UMNO’s Somalia medical mission:  genuine or publicity stunt?

By
BLACKHAWK

By the time this article is published, the body of 39-year-old Noramfaizul Mohd Nor, Bernama’s late cameraman, who had apparently followed UMNO Putra club’s humanitarian mission to Somalia would have arrived in Malaysia. It is tragic, that apart from the hundreds of lives lost during the Raya period on Malaysian roads due to the balik kampong mayhem, Faizul should meet his death in war torn Mogadishu, Somalia.

Was this just an accident? Could it have been avoided? Did UMNO rush to Somalia to genuinely help Somalians? Or did UMNO throw caution to the wind and rush callously on the eve of Raya to Somalia just for a publicity stunt? If it was for a publicity stunt, then Faizul would have died in vain and this wouldn’t have been the first time when our personnel, both medical and non-medical would have risked not only their lives but more importantly the people around them who may be completely oblivious to the dangers of this sort of missions.

In 2003, Mercy Malaysia similarly put medical personnel at risk. Its two doctors , Dr. Jamilah and Baba Deni were lucky to get away alive although both were shot in Baghdad. Not so lucky were their Syrian driver and the Iraqi medical personnel who were accompanying them. Both lost their lives in the shooting. Malaysians may mean well, but extending aid to war torn and disaster areas carries immense risks and requires specific training. Its not a boy scout outing. Apart from the safety aspect, questions have arose as to how these trips are being financed and who actually audits these ventures.

When the 2004 tsunami flattened Acheh, Malaysians were one of the first to reach Acheh. But they were hopelessly ill-equipped for the task ahead. In direct contrast, Singapore and Australia sent in their army and naval outfits to attend to the distribution of aid. Humanitarian aid carried out by trained forces tend to be more orderly, organized, triaged and focused to help. Malaysians out to help nuclear-disastered Sendai, Japan following this year’s tsunami were not even allowed to leave Subang for Japan by Japanese authorities, as the Japanese politely refused knowing well they could not guarantee the safety of their own people let alone foreign volunteers untrained in handling nuclear fall-outs.

From the images shown on local TV, the UMNO Putra Team appeared to be untrained personnel doing their rounds on unfriendly and sometimes hostile terrain. How would giving adhoc cholera/typhoid vaccinations and holding impromptu outpatient clinics at refugee camps help civilians there in the long-term? And why would you want to do a job you are not trained to handle especially on terrain you are not familiar with and unfriendly at that too. Shouldn’t it have been a job for our army boys. We are in peace time anyway and this would have been a good mission to keep them on their toes. There is no imminent danger of our submarines sinking as they apparently cannot dive, or our air force jets with no engines crashing and there are certainly no communists to look out for who may be waiting to create another Bukit Kepong situation.

A brief look at the Army’s hospitals’ websites  indicate that almost all their hospitals have hardly any patients, which will then beg the question. What do our army docs and medics do with so much free time on their hands? Shouldn’t they have gone instead of the UMNO club. Unless of course the help UMNO went to deliver was a sideshow, the main menu being publicity for UMNO or its leaders judging from the daily reporting in the MSM and TV images during prime time. Is this GE 13 election campaigning using the Somalians misery and our journalists lives to brain wash kampong folk out in Jengka and Baling?

UMNO must now be ready to answer some difficult questions. The Mission arrived in Somalia on 30th August at one of the world’ most dangerous destinations and to a country that is home to pirates that can put to shame even the mightiest of navies in the Indian Ocean, including the US Navy. Apparently it was timed to provide Hari Raya aid and according to a statement issued by its chief, Datuk Abdul Azeez Abdul Rahim to even have Hari Raya prayers there! If the Health Ministry was involved and had sent some of their personnel, Liow Tiong Lai better have some answers ready? With our own Malaysians getting literally war conditions treatment in many of our government hospitals, it would be interesting to listen to Liow’s excuses, in his own Tung Shin way.

Aid was supposed to be distributed to five areas, with Mogadishu being the first stop. Others included Badbadur, about 25km from Mogadishu, where about 250,000 people are taking refuge, Al Shabeb in Merka where 300,000 people are affected by the famine and in the Balet Veni camps which house 100,000 people. Both areas are located 100km from Mogadishu. Even the Operations chief Lt-Col Zahani Zainal Abdin had warned saying it would be risky to even fly into Mogadishu at night. In total there were a total of 55 volunteers and members of the media who formed part of the mission to cover a radius of almost 200 km in a country where there was no law except for a 9000 strong UN backed force – the only law in a country of 10 million.

Make no mistake, in this country even 12 year olds carry AK-47s. UMNO club members had no business being in this country and in their pursuit of cheap publicity endangering the lives of other civilians both Malaysians and Somalians. Any mission that carries with it civilians and journalists are a handicap to any military personnel exposing even the most well-trained military commando to being nothing more then a sitting duck. Al- Fatihah to Noramfaizul Mohd Nor’s family. Let’s hope Bernama and Utusan don’t spin his untimely and unnecessary death into a “mati syahid” affair.

