistence of Bumiputra poverty is now unfairly blamed on the ‘greed’ of the ‘pendatang’ community by extremist Malay and Umno quarters seeking a continuation of NEP and Malay-oriented development policies.

Quite apart from concern over how the national economic cake is being shared, surely the party must be fully aware that among our neighbours such as China, India, Vietnam, Indonesia, the Philippines and Thailand, Malaysia’s real GDP growth in the last three years was the second lowest at 5.5 percent. Or that private sector investment has stagnated and in some cases even regressed.

If the party is aware of the bleak economic scenario facing Malaysians, what key proposals has it formulated to reenergize the swooning Malaysian economy and how have these been incorporated into the 10th Plan?

The ongoing power struggle

Junfa, or its English equivalents ‘warlords’ and ‘warlordism’, when used in the context of Chinese polity and society during the first part of the twentieth century, are pejorative expressions….The warlord era was marked by constant warfare, thrusting China into perpetual economic and political instability…. Official history …denounces warlords and characterizes the era as reactionary to China’s endeavour toward national unity and progress. Both Chinese and English scholarship describe the warlords as regional militarists, possessing personal armies that they constantly strove to expand and heavily relied on to advance their own interests in power and money.

— Excerpt on Chinese ‘warlordism’ which is found in the
New Dictionary of the History of Ideas
 (2005) by Yu Shen

Over the last 18 months, we have seen the leaders of this communal component of the BN coalition engage in bitter and open conflict, mainly due to personality clashes and craze for power that has made the party a laughing stock. MCA has become a subject of derision to non-members and a cause for heartburn among the party supporters.

We are all aware that most politics in Malaysia begins and ends with personal interests, especially for those individuals who belong to the top echelons of the ruling parties. There are of course the ethical few who see political power as a moral calling to serve the nation and who dedicate their life to doing the best for their constituents and the nation.

The endless squabbling for positions in the MCA has led to the perception that the party has very few leaders of integrity and more than its fair share of opportunists. Even the top man, Ong Tee Keat has gone on record in his presidential speech at the previous annual general meeting to state that his attempt at party reformation had caused discomfort to some people, especially opportunists.

The MCA’s lowered standing after 56 years of existence is not only a view held by the general public or the opposition parties. Its partners in BN are shaking their heads in despair or privately crowing with glee as the spectacle of infighting and backstabbing intensifies.

As for the future, it is the ultimate indictment of MCA that its President has had to publicly apologize several times for the so-called aggressive investigation of the Port Klang Free Trade scandal, in which various leaders and associates of the party have been implicated.

The question that comes to mind is why should Ong apologize for seeking the truth on the scandal and in the process stirring a hornet’s nest? Is this apology a result of pressure from party leaders and members that the MCA should see no evil, hear no evil and speak no evil?

Is the President sending out a message that the party should condone what has taken place? Or that he should hide from the public the truth on cronyism, corruption, mismanagement, inefficiency and abuse of power? If this is the logical conclusion, then the sooner the party is consigned to the dustbin of history, the better.

                This entry was posted on Friday, 12 March 2010, 4:58 pm and is filed under
Economics
,
MCA
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Top 10 students and Top 10 schools in SPM 2009 a slap-in-the face to Muhyiddin’s list of High Performance Schools

The list of Top 10 students and Top 10 schools in the Sijil Pelajaran Malaysia (SPM) 2009 is a slap-in-the-face to Education Minister Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin for his list of High-Performance Schools (HPS) announced at the end of January.

The two SPM 2009 lists have validated the criticisms leveled against Muhyiddin’s HPS list, that it is an insult not only to students and teachers from Sarawak and Sabah but also to their counterparts in Peninsular Malaysia when none of their schools was selected.

Congratulations to Gladys Tan Yee Kim of SMK Green Road, Kuching, the top SPM student in the country in SPM 2009 scoring 10A+s as well as the other nine SPM top scorers.

Gladys Tan has vindicated the honour and quest for excellence of Sarawakians by topping the national list.

However, out of the Top 10 SPM students, only two were from Muhyiddin’s list of HPS, namely second top scorer Grace Kiew Sze-Ern from SMK(P) Sri Aman, Petaling Jaya and fifth top scorer Syamilah Mahali from Kolej Tunku Kurshiah, Seremban.

Eight of the Top SPM students are not from any of Muhyiddin’s list of HPS, viz:

Rank

Name

School

1

Gladys Tan Yee Kim

SMK Green Road, Kuching

2

Grace Kiew Sze-Ern

SMK (P) Sri Aman, Petaling Jaya (HPS)

3

Khadijah Ahmad Jais

SM Agama Persekutuan, Labu

4

Akmal Hidayat Sabri

SMK Derma, Kangar

5

Syamilah Mahali

Kolej Tunku Kurshiah, Seremban (HPS)

6

Amelia Lee Wei Ling

SMK Taman Melawati,Gombak

7

Nur Syahadan Muhamad

SMK Sains Tengku Muhd Faris Petra, KB

8

Lai Yin Kwin

SMK Tinggi Melaka, Malacca

9

Corinne Gunn Huey Min

SMK Taman Melawati, Gombak

10

Hu May Khei

SMK Convent, Taiping

There should be some correlation between the list of Top SPM students with the HPS list and when they are completely out-of-sync as in this case, questions must be asked about the professionalism and usefulness of Muhyiddin’s HPS list.

Questions must not only be asked as to the  exclusion of the schools which have produced the first, third, fourth and fifth top student in the Top 10 SPM 2009 scorer from the HPS list, but also why SMK Taman Melawati, Gombak which produced  two students (sixth and ninth) among  Top 10 SPM students is also not on the HPS list.

The list of the Top 10 Schools in the SPM 2009 is another put-down for Muhyiddin’s HPS list.

Only three of the Top 10 Schools in SPM 2009 are in the HPS list, viz:

School

HPS ranking

Kolej Islam Sultan Alam Shah, Klang

2

Sekolah Tun Fatimah, Johore Bahru

4

Kolej Tunku Kurshiah, Seremban

10

The other seven schools ranking from  No. 1 to No. 9 in the Top 10 Schools in SPM 2009 are not in the HPS list, viz:

School

HPS ranking

SM Sains Seremban

1

Sekolah BPI Gombak

3

SM Sains Alam Shah

5

SBPI Rawang

6

SM Sain Muar

7

SBPI Temerloh

8

SMK Infant Jesus Convent, JB

9

Muhyiddin should direct his officials in the Education Ministry to get back to the drawing board to issue a supplementary list of the High Performance Schools to do justice to all good schools, taking into account the SPM 2009 results. May be the HPS list should be formulated and selected by a committee of former teachers and educationists instead of bureaucrats in the Education Ministry.

For the Top 10 SPM students, the Cabinet should reward them by announcing that they will all be granted full scholarships for pre-university and university education, whether locally or abroad, to demonstrate the government’s new appreciation for talent in Najib’s 1Malaysia, with none of them snatched away to study overseas, particularly in Singapore.