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 3 September 2011, 8:40 pm and is filed under
Letters
,
Media
,
UMNO
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Journalists’ safety in war zones

– Centre for Independent Journalism Malaysia

The Malaysian Insider

September 03, 2011

SEPT 3 – The Centre for Independent Journalism (CIJ) Malaysia mourns the death of BERNAMA TV cameraperson Noramfaizul Mohd Nor, 41, who was killed in Mogadishu, Somalia, while travelling with a group on an aid mission for the famine-struck nation. Our heartfelt condolences go to the family and friends of the late Noramfaizul.

We welcome the Somali government’s assurance that the circumstances of his death will be investigated and conveyed to the Malaysian public, and hope that justice will be meted out to those responsible.

On their part, Malaysian authorities and organisers of such missions to conflict areas must clarify the protection measures undertaken for accompanying journalists. This would include providing journalists with a thorough safety briefing and training, as well as protective gear that should also differentiate them as journalists or neutral observers.

Media owners, too, must fulfil their responsibility to staff in terms of basic protection, such as ensuring insurance coverage for tasks undertaken in the line of duty. As well, given the trend toward regional reporting and the concurrent need for journalist protection, media owners can work with organisations such as the International News Safety Institute to provide journalists with safety training and equipment.

Ultimately, with all the humanly possible preparations in place, the decision of whether to accept deployments to danger zones must be the journalist’s alone. Journalists must be fully aware of the conditions and risks of their assignment, and if they think the safety measures are inadequate, they must have the right to decline such tasks without fear of disciplinary repercussions from their employers. Journalists must take a stand and assert their right to protection while on the job.

CIJ urges Malaysian media organisations to ensure that those who accept assignments to conflict areas or danger zones are experienced journalists who have gone through appropriate hostile environment and risk awareness training and have the necessary safety equipment before going on these assignments.

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 4 September 2011, 2:35 am and is filed under
Media
,
UMNO
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


NGO responsible for Bernama man’s death, says kin

By Boo Su-Lyn

The Malaysian Insider

Sep 04, 2011

SUBANG, Sept 4 — As Malaysians mourn the killing of a local journalist in Somalia, Noramfaizul Mohd Nor’s relatives want the non-governmental By Boo Su-LynPutera 1 Malaysia Club to be held responsible for his death.

The club — which is headed by Umno supreme council member Datuk Abdul Azeez Rahim — organised a humanitarian mission to the war-torn country that led to the Bernama TV cameraman’s death last Friday.

“They (Putera 1 Malaysia Club) are the ones who organised (the mission). They cannot lepas tangan (evade responsibility),” Noramfaizul’s uncle Abu Bakar Md Yasin told The Malaysian Insider at the Royal Malaysian Air Force (RMAF) base here today.

“They should have done prior intelligence. Don’t just barge in. This is a foreign country,” added the 64-year-old retired civil servant from the Defence Ministry.

International media rights watchdog Reporters Without Borders (RSF) rank Somalia as the deadliest country in Africa for media personnel, with 23 media workers killed since 2007.

The famine-stricken country has not had a functioning government for more than 20 years.

Noramfaizul was killed in the Somali capital of Mogadishu when African Union peacekeepers allegedly shot at a truck in which six mission members, including the 39-year-old, were travelling.

The cameraman — who worked in national news agency Bernama for 11 years — leaves behind a wife, Norazrina Jaafar, and two sons aged eight and three years.

Norazrina wept when her husband’s body was brought down from RMAF’s C-130 aircraft here today, as hundreds gathered on the tarmac under the gentle morning sun.

Noramfaizul’s other uncle, Md Tahir Md Yasin, said his nephew’s death could have been avoided.

“They should wear bulletproof vests. It’s not a stable country,” he told The Malaysian Insider.

The 69-year-old retired teacher said Bernama should also be held accountable for Noramfaizul’s death, besides the Putera 1 Malaysia Club.

Mary Francis, the mother of a psychologist who was part of the mission team, echoed Tahir’s remarks, saying: “They don’t have bulletproof vests. This is important in a war-torn country.”

Mary Francis, the mother of a psychologist who was part of the mission team, says the mission team wore bulletproof vests after Noramfaizul was shot dead. — Foto by Boo Su-Lyn

She pointed out that the team wore bulletproof vests when Noramfaizul’s body was taken back. “It’s too late…he would have been protected if he had a vest,” she said.

The 54-year-old housewife, who was weeping as she spoke, also said the mission team should have been given full training.

Deputy Information, Communication and Culture Minister Senator Datuk Maglin Dennis D’Cruz similarly stressed that the journalists should have received better protection and training.

“Provide bulletproof jackets, cars…should have given them more army security,” he told The Malaysian Insider.

“They should have some training in war zones. First-timers shouldn’t be sent,” added the senator.

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 4 September 2011, 11:00 pm and is filed under
Media
,
UMNO
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Somali mission survivors say no bulletproof vests, training

By
Boo Su-Lyn

September 04, 2011 | The Malaysian Insider

SUBANG, Sept 4 — Young journalists who covered a non-governmental organisation’s fatal humanitarian mission to Somalia said they were not given full training or bulletproof vests in Africa’s deadliest country for media personnel.

Bernama TV cameraman Noramfaizul Mohd Nor was killed in the Somali capital of Mogadishu last Friday when African Union peacekeepers allegedly shot at a four-wheel drive in which six mission members, including the 39-year-old, were travelling.