                This entry was posted on Friday, 12 March 2010, 11:22 am and is filed under
Education
,
Muhyiddin Yassin
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Was Anwar’s sacking 11 years ago lawful?

By
NH Chan

MARCH 12 — On Tuesday March 9, 2010 the Sun reports:

Federal Court: Anwar’s sacking from cabinet lawful

Putrajaya: The sacking of Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim as deputy prime minister and finance minister 11 years ago was lawful, the Federal Court ruled yesterday.

Court of Appeal President Tan Sri Alauddin Mohd Sheriff and Federal Court judges Datuk Wira Mohd Ghazali Mohd Yusof and Datul Abdull Hamid Embong unanimously dismissed Anwar’s final appeal for a declaration that his dismissal from his cabinet posts in September 2, 1998 was unconstitutional.

Alauddin held that the then prime minister, Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad, had the authority under the Federal Constitution to sack his cabinet minister.

He said, the King, as a constitutional monarch, was required to act in accordance with the advice of the prime minister.

…

On Anwar’s contention that it was the prime minister who had effected his revocation and not the King, he said the contention was misleading. The format and manner on how a revocation was to be effected was not provided in the law and there was also no provision in the law requiring the King to personally convey to Anwar the revocation of appointment, he said.

THE JUDGMENT IS ACCORDING TO LAW

I must say at the outset, the decision of the Federal Court is correct. The judgment is correct because it is made according to law. It is also a decision against Anwar Ibrahim.

But why is it that when the law is against the Government of the day these same judges would not decide according to law? One wonders!

Here are the reasons why I say the judgment is correct in law. (LoyarBurok has supplied the emphasis)

All other ministers (except the prime minister) are appointed under Article 43(2)(b) on the advice of the prime minister

I start with Article 43(2)(b) of the Federal Constitution. It says:

(2) The Cabinet shall be appointed as follows, that is to say:

(a) The Yang di-Pertuan Agong shall first appoint as Perdana Mentri (prime minister) to preside over the Cabinet a member of the House of Representatives who in his judgment is likely to command the confidence of the majority of the members of that House; and

(b) He shall on the advice of the prime minister appoint other Mentri (ministers) from among the members of either House of Parliament, (I have supplied the emphasis)

Article 43(2)(b) clearly shows that the Yang di-Pertuan Agong (the King) appoints all the other ministers on the advice of the prime minister.

And they can also be sacked on the advice of the prime minister under Article 43(5).

Article 43(5) of the Constitution states:

(5) Subject to Clause (4), ministers other than the prime minister shall hold office during the pleasure of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, unless the appointment of any minister shall have been revoked by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong on the advice of the prime minister but any minister may resign his office.

This is what Clause (5) means –

(a) All the ministers (other than the prime minister) hold office during the pleasure of the King,

(b) unless (it means “except when”, “if not”) the King revokes the minister’s appointment on the advice of the prime minister.

(c) But any minister may resign his office.

What does “on the advice” mean?

It means the King has to act on the order of the prime minister. He has no option; He must act as he was told. Lord Diplock explains it in Teh Chang Poh v Public Prosecutor [1979] 1 MLJ 50, at 52. He said:

Although this, like other powers under the Constitution, is conferred nominally upon the Yang di-Pertuan Agong by virtue of his office as the Supreme Head of the Federation and is expressed to be exercisable if he is satisfied of a particular matter, his functions are those of a constitutional monarch and except on matters that do not concern the instant appeal, he does not exercise any of his functions under the Constitution on his own initiative but is required by Article 40(1) to act in accordance with the advice of the Cabinet.

So when one finds in the Constitution itself or in a Federal law powers conferred upon the Yang di-Pertuan Agong that are expressed to be exercisable if he is of opinion or is satisfied that a particular state of affair exists or that particular action is necessary, the reference to his opinion or satisfaction is in reality a reference to the collective opinion or satisfaction of the members of the Cabinet, or the opinion or satisfaction of a particular minister to whom the Cabinet have delegated their authority to give advice upon the matter in question.

So that when Clause (5) of Article 43 says that all the ministers (other than the prime minister) hold office during the pleasure of the King unless he revokes the appointment on the advice of the prime minister, it means this:

The ministers will remain in office unless the King is ordered by the prime minister to revoke their appointment.

Therefore, Lamin PCA was not wrong when he said in Datuk Seri Anwar bin Ibrahim v Public Prosecutor [2000] 3 AMR 2899:

Under [Article 43(5)] a minister other than the prime minister holds office at the pleasure of the prime minister. In actual terms, he holds office at the pleasure of the prime minister. This means that the prime minister may revoke his appointment at any time. Of course formality of his appointment shall be be acted upon by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong “on the advice of the prime minister”. The Yang di-Pertuan Agong must act on such advice.

Also, see Datuk Seri Anwar bin Ibrahim v Perdana Menteri Malaysia & Anor [2007] 4 MLJ 422 at p 432 by Raus Sharif JCA: “The power to dismiss any minister is in effect with the prime minister. He can at any time advice the Yang di-Pertuan Agong to dismiss any minister and His Majesty is bound to act on the advice of the prime minister.”

                This entry was posted on Friday, 12 March 2010, 1:25 pm and is filed under
Anwar Ibrahim
,
Judiciary
,
NH Chan
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Barisan talks up chances ahead of Sarawak polls

by
Leslie Lau
, Executive Editor | The Malaysian Insider

KUCHING, March 13 — Sarawak’s Deputy Chief Minister Tan Sri George Chan (picture) is confident of a near clean-sweep for the state’s Barisan Nasional (BN) amid growing talk of impending state elections, as the ruling coalition seeks a major boost ahead of the next general elections.

He told The Malaysian Insider earlier this week that national Pakatan Rakyat (PR) leaders like Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim and the DAP’s Lim Kit Siang have little traction in the state.

“Even at Anwar’s height Pakatan lost Batang Ai to BN in big numbers,” he said in reference to the by-election last year won easily by BN.

State elections must be called by May 2011, but speculation is rife that it will be held this year in what could be a barometer of how voters in the state will swing in national elections.

With voter support in peninsular Malaysia still appearing to be evenly split between BN and Pakatan Rakyat (PR), Sarawak, and Sabah have become strategic states in the fight for federal power.

But resource-rich Sarawak with its growing wealth — reflected in the ongoing economic boom seen in major cities like Kuching, Sibu, Bintulu and Miri —appears to be a safe bet for the state BN.

Clean tree-lined streets, a proliferation of new shopping centres and brand-new houses in the state’s major cities are signs of an explosion in wealth that BN is banking on to win back urban voters it lost in the last state polls in 2006.

“There will still be a tough fight in the towns and city centres but I am confident we will do better.  A clean sweep is not impossible,” said Chan.

Chief Minister Tan Sri Abdul Taib Mahmud, the 74-year-old strongman who has been at the helm since 1981, has consistently led the state BN coalition to thumping victories.