Astro Awani reporter Tan Su Lin, who was in the same truck with Noramfaizul during the shooting, said she was not trained on how to cover hostile zones.

“We were told it’s very dangerous, life-threatening,” Tan told reporters at the Royal Malaysian Air Force (RMAF) base here today.

“(But we did not get) bulletproof vests…our car was not marked media. It was just a four-wheel drive,” she added.

The 27-year-old reporter also said that the mission organised by the Putera 1 Malaysia Club — which provided aid to famine-stricken Somalia from August 28 — was her first war-zone assignment.

“There were a lot of soldiers…you see people (walking) around with AK47s and you don’t feel anything. At night, you hear gunshots,” said Tan, who has four years’ experience in journalism.

She added that the shooting happened when the four-wheel drive — which carried six pressmen — was leaving a hotel that hosted the medical team to the media team’s hostel just five minutes away.

“At the corner near our compound, I heard a very loud bang sound. Aji (Saregar Mazlan) was holding his arm… he was in pain. There was blood. The late Noramfaizul was leaning on his (Aji’s) right shoulder. There was a bullet hole in the right window,” said the reporter from satellite giant Astro’s news channel.

Tan also said Noramfaizul — who worked in national news agency Bernama for 11 years — was the media team leader. “It was great knowing him through this mission.”

Aji, a 27-year-old TV3 cameraman who was injured through a gunshot, said he was sad at Noramfaizul’s death.

“I saw a hole in the late Noramfaizul’s right shoulder…he fell on me,” he told reporters, with a bandage around his right arm.

“I got basic training (before the mission),” added the reporter from the Umno-owned broadcaster, but did not specify the contents of the training.

Melissa Ong, a 27-year-old NTV7 newscaster and reporter, said the mission team always travelled in a convoy with other armed vehicles.

“A car would be guarding us with M16s, AK47s. Some of us sat in a bulletproof car; we rotate,” said Ong, who has three years’ experience in journalism.

Like Tan, Ong said the Somali mission was her first assignment in a conflict zone.

War-torn Somalia has not had a functioning government for more than 20 years.

International media rights watchdog Reporters Without Borders (RSF) rank Somalia as the deadliest country in Africa for media personnel, with 23 media workers killed since 2007.

“I didn’t have training. If we’re moving towards that humanitarian direction, we should be given proper training and guidance,” said the journalist from Umno-linked Media Prima Bhd.

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 4 September 2011, 4:59 pm and is filed under
Media
,
UMNO
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Historical Reconstruction Again?

By
Farish A Noor

5 September 2011

And so, for reasons that are both complex and irritating, the past is being dragged into the present yet again; while we Malaysians bury our heads in the sand and neglect the future. By now most of us will be familiar with yet another controversy-in-a-teacup that has grabbed the headlines: namely the question of whether the events that took place during the attack on the police outpost in Bukit Kepong ought to be remembered as a historic event in the Malayan struggle for independence.

Unfortunately for all parties concerned it seems that the issue has been hijacked by politics and politicians yet again, as is wont to happen in Malaysia on a daily basis almost. More worrying still is how the manifold aspects of this event have been taken up selectively by different parties and actors to further their own arguments, while neglecting to look at the wider context against which the event took place. It is almost impossible to be truly objective when it comes to the writing and reading of history, and perhaps we can do away with that pretense. But for now perhaps some marginal notes on the matter might come in useful to clear the air a bit.

A. Was PAS pro-Communist?

One of the outcomes of this debate has been the resurrection of the old question of whether PAS (The Pan-Malaysian Islamic Party) was pro-Communist at that point in its history. This seems an odd question to ask in the first place, as it seems incongruous for an Islamic party to harbour any real sympathy for Communism, which has always been seen as the bugbear to the Islamist cause. But it has to be remembered that when the Malayan Islamic party was first formed in Novermber 1951, many of its founder-leaders were anti-colonial nationalists who were keen to see the end of British rule in Malaya. Some of them were former members of the Parti Kebangsaan Melayu Malaya (PKMM) and also the first Islamic party in the country, the Hizbul Muslimin (that was formed, and almost immediately banned, in 1948)

PAS’s left-leaning days were at their peak during the Presidency of Dr Burhanuddin al-Helmy (1956-1969), who did not hide his opposition to British rule and who refused to negotiate a settlement with the British then. Dr. Burhanuddin was sympathetic to the Malayan Communist Party (MCP), whose anti-British sentiments he shared; but this does not mean he supported Communism as an ideology. PAS’s stand towards the MCP then (in the 1950s and 1960s) was thus a pragmatic one that was based on the same goal of rejecting British colonial rule. However, it has to be noted that PAS was equally wary of Beijing’s influence in the region, and there is nothing to suggest that the leaders of PAS would have ever accepted Malaya coming under Communist rule, albeit directly or indirectly, from Beijing.

B. Was the MCP a tool of Communist China?

That the MCP and its guerilla wing were against any and all forms of British colonial rule is simple enough to verify, and their record of anti-colonial struggle is there for anyone to investigate. The more difficult question to answer however is this: How independent was the MCP, and was it – as the British alleged – working to further China’s communist influence in the region then? The British were somewhat ham-fisted when dealing with the MCP, and it ought to be noted that the invention of the image of the MCP as a ‘Chinese threat’ was the work of the British colonial propaganda agencies then.

Here, however, a broader perspective on the matter might come in handy. Think of Malaya in the 1950s and envisage the region as a whole, as the Cold War was heating up. In Vietnam, Burma and Indonesia the Communists were gaining strength in numbers; and perhaps the biggest worry to Britain then (as to the departing French and Dutch colonial powers) was the possibility that all of southeast asia might turn Communist. Remember that this was the time when the region was called ‘the Second Front in the war against Communism’; and when the Western bloc was keen to ensure that Indonesia – being the biggest country in the region – would not come under the rule of the Indonesian Communist Party (PKI).

In Indonesia, the PKI grew more and more powerful under the leadership of men like D.N Aidit, and was instrumental in developing the civilian para-military forces that later agitated for the destruction of Malaya during the ‘Ganyang Malaya’ (Crush Malaya) campaign. It was only after the failed coup of 1965 and the virtual extermination of the PKI between 1966 to 1970 that the Communist threat in Indonesia was contained, and ties between Malaya and Indonesia were normalised. It was against this background that the fear of the MCP – and the worry that it was backed by China – was articulated and developed in Malaya. While it is true that the MCP was anti-British, there is no evidence to suggest that it claimed the majority support of mainstream Malay-Muslims in the country, despite the presence of Malays in the 10th Regiment.

C. To negotiate or fight?

Perhaps the most contentious issue of all is whether the struggle for independence was really fought and won by the Leftists, Islamists or Nationalists in Malaysia. Here is where contingency steps in and one can only speculate.

The fact is that the security measures that were introduced during the declaration of the First Emergency (1948-1960) meant that almost all the left-leaning parties, trade union movements, workers groups etc had been eliminated or left feeble. Those who stood to gain from this were the conservative nationalists who opted instead to negotiate the terms of Malayan independence, and who negotiated on a number of issues including citizenship for the non-Malays etc. But no matter how one looks at it, the historical facts are that the left-leaning movements in the country were established long before the conservative-nationalist parties and movements. (The Malayan Anarchist party was founded in 1919, for instance; and the MCP in 1930. By contrast the MCA was only founded in February 1949.)

Of course we can speculate until the cows come home over the question of the many ‘what-ifs’ had the circumstances of the past were different. What if the MCP was not banned? What if the MCP was successful in its guerilla campaign? What if half the Malay population had supported the leftists, etc etc.

But in the event, as things turned out, the radical left was all but absent in the final stages of negotiation and it was the UMNO-MCA alliance that sorted out the final terms of Britain’s withdrawal from Malaya. Lets not be too sanguine about this: Britain did not ‘leave’ Malaya willingly, but was compelled to do so thanks to the destruction of its colonial economy in the wake of World War II. Its main aim then was to ensure that its capital investments in its former colonies would not be nationalised, as was the case in Indonesia when Sukarno simply confiscated all Dutch capital assets and nationalised them. Unsurprisingly, Britain wanted to ensure that its investments in tin and rubber were not lost in the wake of its withdrawal.

However we are left with several ponderables:

Malaya (then under Tunku Abdul Rahman) negotiated its independence on terms that were mutually beneficial to both sides. The British were not shot to pieces or blown to bits, and despite the loss of lives in the guerilla war the human cost was less than what was paid in Vietnam and Indonesia. Conversely, in the three countries where the anti-colonial struggle was led by the native armed forces – Indonesia, Vietnam and Burma – the army then came to power and dabbled directly in politics for decades to come. Had a similar war been fought in Malaya, could there have been a situation where a nationalist army would then come to power too, with generals and colonels taking over government as they did in Vietnam, Indonesia and Burma?

Which then brings us to the debate over ‘negotiation vs struggle’. Just take a flight to Vietnam or Indonesia and everywhere you will see statues of freedom-fighters, generals, colonels, guerilla leaders etc. Malaya’s first generation of leaders, on the other hand, had almost never fired a shot or stabbed anyone with a bayonet. But is that a bad thing? While I understand the value of patriotism and valour in the face of adversity; one also has to ask: if and when we are confronted by a departing adversary who wishes to negotiate the terms of withdrawal, should we negotiate or fight? I am personally bored by all this tostesterone-driven talk of macho deeds of heroism, and frankly hate any sort of violence. Looking to India, we ought to remember that while there were Indian nationalists who were prepared to fight the British militarily (like Subhas Chandra Bose), India’s independence was negotiated too – through passive civil disobedience and persistent resistance, rather than guns and grenades. The same could be said of South Africa, where Apartheid was brought to an end by claiming the moral high ground rather than to sink to the same level of guttaral violence like the regime’s.

SHOULD the Malayan nationalists have opted for negotiation or struggle then? Now quite honestly I do not see how this question can be answered objectively by anyone (even myself). What we can say, with some certainty, is that in the cases of the countries where local nationalist militias/armies did oppose the departing colonial powers the results have been military intervention, and subsequent military presence in politics. (The Indonesian armed forces during the time of Sukarno and Suharto claimed the right to be political, by virtue of its institutional history and its role in the anti-colonial war.) What then? Could Malaya/Malaysia have then become a militarised state? We simply do not know, and speculation beyond this is, simply, futile.