Even at its worst performance, which was in the last elections, BN won a whopping 62 out of the 71 seats contested.

Most of the seats lost belonged to Chan’s SUPP, but he is now upbeat about regaining lost ground.

Chan also pointed out that Sarawak’s Chinese, who account for about 30 per cent of the state’s population, also do not share the level of frustration and disenchantment faced by the community in peninsular Malaysia.

He pointed out that Sarawak’s Chinese feel more integrated.

“The Chinese here are part and parcel of government. Many of them are in the civil service and hold senior positions.

“In Sarawak no one gets excited about religious intolerance because Muslims and non-Muslims are united. Sarawak offers many lessons for race relations,” he said.

Anwar and Lim are just about the only recognisable national political figures for Sarawakians.

But Chan is particularly dismissive of Anwar’s attraction in Sarawak.

“I do not think Anwar has much influence here. His credibility is in question in a lot of areas.

“PKR is still seen as a peninsular party. Their candidates may be local but they are still seen as outsiders, as master is in KL,” said Chan in reference to the strong parochial feeling in the state which translates into an often overriding resentment against federal intervention or interference.

The DAP, however, has had a long history in the state, and its local leadership has grown in influence to compete with SUPP for Chinese votes.

In the 2006 state elections, DAP made what was considered strong gains when the party won six seats to become the strongest opposition party.

The DAP’s Lim told The Malaysian Insider that he expects his party to at least hold its ground.

How well PR can perform will depend on whether the two main parties in the state — PKR and DAP — can work well together.

“Our target must be 24 or 36 seats. If we get 24 we deny BN its two-thirds majority. If we get 36 means we would have toppled the state government,” he said.

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 13 March 2010, 11:08 am and is filed under
Election
,
Sabah
,
Sarawak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Four MCA Ministers and seven deputy ministers should take collective official leave for next fortnight to concentrate on their party tussle in the run-up to the fresh MCA party elections on March 28

Yesterday, the Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak called for a solution to the MCA crisis so that the party can emerge as a credible force to represent the Chinese community and country.

MCA has become a pale shadow from the days of  its founding fathers led by Tun Tan Cheng Lock more than half a century ago, when MCA could be said to be on an equal footing with Umno in the Alliance.

Today, MCA has been reduced to such a pathetic status that despite having four Ministers and seven Deputy Ministers, MCA does not even have the weight and leverage in the Barisan Nasional of an outsider and Johnny-come-lately organization like Perkasa and Ibrahim Ali!

When Umno proposed at the Barisan Nasional Supreme Council meeting last month to scrap the rule of unanimity and to amend the BN constitution to allow direct membership of NGOs, individuals and other political parties, MCA leaders dare not even object although they know that their status in Barisan Nasional will be reduced to that of Ibrahim Ali or even lower, whether Perkasa is eventually admitted into the BN or not.

The “Three Kingdoms” battle in MCA has nothing to do with the rights. Interests and future  whether of the Chinese community or the Malaysian nation but the political stakes of the different MCA factions.

The four MCA Ministers, Datuk Seri Ong Tee (Transport),  Datuk Seri Kang Cho Ha (Housing and Local Government), Datuk Seri Liow Tiong Lai (Health) and Datuk Seri Ng Yen Yen (Tourism)  and the seven MCA deputy ministers should take collective official leave for next fortnight to concentrate on their party tussle in the run-up to the fresh MCA party elections on March 28 so that their official tasks are not neglected or adversely affected.

The Prime Minister should suggest to the four MCA Ministers and seven Deputy Ministers to take collective leave for a fortnight to focus on their “life-and-death” political battle in the MCA which will decide whether they will continue as Minister or Deputy Minister concerned, or even get promoted from Deputy Minister to Minister.

If the eleven refuse to take collective leave, then the Prime Minister should exercise his prerogative and direct them to go on leave and appoint four acting Ministers and seven acting deputy ministers to carry out their Cabinet responsibilities for the next fortnight.

[
Speech at the DAP Selangor-USJ East Branch Chinese New Year Dinner at the Summit Subang USJ on Saturday, 13th March 2010 at 10 pm
]

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 13 March 2010, 12:36 pm and is filed under
MCA
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


The 200 top SPM students should all be given full pre-university and university scholarships to usher in a new era of meritocracy

Yesterday, the Education Ministry released the Top 10 students and the Top 10 Schools for Sijil Pelajaran Malaysia (SPM) 2009 – with only two students and three schools coming from the 20 High Performance Schools announced by the Education Minister Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin in January this year.

But why just announce the Top 10 students and the Top 10 Schools for last year’s SPM?

I call on Muhyiddin, who is also Deputy Prime Minister and Chairman of the Cabinet Committee on Human Resources, to announce the top 200 students for SPM last year and the Top 100 Schools for SPM 2009 as well.

It will be interesting to know whether all High Performance Schools announced by Muhyiddin come within the Top 100 Schools for SPM 2009.

However, what is more important is that the government should usher a new era of meritocracy by awarding full scholarships for both pre-university and university, whether local or foreign, studies to the top 200 top SPM students, regardless of race, religion or region.

This will be a critical test whether there is going to be any major Government Transformation Programme so that the New Economic Model which the country has been promised will truly create an innovative, creative and dynamic economy by giving top priority to Malaysian human resources, regardless of race, religion or region – ending the brain drain of Malaysia’s best and brightest in each generation to benefit other countries instead of our own.

This will also be a test whether the government is really sincere about its 1Malaysia slogan and concept.

[Speech (2) at the DAP Selangor-USJ East Branch Chinese New Year Dinner at the Summit Subang USJ on Saturday, 13th March 2010 at 10 pm]

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 13 March 2010, 1:31 pm and is filed under
Education
,
Muhyiddin Yassin
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Why is Hishammuddin breathing down the neck of the media threatening “all hell to break loose” when all that is needed is a correction for any incorrect report about resignation of Musa Hassan as IGP?

The Home Minister, Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Hussein is breathing fire and brimstone, threatening “all hell to break loose”, demanding an explanation from China Press for its report that the Inspector-General of Police Tan Sri Musa Hassan had tendered his resignation letter.

Warning China Press not to publish reports which are not true, Hishammuddin said he had instructed the Home Ministry secretary-general Datuk Seri Mahmood Adam to ask the newspaper editor to explain the report.

Why is Hishammuddin breathing down the neck of the media threatening “all hell to break loose” when all that is needed in the relevant case is a correction for  any incorrect report about the resignation of Musa Hassan as IGP?

Is the stability and strength of security in the country and in particular the Malaysian police force so brittle and fragile that a report like that of China Press today could seriously compromised or jeopardized them?

In fact, Hishammuddin should know that if the China Press report is true that Musa has resigned as Inspector-General of Police, there would be joy and jubilation not only among loyal and patriotic Malaysians who have always put national interests above self, but also among top police officers as well as the rank-and-file.

This is why –

On 28th July, 2009 I spearheaded a parliamentary roundtable reaching an unanimous conclusion that Malaysia needs a new IGP to create a safe Malaysia and break away from colonial past by introducing democratic policing to protect the people and not the regime in power;

On 1st August, 2009 I said in my speech in Kuantan that Musa was wreaking personal vengeance against me and other Pakatan Rakyat leaders for the parliamentary roundtable calling for a new IGP to create a safe Malaysia;

On  August 7, 2009 I issued a media statement  that “Take a secret poll among the 2,000 top police officers from ASP upwards and an overwhelming majority will definitely vote for a new IGP”; and

On August 8, 2009 I said in my media statement that “Police, Home Minister and Prime Minister will not be able to hold their heads high in international community if Musa is renewed as IGP when under his three-year leadership, only 1% of the people feel safe”;

Can Hishammuddin explain his double standards which makes him so blind and actionless with regard to the inflammatory and seditious spoutings by  certain media, particularly those owned and controlled by Umno, totally reckless and irresponsible in exploiting the “race and religion” card in utter disregard and contempt for Najib’s 1Malaysia concept and yet his instant and ferocious reaction to a report like that of the resignation of the Inspector-General of Police – which would be very commonplace in developed countries which Malaysia aspires to become?

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 13 March 2010, 4:34 pm and is filed under
Police
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Open debate on New Economic Model (NEM)

By
Dr Chen Man Hin
, DAP life adviser

CALL FOR AN OPEN DEBATE ON THE NEW ECONOMIC MODEL AS IT IS A POLICY THAT WILL IMPACT ON THE ECONOMIC WELL BEING OF THE PEOPLE, AND AS SUCH THEY SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO DISCUSS AND DEBATE ON THE NEW ECONOMIC MODEL BEFORE IT COULD BE IMPLEMENTED.

This is absolutely necessary as the New Economic Policy was pushed through parliament in 1971 without a full discussion by the people. Only the cabinet and government under the then prime minister were privy to the details, and it was rushed through parliament.

Implemented from 1971 until today, the aim was to restructure society, to rescue the Malays from poverty and to give them access to all strata of the economy.

Today, admittedly there are more middle class Malays, but the vast majority of them still live in grinding poverty, and many others still live below the poverty line where families subsist on RM1,500 a month.

The wealth which was supposed to be transferred to the Malay poor was hijacked midway by Umno cronies. They have become rich beyond their wildest dreams.

THE NEP OBSTRUCTED AND DESTROYED THE ENTREPRENEUR SPIRIT OF THE PEOPLE. FOREIGNERS AVOIDED INVESTING IN MALAYSIA. MANY SKILLED AND TALENTED MALAYSIANS MIGRATED TO GREENER PASTURES LIKE SINGAPORE, AUSTRALIA, CANADA AND THE STATES. THE GOVERNMENT HAS MADE THE PUBLIC ADMISSION THAT 300,000 MALAYSIANS LEFT THE SHORES OF THE COUNTRY IN 2008. THE GOVERNMENT ALSO ADMITTED THAT ONE DECADE OF ECONOMIC PROGRESS WAS LOST AFTER THE ASIA FINANCIAL CRISIS OF 1998.

PAKATAN RAKYAT HAS OPENLY CALLED FOR THE NEP TO BE SCRAPPED AND IN ITS PLACE IMPLEMENT THEIR MALAYSIAN ECONOMIC POLICY WHICH WILL PROVIDE THE PUSH FOR THE ECONOMY TO PROGRESS AND PROSPER.

Unfortunately there are signs that PM Najib Razak is weakening and submitting to pressure by UMNO and PERKASA (extreme Malay pressure group) to retain the racial concepts of the NEP. PM Najib is vacillating and hence he is postponing the launch of the New Economic Model.

Pakatan Rakyat urges the prime minister to stand firm and scrap the NEP policies, which has been shown with facts and figures to have caused the Malaysian economy to fall behind that of S Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Singapore

At independence, Malaya had the second highest per capita income in Asia, after Japan. After 1971, with the NEP, the GDP of Malaysia began falling behind that of the four Asian tigers Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong and Singapore). In 2009, while GDP of Malaysia stood at US$8,000, S Korea and Taiwan rose to US$19,000, Hong Kong to $32,000 while Singapore to US$34,000.

The NEP caused Malaysia to lose four decades of economic progress and inflicted economic pain and loss on two generations of young Malaysians.

Prime Minister Najib Razak must wake up to the dangerous and retrogressive policies of Umno and Perkasa. Which will condemn Malaysians to a life of hardship due to low income and poverty.

PRIME MINISTER NAJIB SHOULD CALL FOR A NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF ECONOMISTS, ENTREPRENEURS, BUSINNESSMEN, BANKERS, SMALL AND MEDICUM ENTREPRENEURS, NGOS AND POLITICAL PARTIES TO DISCUSS AND AGREE ON A NEW BLUEPRINT FOR THE NEW ECONOMIC MODEL FOR MALAYSIA.

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 14 March 2010, 2:28 pm and is filed under
Dr. Chen Man Hin
,
Economics
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Towards A Developed Malaysia (Last of Six Parts)

By
M. Bakri Musa

[Presented at the Third Annual Alif Ba Ta Forum, “1Malaysia Towards Vision 2020,” Rochester Institute of Technology, NY, December 5, 2009, organized by Kelab UMNO NY-NJ. The presentation can be viewed at www.youtube.com (search under “Bakri Musa RIT”) or through
this link
]

Part Six of Six:  Q&A Con’td

Q 10:   Can you give us examples of successful countries we can emulate?  In one of your books you suggest South Korea, but it is so far ahead to make it a valid model for us.

MBM:
  Did you know that in the 1950s the Philippines was sending foreign aid workers to South Korea?  How the world has changed!  Today it is the Philippines that is an economic basket case.  That is precisely my point; countries can change quickly, for better or worse.  To re-emphasize, if you do not strive to reach Montreal, you would quickly slide back to Tijuana.  Standing still is not an option.

            In my book Malaysia in the Era of Globalization I gave three examples:  Ireland, South Korea, and Argentina.  Argentina is a negative example, of how quickly a nation could slide backward.  I agree with you that South Korea is not the best model for us, but for different reasons.  That nation, unlike ours, is culturally, linguistically and ethnically homogenous.

            The better example would be Ireland.  The Ireland of 1950s, like Malaysia today, was wrecked with its own Catholic-Protestant division, with the minority Protestant English dominating commerce and the professions while the Catholics were busy reciting their rosaries and making babies.  The English schools and universities were also superior, but the Catholic Irish who attended those institutions risked being excommunicated!

            Substitute Irish for Malays, English for non-Malays, and you have similar dynamics in Malaysia today.