At the root of the present impasse in Malaysia seems to be the question of who writes our national history and who interprets/defines it. Perhaps one of the reasons why we keep returning to these debates time and again is the worry that our history has not been as inclusive as it ought to be. We cannot deny that in the end it was the UMNO/MCA alliance that won the terms of Malaya’s first independence in 1957. But we also cannot, and should not, deny the historical role played by other groups including the trade unions movements, the workers movements, the nascent vernacular press, the native intelligentsia, the cultural groups, the Islamists and the Leftists as well. ALL of them were part of this collective drama that we call our national history. And our national history has to be precisely that: a National History that mirrors the complexity and diversity of this complex thing called ‘Malaysia’.   My lament, as an academic by default, is that objectivity and balance have long since left the stage and gone flying through the window. Yet we should not forget that a lopsided, skewered and biased history is not simply an incorrect or incomplete record of our past; it would also be a broken legacy that sadly will be passed on to the generations to come. And that is not a singular loss to any one of us, but to all.

                This entry was posted on Monday, 5 September 2011, 9:56 pm and is filed under
Farish Noor
,
History
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Is it history or his-story?

By
Zairil Khir Johari
|
The Malaysian Insider

SEPT 4 — I was a little apprehensive as I entered the small tutorial room. It was my first day attending class in England.

In the centre of the unassuming room was an oblong table, around which sat eight post-graduate students of various nationalities. I flashed a timid smile before taking my place amongst them.

At the far end of the table, a heavyset man in a worn tweed jacket and polka dotted bowtie cleared his throat. Pushing the thickest glasses I have ever seen up the bridge of his nose, he made a gesture to indicate that the tutorial was about to start.

“I assume you’ve all familiarised yourselves with the required readings for the week?” asked our tutor rhetorically, after early pleasantries and introductions had been done and dealt with. “Now then, let’s start with you.”

It took me a few seconds to realise that he was referring to me. “Er, yes?” I stammered in response.

“Go on. Tell us what you think about it.”

After spending my entire schooling years in the Malaysian national education system, and after having earned a Bachelor’s degree in a Malaysian university, I was faced with a grossly unfamiliar situation. For the first time, I was asked for an opinion rather than have one written down on the whiteboard for me to copy.

Two memories stand out from my first day at SOAS. First, I had been suddenly thrust into an entirely new concept of study, where opinions mattered, where questioning everything was encouraged and where you were marked according to how you argued a point, no matter how far-fetched it was, and where the notion of “correctness” did not exist.

The second memory that I can never forget is my introduction to a cardinal maxim that has stuck in my mind to this very day. To paraphrase the German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche: “There are no facts, only interpretations.”

Suddenly, I was blown away. Every belief I had about everything I knew was totally and completely changed. History as taught to me by our KBSM syllabus was now nothing more than the opinion of those who wrote it. And as with every other opinion in the world, it was my choice to accept it or not.

 My mind had been liberated. From that day on, everything I read or learnt would be tempered with a critical assessment of the source. I began to yearn for alternative interpretations in my hunger for choice. The world was a buffet and I had been fasting for years.

And so it is in such a spirit that I approach the recent uproar surrounding Mat Sabu’s purported remarks about the Bukit Kepong tragedy. Of course, reports by the Malaysian mainstream media are necessarily suspect and have to be digested with a bagful of salt.

That said, I am convinced that there was neither any disparagement of the police nor glorification of the communist aggressors in the PAS deputy president’s speech. Any contention to the contrary is merely exaggerated spin-doctoring.

More significantly, the Mat Sabu incident has brought to question the wisdom of accepting history as fact, without considering who the authors are and what their motivations may be. This is something we must never forget when we contemplate any kind of information.

Like a movie on terrestrial TV, much of our country’s official history has been censored for general viewing. It is shaped and presented in such a way as to trumpet the contributions of selected personalities while conveniently snipping out or downplaying the roles of those deemed counter-productive to the political agenda of those in power.

From the gradual contraction of Yap Ah Loy’s role in the development of Kuala Lumpur to the pitiful passing mention of the ancient Hindu civilisation in Bujang Valley — a historical treasure in any other country — Malaysians are slowly but surely fed a doctrine of half-truths and value judgements passed by politically-motivated authors.

And then we have the vilification of the leftist movement, nullifying decades of political and nationalist activism. By this I am talking about anti-Colonial movements such as SABERKAS (officially “Syarikat Berkerjasama Am Saiburi” and secretly “Sayang Akan Bangsa Ertinya Redha Korban Apa Segala”), of which my late father was the founding secretary; Ibrahim Yaacob’s Kesatuan Melayu Muda (KMM); Dr Burhanuddin al-Helmy’s Parti Kebangsaan Melayu Malaya (PKMM), and of course the little-known PUTERA-AMCJA, our country’s first multiracial coalition.

The coalition had even gone to the lengths of preparing an alternative set of Constitutional proposals in opposition to the Malayan Union. As a result, the “People’s Constitution” was adopted and presented in 1947, a good 10 years before Merdeka.

The ground-breaking document had proposed, inter alia, equal citizenship rights, protection of Malay customs and religion, as well as the adoption of the moniker “Melayu” as the designation for all citizens of Malaya.