            Today Ireland is a different nation; its economy robust, the Celtic Tiger.  Imagine, Ryan Air, a discount Irish airline, at one time attempted a takeover of the venerable and regal British Airways!  I need not go over here how Ireland achieved her remarkable transformation as I have covered that in my Globalization book, but suffice to say that they did it by first freeing the Irish from the tight grip of the clergy class.

            A noteworthy observation is that Sean Lemass, the leader responsible for the Irish transformation, did not become prime minister until 1959.  It took the Irish at least two generations before they could escape the yoke of the church and began their trajectory of development to lead Ireland away from being the chronic “sick man of Europe’ to where it is today, a vibrant member of the EU.

            So if Malaysia were to be blessed with her own Sean Lemaas today, it would not be until at least 2050 before we could hope to achieve ‘developed’ status.  To make it even gloomier, Najib Razak has not demonstrated himself thus far to be anything close to Lemass in terms of his leadership ability and vision.

            That is the bad news.  The good news is that we do have a Malaysian Lemass in waiting in the person of Anwar Ibrahim.  For one, he is the only leader with the courage and credentials to take on the Islamic establishment, as he did with the “Allah” issue.  For another he is the only one who is not insular and has worldview more in tune in this current era of globalization.  Lastly, like Lemass, Anwar is able to corral many bright young Malaysians to his cause.

            The big question is whether our Malaysian Lemass would be given that opportunity.

Q 11:   What do you think of the institution of Malay sultans?

MBM
:  Let me throw that question back.  What do you think of the Malay Rajas?  No response?  Well, let me rephrase that.  How many think that the sultans are a positive influence?  [Few hands went up]  Negative?  [Many more hands shot up.]  Wow!  I am amazed!  I did not expect that.

            On reflection however, I am not totally surprised.  I read the thousands of comments posted on the web regarding our sultans, especially after the Perak political fiasco and the battle between the Johor and Negri Sembilan princes.  I was stunned at the contempt and venom spewed.

            I grew up in the royal town of Sri Menanti, but I try not to let that influence my thinking.  Whether our sultans remain relevant and respected, or be reduced to the status of the Sultan of Sulu, depends not on what is inscribed in our constitution rather on how they perform their duties and how they behave personally.  In these days of the Internet and cell phones, their shenanigans abroad or in private would easily be exposed.  Contrary to their enticing tourism ads, what happens in Vegas no longer stays just there.  The many recent negative accounts of members of the royal family do not advance their cause.

            When I lived in Johor Baru in the 1970s, it was interesting to observe the behaviors of these Malay princes and princesses.  In Singapore they behaved like ordinary mortals, observing the traffic laws and being civil in public.  Once they crossed the causeway to return home, they suddenly transformed themselves and regressed to their infantile forms.  My conclusion is that we are partly to blame for we tolerate their childish tantrums.

            Royal peccadilloes, while titillating and headline-grabbing, do not interest me.  My concern is that these sultans squat at the apex of the special privileges heap.  Their every whim and demand is acceded too readily.  They get monopolistic business licenses and granted prime state land literally on demand; their every gluttony and avarice satisfied, at state expense of course.  How can we ask ordinary Malays to give up our special privilege crutch when our sultans are getting the biggest crutch of all, and a golden one at that?

            My other concern also relates to their being role models.  In my book The Malay Dilemma Revisited, I describe the Sultan Syndrome, of ministers and department heads behaving as figureheads like our sultans instead of being the chief executive.  They are consumed with the trappings of their offices while delegating the heavy lifting to their underlings.  I truly believe that the deterioration of our public institutions is attributed in large part to this Sultan Syndrome.

            Beyond that I have nothing against the institution of sultans.

Q 12:  Don’t you think that the institution of sultans serves to anchor our diverse citizens?  Political leaders come and go, but our sultans by being apolitical and above the fray, provide stability, commonality, as well as continuity.

MBM
:  Many would argue with your assertion that our sultans are above the political fray, especially after what happened in Perak and Trengganu.  Even if we were to accede to your argument, do we really need nine sultans plus the Agong?  Actually we have 13 if we include the four sultan wannabes – the governors of the non-sultan states who also have regal tastes and aspirations.

            I would be satisfied with just the Agong; he is expensive enough to maintain, what with the new billion-ringgit palace.  If we were to have all those other sultans, their consorts, raja mudas, raja bendaharas, and the whole slew of princes and princesses on the civil list, then I would impose strict rules.  If they receive any royal allowance, then the moment they enter business, be gainful employed, or in any way earn an income, then their state allowance would be reduced in the amount of that income.  That would encourage them towards voluntary services.  I would put all those allowances saved in a trust fund towards scholarships for deserving kampong kids.

            We have a few members of the royal family who have had the benefit of superior education, having gone to such august institutions as Oxford and Harvard.  I challenge them to come up with a better idea than what I have presented here so they would remain relevant and be respected when they ascend to the throne.

            *          *          *          *          *

As there are no more questions, let me close by again expressing my sincere appreciation for your staying right to the very end!  I am sure there are many other places you would rather spend a Saturday evening than a lecture hall.  I have thoroughly enjoyed the sessions; most of all I have enjoyed your company.

            You have asked many penetrating questions, and I do not pretend to know the answers.  However, finding the solution begins with asking thoughtful questions, and you have certainly done that.  You have asked many of the probing questions that needed to be asked.  It is through such open discussions and the tapping of many minds that we would hope to find the best workable solutions.

            During your stay here do take time to enjoy Upstate New York and the surrounding New England states.  The region is attractive and wonderful at any time of the year.  I wish you well in your studies and in the pursuit of your individual dreams.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 16 March 2010, 4:31 pm and is filed under
Bakri Musa
,
globalisation
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Hishammuddin denies demanding China Press editor’s resignation

By
Clara Chooi
 | The Malaysian Insider

KUALA LUMPUR, March 16 – Home Minister Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Tun Hussein today denied accusations by the Opposition that his ministry had threatened the China Press chief editor with suspension if the latter did not resign.

He said that the accusation, made by DAP adviser Lim Kit Siang in Parliament, was just the Opposition’s ploy to gain political mileage by sensationalising “common procedures”.

“No it is not true (the allegations). From what I know is that what happened with China Press was no different from the others (media publications) like Star and Al-Islam. What we did was merely to send them a show-cause letter and asked them for an explanation,” he said.

China Press was hauled up by the ministry after reporting on Saturday that Inspector-General of Police Tan Sri Musa Hassan had submitted his resignation letter to the Prime Minister and the Home Minister.

The IGP’s term of office expires in September.

Musa has since denied this, accusing China Press of obtaining the false information from “underground sources”.

Hishammuddin had however confirmed yesterday that IGP would be replaced once his term expires, along with four other directors out of the seven divisions in the Royal Malaysian Police force.

“I know that China Press has already given its explanation on the matter but I am yet to receive the report on it. In any case, I do not want this to be focused on China Press along because we have taken similar action against the others. I am consistent on this matter,” he said.

Hishammuddin gave an assurance his ministry would be more than willing to accept the Chinese daily’s explanation if it is logical.

“However in this context, what they did is based on the root of journalistic ethics which is to report on the truth. Hence, when a resignation letter has not even been submitted, how can they write about it?” he said.

Hishammuddin also lambasted the Opposition backbenchers for staging a walkout from Parliament this morning when they were refused to be given leeway to debate a motion he had debated.

“This act of theirs to walk out like that shows that they are ready to do anything to garner support for themselves. They are ready to twist things around for the purpose of gaining political mileage,” he said.

Hishammuddin pointed out that the he had moved was traditionally moved during every sitting of Parliament.

“Furthermore, it is a motion to ensure that the safety of all those in Parliament are protected. Even then, they want to politicise,” he said.

A majority of Pakatan Rakyat MPs walked out of Parliament today when Dewan Rakyat Deputy Speaker Datuk Ronald Kiandee stopped them from debating Hishammuddin’s motion.

The motion instructs the IGP to “take care that during the present session of this House, the passages through the streets leading to this House be kept free and opened and that no obstruction be permitted to hinder the passages of Members to and from this House that there be no annoyance therein and thereabouts; and that Setiausaha Dewan Rakyat do communicate this Order to the IGP”.

The Opposition had complained about the validity of such a motion in view of present uncertainties surrounding the IGP’s post.

Hishammuddin said that issues relating to posts or the status of serving police officers had nothing to do with the motion that he had moved.

“This is just a common motion tabled for the good of the MPs,” he said.

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 17 March 2010, 9:23 am and is filed under
Media
,
Police
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


MCA ‘s three-ring circus rolls around

By Kee Thuan Chye

Datuk Seri Ong Tee Keat just doesn’t know when to quit, does he? Despite his bravado in promising to step down before the mess hit the fan at the MCA’s extraordinary general meeting last Oct 10, he is still adamant that he will be an asset to a beleaguered party split apart by his high-handedness as president. He has declared — the first candidate to do so — that he will defend his position at the coming party elections on March 28.

This is the very man who promised to quit as president if the no-confidence vote against him at the EGM was passed by just one vote. It was actually passed by a margin of 14, with 1,155 delegates voting for it and 1,141 against. He should have kept his word, and done the honourable thing; instead, he chose to stay on.

That more than 600 members attended the party’s annual meeting on March 7 indicates that he enjoys their support, but that is only a quarter of the 2,379 delegates who will vote in two weeks. Besides, some of those 600 could have attended the AGM just to hedge their bets; there may be opportunists among them who will switch loyalties if another faction looks the surer winner. Furthermore, the political complexion has just changed, now that former president Tan Sri Ong Ka Ting has also announced his candidacy.

This is another pathetic twist to the MCA soap opera. In 2008, Ka Ting was the one who led the party to its worst general election defeat ever, losing more than half the seats it had held. In his tenure as president, he was not noted for having any gumption in standing up to Umno’s trampling over Chinese concerns. He also didn’t stand up for Tee Keat when the latter was reprimanded in 2006 by Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak, then deputy prime minister, for urging the Education Ministry to act on corruption in Chinese schools.

What will Datuk Dr Chua Soi Lek and Datuk Seri Liow Tiong Lai, who have been touted as likely candidates, do now? Chua had been considered the front-runner because, pundits say, he could rely on the support of at least 900 delegates. How will his chances be affected with Ka Ting’s entry? As for Liow, since a large chunk of his supporters are also those of Ka Ting’s, will he settle for the number two position?

What about Ka Ting’s brother, Ka Chuan? Surely, there would be something in all this for him? But Ka Chuan’s track record is not impressive: he was trounced in the 2004 general election in Batu Gajah and managed to win in 2008 probably because Tanjung Malim was a safe seat. And in the MCA elections of 2008, he lost to Chua for the deputy presidency. Why would the delegates want him this time?

The MCA is in for intriguing times. There will be a lot of horse trading right up to the elections as the factions scramble to make up the required figures. Liow was an ally of Tee Keat’s till he apparently betrayed the latter after the Oct 10 EGM. Are we likely to see further betrayals by any of the others? Will Chua the “magician” be wily enough to pull off the art of making the impossible possible, and the possible impossible?

It looks like the same circus is back. You can almost hear the orchestra striking up the opening strains of Send in the Clowns. The sad part is, the delegates may be faced with only these options – of a man who broke his promise, a man who betrayed his friend, a man who cheated on his wife, and a man who lacked courage when he was president.

In the past, there was only a Team A vs Team B; now there are Teams X, Y and Z. With the party already so split, will the March 28 elections lead to unity? There would be animosity even if Ka Ting becomes president again. If Tee Keat wins, the party would be back at square one. All the grief and disgrace the party has experienced would have been much ado about nothing. And Tee Keat was the one whose open contempt for Chua, his deputy then, from the moment he stepped into the presidency led to the unravelling of the whole mess today.

Where does the solution lie? One doubts whether the team leaders know the answer. As it is, the whole MCA “dramedy” has shown up the reality that the MCA is no longer a force in Malaysian politics. The world of the Malaysian Chinese didn’t end while the in-fighting went on. Life in the Chinese community continued, debunking any claim that the MCA still matters to the Chinese.

Its days are nearly over. Why fight over a dying cause? Time to move on. Time to heed the words of Tun Dr Lim Keng Yaik who has suddenly wised up now he’s been out of the Gerakan leadership for a couple of years: “After March 8, politics is going towards an ideological base that is multi-racial in approach.”

Perhaps it’s time for the MCA to implode and start all over again.

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 17 March 2010, 1:25 pm and is filed under
Kee Thuan Chye
,
MCA
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


How many Cabinet Ministers, including the DPM, have the 1Malaysia DNA as to be able to pass three simple 1Malaysia tests? (Part 1)

In about a fortnight, Datuk Seri Najib Razak will be celebrating his first full year as the sixth Prime Minister of Malaysia.

In the past year, the slogan of 1Malaysia has dominated the media, the airwaves and the television channels while the 1Malaysia logo in different shapes and sizes had littered the national landscape.

Paradoxically, however, Najib is fighting a losing battle for his 1Malaysia slogan and concept and the most disturbing recent example of such failure was when early this month, a rational and level-headed Umno leader like the Second Finance Minister Datuk Ahmad Husni Mohd Hanadzlah could make a racist remark when egged on by anti-1Malaysia elements when he came under the  influence of Penang Umno.

Husni has yet to apologise for his  racist remark at a dinner organized by the Penang Malay Chamber of Commerce, where he said: “
Kalau orang Cina di Pulau Pinang buli kita, kita lawan balik orang Cina
” and what Husni said had been caught on tape.

I am very surprised as DAP MPs have always found Husni as a very rational, level-headed and reasonable Deputy Minister and since Najib’s elevation as Prime Minister last April, as Second Finance Minister, and we find it most shocking that he could have uttered such a racially-laden statement, which runs counter to what Najib’s 1Malaysia represents.