Of course, studying and appreciating the above will by no means displace the contributions of other parties and movements such as Umno and the Alliance. Historiography is not a zero-sum game. There is room for more than one interpretation, more than one point of view and certainly more than a few heroes.

The key to opening our minds is to first remove our blinders. Thus, whenever presented with history that appears to be his-story, it is probably best that we ask ourselves: exactly whose story is this?

                This entry was posted on Monday, 5 September 2011, 12:35 am and is filed under
Zairil Khir Johari
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Malaysia in the Era of Globalization #81

By
M. Bakri Musa

Chapter 9: Islam in Malay Life

Reform in Islam

Islamic Financial Intermediaries (Cont’d)

            IFIs thrived in the first few centuries of Islam not because those early Islamic thinkers had found a magic way to dispense with the cost of funds and returns on investments, rather they used different terms (or more crudely said, put a different spin on the issue) to circumvent interests payments and earnings.

            The modern version of Islamic banks was resurrected only in the last few decades. Despite its recent rebirth, its popularity has soared both in Islamic and non-Islamic countries. This recent history should serve as a ready caution. The system has not been tested. The system of auditing, accounting, and regulating has not been standardized. What I fear most is that should Islamic banks fail in an economic crisis, it would not only aggravate the situation but also set back people’s trust in them. That in turn would severely shake Muslim’s trust in their religion.

            A senior official of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, which supervises the world’s largest and most sophisticated banks, voiced his concern about this in his address to a meeting of Islamic bankers who were eager on introducing the concept to America. Through bitter experience America has wisely separated commercial banking from insurance and investment banking, and also banking from commerce.

            A century ago American banks were deeply involved with commercial enterprises much along the lines currently advocated by proponents of Islamic banking. The 1930 depression was blamed in part because banks were deeply involved in speculative share trading activities of companies they owned. Further, such co-mingling of banking and other commercial activities could lead to an unhealthy concentration of economic power. Banks would then cease from becoming an impartial arbiter of credit worthiness.

            Modern Western banking has been continuously refined over the past centuries. Banks today (at least in Western countries) are safer and offer better services. They have also contributed immensely to economic development. The challenge for IFIs is not simply to say that Western banks are un-Islamic but to offer comparable services to customers and thus serve the economic needs of society.

            Instead of trying to parse non-existent differences between interest and other costs of funds, modern Islamic bankers and economists should more productively focus their intellectual resources to differentiating the various kinds of lending. Islam rightly prohibits “making money on money,” which I interpret as gambling and speculating, but encourages trade, which is taking risks in productive investments.

            There are certainly significant differences between my borrowing money to buy a Mercedes limousine to show off to my colleagues and neighbors, or to use it as a taxi. The economic multiplier effect of the purchase, for example in creating jobs at the factory as well as the car repair shops, is the same in both cases – the direct effects of consumer spending. From there the economically meaningful differences emerge.

            With the first instance I am using borrowed funds for consumption; the second for production or investment. With the latter I, as a borrower, would actually earn money (passenger revenues) as a consequent of the loan. And if I share my taxi with another driver, that would create yet another job (making a total of two taxi drivers). No such additional incomes or job creations would result with the first type of borrowing. Additionally, my taxi would provide a much-needed transportation service to the community. My private limousine would only create more pollution and envy from my neighbors. But the most important difference is that with the first borrowing, only the lender (bank) makes money out of the borrower; with the second, both lender and borrower make money.

            In either case money is being borrowed and interest (cost of funds) incurred. But with the second case the borrowing serves a useful societal purpose; it is in fact a form of trading. I trade my service or expertise as a taxi driver for the bank’s capital. The first borrowing on the other hand, is purely for consumption. One can be easily persuaded that borrowing in the second instance should be encouraged as society as a whole would benefit from such activities. No such societal benefits would accrue from the first borrowing. Thus we could properly differentiate, as many recent scholars have suggested, between the costs of capital in the first type of lending as interest, riba; the costs in the second instance should be more accurately called profit on the trading of capital, which in this case is money instead of the usual assets such as goods and real estate.

            Muslims must remind ourselves that current accepted interpretations of terms such as riba and gharar (risky sale, speculation) are just that: interpretations. Indeed there are some scholars who interpret riba to mean excessive interest. Just as excessive profit is bad (and often illegal as they are usually obtained through such means as market manipulation, monopoly, or plain hoarding) so too are excessive interest rates. Likewise there is a conceptual difference between interests on “productive” versus “consumptive” loans. The latter would more likely fit the description of riba while the former as profit on the trading of capital.

            There is a comparable controversy on whether insurance, specifically life insurance, is halal or haram. Islam has its own version of managing risks, Takaful. (mutual aid). Again here it is the duty of its proponents to clearly differentiate their product, especially with respect to safety, security, and rate of returns from traditional insurance so consumers could be better informed and be able to “comparison shop” intelligently.

            In such important matters we must go beyond simplistic and legalistic changes of specific words but instead concentrate on deciphering the meanings and intent of such terms.

            Indeed Muslim shippers in Spain first started the very concept of takaful or insurance. They would collect levies on each shipper so they would have funds to support the unfortunate shipper who would meet untimely calamity along the way. Of course the concept has since developed a long way from there.