The question all Malaysians must ponder is why a usually rational, level-headed and reasonable Umno leader who is very moderate in his views could make such a racist remark completely out of his character?

The only explanation is that when Husni went to Penang, he was influenced by the sustained hate campaign of UMNO Penang exploiting the “race and religion” card falsely accusing  Penang Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng and Pakatan Rakyat Penang State Government as anti-Malay and anti-Islam.

As a moderate Umno leader, Husni should be exercising restraint and check on the irresponsible and seditious campaign by Penang Umno, recklessly exploiting the “race and religion” card in cahoots with  Umno-controlled media like Utusan Malaysia and Berita Harian, making a total mockery of Najib’s 1Malaysia campaign – and not to succumb to the Penang Umno virus as to condone and even to aid and abet such an irresponsible and seditious campaign of hate and racism.

When moderate UMNO leaders like Husni could lose their moderate bearings when in the Penang Umno milieu of hate politics, what hope and future is there for Najib’s 1Malaysia slogan and concept?

Has the Prime Minister got his entire Cabinet, including the Deputy Prime Minister, with him on the same page on what 1Malaysia means?

[
Speech (Part 1) by DAP Parliamentary Leader and MP for Ipoh Timor Lim Kit Siang in Dewan Rakyat on the Royal Address on Thursday, 18th March 2010
]

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 18 March 2010, 6:18 pm and is filed under
Najib Razak
,
nation building
,
Parliament
,
UMNO
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


How many Cabinet Ministers, including the DPM, have the 1Malaysia DNA as to be able to pass three simple 1Malaysia tests? (Part 2)

I had occasion to ask publicly last month whether the Deputy Prime Minister, Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin is sincerely and seriously committed to Najib’s 1Malaysia concept – whether he is the right-hand man of Najib or former Prime Minister Tun Dr. Mahathir as the custodian and surrogate of the Mahathir legacy in the Najib premiership.

I had asked Muhyiddin whether he had Najib’s endorsement and approval for all his utterances and actions which are inimical to the realisation of the 1Malaysia slogan and concept, including:

His defense of the racist “brain washing” and indoctrination on “ketuanan Melayu” by Biro Tata Negara despite criticisms and expose of its racist, divisive and seditious content for the past two decades;

His attempt to mitigate the Nasir Safar outrage claiming that it could have been “a slip of the tongue” when Najib’s senior political aide labelled Indians and Chinese in Malaysia as “pendatang”, alleging that the Chinese came as beggars and the Chinese women as “prostitutes”; claimed that Umno was solely responsible in drafting the constitution sidelining the contribution of MCA and MIC; and issued the threat to revoke the citizenship of those vocal about the subject cap for SPM examination.

His conspicuous silence at the JAKIM (Islamic Development Department of the Prime Minister’s Office) forum at the end of January for 800 civil servants tantamount to an insurrection against Najib’s 1Malaysia concept – with government speakers making inflammatory and incendiary speeches, blaming Christians for provoking Muslim anger by challenging the ban on the use of the word “Allah” and Umno/BN politicians for failing to defend Islam, with one speaker suggesting that a repeat of the May 13 riots was possible if the Christians, whom he accused of practising “extremism” did not “back down”, uttering the threat: “Who knows, there might be a Feb. 13?”

His conspicuous silence when the racialist rantings of Umno executive secretary Datuk Abdul Rauf Yusoh at an Umno club function in London earlier this month was exposed; and

His hamfisted attempt to aid and abet the inflammatory and incendiary campaign by Umno-controlled media like Utusan Malaysia, Berita Harian, government television and radio stations, playing the race and religious cards to viciously and falsely paint Penang Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng and Pakatan Rakyat Penang State Government as “anti-Malay” and “anti-Islam”.

Let me ask Muhyiddin one question point-blank: Is he aware that the Najib administration’s sincerity and seriousness about 1Malaysia is under great test in Penang – why the 1Malaysia concept is being undermined and compromised in the vicious and sustained exploitation of the race and religious card by Umno media and agents in the conspiracy to defame the Penang Chief Minister and Pakatan Rakyat Penang State Government as anti-Malay and anti-Islam?

If the people of Penang regard the 1Malaysia concept as fake and hypocritical, how can he expect the people of Sabah and Sarawak and the rest of Malaysians to have much confidence in the slogan?

As Deputy Prime Minister, Muhyiddin should be in the forefront to secure the co-operation of all MPs and political parties outside the Barisan Nasional fold to make a success of the 1Malaysia campaign, on the ground that it is a national issue and not a party agenda.

Unless the 1Malaysia concept is merely an Umno and Barisan Nasional political gimmick, Muhyiddin should have taken the initiative to approach MPs and political parties outside the Barisan Nasional to put aside all partisan differences to foster the national development of the 1Malaysia concept.

He should be meeting with Opposition MPs in Parliament to forge an all-party platform to ensure the achievement of the 1Malaysia concept at all levels of national life.

But Muhyiddin has done none of this in the past year that he was Deputy Prime Minister.

[
Speech by DAP Parliamentary Leader and MP for Ipoh Timor Lim Kit Siang in Dewan Rakyat on the Royal Address on Thursday, 18th March 2010
]

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 18 March 2010, 6:25 pm and is filed under
Muhyiddin Yassin
,
nation building
,
Parliament
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


How many Cabinet Ministers, including the DPM, have the 1Malaysia DNA as to be able to pass three simple 1Malaysia tests? (Part 3)

I had proposed the establishment of an Opposition-headed Parliamentary Select Committee on 1Malaysia which had been met with indifference and disinterest from Muhyiddin and the overwhelming majority of Barisan Nasional Ministers.

This is really quite ridiculous as Muhyiddin and the Najib Cabinet should be persuading the Pakatan Rakyat MPs to agree to the establishment of a Parliamentary Select Committee on 1Malaysia and not the other way round!

Why is this so? Is this because the Najib Cabinet is full of Ministers who are quite skeptical about the 1Malaysia concept treating it as nothing more than political theatre not to be taken seriously?

Who are the Ministers in the Najib Cabinet who have the 1Malaysia DNA? I do not see anyone. No wonder neither Muhyiddin nor the other Cabinet Ministers comport themselves with any conviction that they are the standard-bearers of the 1Malaysia slogan and concept.

There are three simple tests as to whether Muhyiddin and Cabinet Ministers are  sincerely and seriously committed to Najib’s 1Malaysia, viz:

Whether he or she  agrees to the establishment of an Opposition-headed Parliamentary Select Committee on 1Malaysia;

Is he or she prepared to declare that the basis of 1Malaysia is “ketuanan rakyat Malaysia” and not “ketuanan Melayu”; and

Is he or she prepared to endorse the objective of 1Malaysia as defined by the 1Malaysia Government Transformation Programme (GTP) Roadmap to create a nation where every Malaysian perceives himself or herself as Malaysian first, and by race, religion or region second.

Are Najib, Muhyiddin and all the Umno leaders prepared to stand up and declare that they are Malaysian first and Malay second?