            When one traces the development of insurance from a mutual aid society, the ulama can easily understand and readily agree to the concept. I once explained to an alim who vehemently opposed life insurance, the concept of risk sharing. I described a community where when someone dies, the rest of the community would contribute some money to take care of the deceased’s family. He readily agreed to the benefits of such deeds and went on to quote eloquently some holy passages to buttress his agreement. Then I suggested that instead of collecting the money only when someone dies, we would collect it regularly and put that cash in a pool ready to be distributed at the time of need, that is, the death of a member. Again, he readily concurred.

            Then I moved on and suggested that instead of giving the same amount of money for each family, we use our judgment and give more to those who die leaving behind young children as opposed to those whose children have grown up. Again, he readily agreed to the rationale that the expenses of a family with dependent children would certainly greater and therefore they should get more. Then I made the leap forward by suggesting that instead of us or the village committee deciding how much money the deceased family would get, we let individual members decide how much to leave to their family when they die. Surely the individual is the best judge on the needs of his or her family. Those who want to leave more would of course have to contribute more; those who want to leave less would contribute less. Again he saw no problem with that. Then I surprised him by saying that is in essence the concept of life insurance. You decide how much your family would get when you die and you make your contributions (that is, pay your premiums) accordingly.

            Today, life insurance is much more complex as other risk factors like age and family history are considered. And instead of a village committee we have a team of professional actuaries who assess and price risks as well as invest the premiums. But cut to its core, life insurance is essentially a commercialized mutual aid society. The money contributed (premiums), instead of being left underneath the village headman’s mattress, is being invested and thus further contributes directly to the economy.

            The ulama’s prohibition on insurance, specifically life insurance, is simply based on their lack of understanding of the concept of risk sharing. They have this simplistic notion of life insurance as a bounty to invite some mischief on the part of the beneficiary in order to collect the cash. Well, such a scheme is a crime. One would be punished right here in this world for fraud and murder.

            Life insurance, like other forms of insurances, is merely a form of mutual sharing of risks. Nothing prevents a community, co-operative, or a “mutual” company from offering such investments. Indeed such co-ops and mutual insurance companies are among the biggest issuers of insurances in America. The Mormon Church has a similar insurance-like scheme by levying charges (tithes) on its members to take care of the sick and disabled amongst them.

Next:   Educating Ulamas on Modern Economics

                This entry was posted on Monday, 5 September 2011, 2:50 pm and is filed under
Bakri Musa
,
globalisation
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Recognising history would make Umno irrelevant

By
Mohd Ariff Sabri Aziz
 | September 5, 2011

Free Malaysia Today

Former premier Dr Mahathir Mohamad said Umno hasn’t got leadership. My take on that statement is that it is the damnest indictment on Prime Minsiter Najib Tun Razak’s leadership.

Umno is now reduced to the stature of a beggar – scrounging at the supposed faux pas committed by PAS deputy president Mat Sabu.

What has Mat Sabu actually said that caused so much consternation?

Mat Sabu mentioned the name of Mat Indera, the Batu Pahat Malay born in Peserai who led the attack on the police barrack at Bukit Kepong.

The barrack was commanded by an English man representing the colonial government then.

I think we are missing the point here. Mat Sabu wasn’t glorifying the communists or communism.

He didn’t even say anything about communism. He was asking his audience to take a relook at the treatment of history on the role of Mat Indera.

To Mat Sabu, history has unjustly treated Mat Indera and we, the public, have accepted the official version of history – hook, line and sinker.

Was Mat Indera a simple terrorist sans a greater purpose and therefore deserving the description of a villain and terrorist?

Villifying Mat Indera

It now seems the preferred version of revised history is to see and value Mat Indera as a freedom fighter bent on kicking out the British imperialists.

Certainly the people in Mat Indera’s kampung in Batu Pahat refused to accept the vilification of Mat Indera’s memory.

The criminalisation of Mat Indera is part of the indoctrination and propaganda carried out by British imperialism.

Mat Indera joins the list of so many other freedom fighters who dared rise up to challenge Britsih hegemony.

Nowadays the Malayan people could no longer accept nor tolerate the infamy enforced on people like Pandak Endut, on Tok Janggut and Mat KIlau and so many others.

Mat Indera certainly doesn’t deserve to be dumped into the dustbin of history as just “one of those” terrorists.

Why is Umno concerned?

Over the last few days, I had the opportunity to finish reading the memoir of one Shamsiah Fakeh – Memoir Shamsiah Fakeh- Dari AWAS ke Rejimen ke-10.

PKMM preceded Umno

If you recall, her name re-emerged with some notoriety recently when the Bersih 2.0 marchers on July 9 were said to be influenced by her actions.

Shamsiah was a member of Parti Kebangsaan Melayu Malaya (PKMM) – a left-leaning Malay political party formed in 1945.

It was the first political party that openly declared its mission to be that of securing independence for Malaya.

In that sense, PKMM preceded Umno in its commitment to secure Merdeka for the Malayan people.

Umno leaders at that time scoffed and chided and were dismissive of the manifest desire to gain independence.

They often derided those who wanted independence as fanciful dreamers who couldn’t even manufacture a needle.