I declare that I am Malaysian first and Chinese second.  Is every Cabinet Minister prepared to make a similar declaration?

How many Cabinet Ministers, including the DPM, have the 1Malaysia DNA and able to pass these  three simple 1Malaysia tests?

For that matter, how many Barisan Nasional MPs have the 1Malaysia DNA and able to pass these three simple 1Malaysia tests?

Evidently, 1Malaysia means “a thousand-and-one” different things to the Najib Cabinet and government – both to Umno and non-Umno Cabinet Ministers.

When non-Umno Ministers like the  KPI Minister responsible for the 1Malaysia Government Transformation Programme (GTP) Roadmap, Tan Sri Koh Tsu Koon, and Ministers from the MCA, MIC and Sabah and Sarawak BN component parties dare not defend the 1Malaysia concept to speak up in Cabinet over the Jakim insubordation and insurrection, or irresponsible exploitation of the “race and religion cards” by Umno media and agents, questions are legitimately asked whether 1Malaysia has any real meaning after its articulation by Najib last April.

In fact, I would be speaking a truism when I say that the biggest enemies of 1Malaysia is not from outside Barisan Nasional, but from inside Umno.

This is why my proposal for a Parliamentary Select Committee on 1Malaysia had not received any support – not even from the KPI Minister, Tan Sri Koh Tsu Koon, which can only mean that he has no confidence that the 1Malaysia GTP Roadmap can go very far out of the laboratory stage with withstand public and parliamentary scrutiny.

[
Speech by DAP Parliamentary Leader and MP for Ipoh Timor Lim Kit Siang in Dewan Rakyat on the Royal Address on Thursday, 18th March 2010
]

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 18 March 2010, 6:32 pm and is filed under
Muhyiddin Yassin
,
Najib Razak
,
nation building
,
Parliament
,
UMNO
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Hishamuddin punishment of China Press shameful

By
Dr Chen Man Hin, DAP Life Advisor

Home Minister Hishamuddin vents anger at China Press for prempting him in announcing news of termination of the services of IGP. The China Press did what a newspaper does, print news as they come in. They had information that the IGP was being terminated and they duly reported it – ahead of all the other newpapers including the Utusan and Straits Times.

Immediately, the home minister promised to take action against the China Press threatening punishment. Unfortunatelyfor him, the news by China Press was true news and not false news. The next day, the Home Minister was compelled to announce that the services of the IGP was to be terminated and that he would serve as IGP up to the end of the year.

Despite the fact that China Press reported true news, the Home Minister continued to hound them, until China Press took action against its staff.  So China Press was forced to take action ‘internally’ to save face for the Home Minister.

The management imposed a two week suspension of its Chief Editor. This is  a ridiculous turn of events. The editor did his duty to report true news, and was punished by a two week suspension. When in fact, the Home Minister should be apologising to China Press for reporting that the IGP would be stopping work. This proved to be true because the Home Minister later announced himself that the IGP would cease work in September later this year. The Home Minister should apologise to China Press as an injustice has been committed.

                This entry was posted on Friday, 19 March 2010, 6:40 pm and is filed under
Dr. Chen Man Hin
,
Media
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Umno media are ironically furnishing the best evidence of the rise of Middle Malaysia

The 1Malaysia GTP talks about “promoting an all-inclusive 1Malaysia media”. It said:

“However, when some of the reporting and writing becomes too ethno-centric or even takes on a more race-centred angle, it raises, rather than breaks down, barriers. Further, instead of providing constructive and valid criticism, some writers abuse the greater freedom of expression now available to use terms and express feelings that are racist or inflammatory in nature and tone.

“While censorship is antithetical to democracy, there is a need  to introduce, instill and internalize a commitment to journalistic professionalism, a sense of responsibility and self-restraint, with sensitivity to the divergent views and feelings of the diverse communities in Malaysia.”

Any independent survey of the mass media scene will show that those most guilty of the sins of being “too ethnocentric or even takes on a more race-centred angle” and abuses of using “terms and express feelings that are racist or inflammatory in nature and tone”, totally insensitive to “the divergent views and feelings of the diverse communities in Malaysia” in the past two years since the March 8 “political tsunami” of the 2008 general election are the Umno media of Utusan Malaysia and Berita Harian.

Nobody is suggesting the closure of Utusan Malaysia or  Berita Harian but have those responsible for the 1Malaysia GTP Roadmap in particular the KPI Minister, Koh Tsu Koon done anything apart from advocating “an all-inclusive 1Malaysia media”, to communicate with the errant Umno media “to introduce, instill and internalize a commitment to journalistic professionalism, a sense of responsibility and self-restraint, with sensitivity to the divergent views and feeling of the diverse communities in Malaysia” and above all, the meaning of the 1Malaysia concept?

In a way, the Umno media are ironically furnishing the best evidence of the rise of Middle Malaysia.

In the past, the vial of poison, lies and sedition relentlessly pumped out by Umno media like Utusan Malaysia and Berita Harian relentlessly for two years –  for instance the falsehoods that DAP is anti-Malay and wants to abolish the Malay monarchy by establishing a republic – would have sparked unrest and turmoil in Malaysia pre-March 8, 2008 when mainstream media (msm) were virtually the sole source of information in the country.

But today, there would be those who would read this cealesless  spiel of poison, lies and sedition with a yawn because it lacks credibility, although its capacity to create mischief cannot be under-estimated as not all Malaysians can escape the thrall of the Umno/Barisan Nasional monopoly of msm.

In previous years, DAP leaders would be very alarmed by such poisonous and seditious fare in the Umno newspapers.

There is still cause for alarm but also room for confidence that with the rise of a Middle Malaysia it is no more a one-sided affair where the Utusan Malaysia and Berita Harian lies are taken as gospel truth. More Malaysians, whether Malays, Chinese, Indians, Kadazans and Ibans, have a greater capacity to discern truth from falsehoods like those spouted by the UMNO media.

The best way to debunk the Utusan Malaysia and Berita Harian  poison, lies and sedition is to subject it to the exposure of reason and truth, but this does not mean that those in authority, particularly the Police and the Attorney-General should not take the necessary action against these Umno media to protect the integrity and the best interests of plural Malaysia.

[
Speech (4) by DAP Parliamentary Leader and MP for Ipoh Timor Lim Kit Siang in Dewan Rakyat on the Royal Address on Thursday, 18th March 2010
]

                This entry was posted on Friday, 19 March 2010, 2:55 pm and is filed under
Media
,
nation building
,
Parliament
,
UMNO
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Video : 3 Acid Tests for 1 Malaysia

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4
(exchange with Khairy)

Part 5
(exchange with Khairy)

Part 6

Part 7

Part 8

Part 9

Part 10

Part 11

Part 12

Part 13

….

                This entry was posted on Friday, 19 March 2010, 12:52 pm and is filed under
Najib Razak
,
Parliament
,
UMNO
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.