What is then alarming about Mat Sabu’s faux pas is the fear that it may lead to a widespread revision of history.

If it snowballs into a widespread revision of history, then Umno’s actual role MAY itself be diminished.

And it will no longer enjoy an unchallenged and monopolistic place in our nation’s history.

Politically it will also mean that Umno will find it increasingly difficult to claim absolute legitimacy as the nation’s only political force to have fought for Merdeka.

Its own heroes will be brought down to size.

This excerpt is from the writer’s blog sakmongkolak47. The writer is a FMT columnist.

                This entry was posted on Monday, 5 September 2011, 5:12 pm and is filed under
History
,
UMNO
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Failure to listen cost a life

by
Mergawati Zulfakar

The Star

September 6, 2011

COMMENT

There was sound advice from an advance team that the Somalia aid mission should be put on hold. However, it is said that the advice was not heeded. Now, a family, friends and colleagues mourn a wasteful loss.

JUST three days before the Putera 1Malaysia Club Malaysian volunteers left for Somalia on Aug 28, a seven-member reconnaissance team comprising government officials, a high-ranking military officer and media members arrived in Mogadishu.

Their objective was to check the security situation and secure the safety of Malaysians from the Somalis for the humanitarian mission.

Media members were also included as they were supposed to give feedback how best their colleagues could do their job when they arrive in Somalia.

The recce team’s verdict?

It was a risky trip.

Recommendations were also made that if the humanitarian mission wanted to go, it should leave after Hari Raya to make sure all the preparations were in place.

When the team reported back to Putrajaya, the order was to stay put and wait for the team that was coming from Malaysia just a few days before Ramadan ends.

The team in Somalia met their local contacts and went up to the highest level to make all the arrangements, despite the known risks.

Another recommendation made by the recce team was for mission leader Datuk Abdul Azeez Abdul Rahim to concentrate their work and set up a clinic at one selected camp for the refugees.

Unfortunately, this too was ignored. The mission decided to move from one place to another, inadvertently increasing the danger for the members who were travelling.

One of the reporters who followed the mission, TV3’s Shaharil Kadir who was interviewed on Buletin Utama Sunday night was spot on when he said preparation was important.

“But the notice that was given to us was too short. This mission is in a war zone, so certainly a longer period of time must be given for preparation and there must be standard operating procedures,” Shaharil said.

A journalist who went for the trip was asked by an officer why he was not wearing a safety vest.

His reply: “I asked for one from the company but the company said to just go ahead.”

According to an international news agency journalist, his company provides training for reporters assigned to war zones.

“It is an intensive three-day course conducted by former commandos. It provides a long list of do’s and don’ts, but basically they teach you first aid and how to recognise danger signs.

“To be honest, the course is a way for the employer to be able to say that they had equipped the staffer with adequate training.

“But, in reality, even the crash course can never provide you with the tools to survive a war zone.

“Most of it is common sense that one picks up from experience.

“The basic rule is that no story is worth it if there is even the slightest risk.

Defence Minister Datuk Seri Dr Zahid Hamidi pointed out that there were journalists who had received military training and questioned why they were not assigned.

“We have media members who went for Territorial Army training, they should have been part of the media team.”

Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak said this was not the time to blame anybody for BernamaTV cameraman Noramfaizul Mohd Nor’s death.

But in this case, the team was told of the risks right from the start and yet did not heed it.

Somewhere along the route from Kuala Lumpur to Mogadishu, orders were issued for the mission to continue.

An official gave a grim potential scenario saying had no government officers gone along for the trip, more coffins could have been brought home on Sunday.

Surely there must be a stop to missions like this. Advice from professionals must be taken seriously. A proper assessment must be done before any such trip.

A report prepared by the Foreign Ministry recommended that SOP for missions organised by the Government or non-governmental organisations must be in place.

This is not the first such report to give such a recommendation since Malaysia has been doing humanitarian work in places like Pakistan, New Zealand and Japan.

There is an urgent need to relook and review all humanitarian relief efforts from Malaysia in future.

Those going must know the risks that they are getting into.

I grieve over the death of Noramfaizul as a loss of a comrade.

This is surely an incident that could have been avoided.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 6 September 2011, 11:53 am and is filed under
Media
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Is Proton a ‘Malaysian’ car?

By
KJ John
 | Aug 30, 11

Malaysiakini

Ahmad Talib is a mainstream media personality having served as the former managing editor of the NST. I first met him when I gave a lecture at the Ministry of Information about the National IT Agenda.

Ahmad Talib wrote a recent column where he talked about a conversation he had with Proton CEO Syed Zainal about the story of a Proton taxi-cab which Syed Zainal took from KLIA to go home.

During the trip, twice the taxi driver did not open the power windows to pay his toll but instead opened the entire door. When asked why, the driver complained that he was told that if he used the power window too often, it could easily get spoilt. Therefore, he chose to do it the more difficult way.

Syed Zainal, as reported by Ahmad Talib in his column, told the driver who he was and requested that he continue to use the power window instead and that he would personally get it repaired if it really got spoilt. The Proton CEO even gave his card but to date he had not heard from the taxi driver.

Maybe the advice worked, but in the mean time, Ahmad Talib has since reported that many other Proton owners called to confirm the hypothesis of the taxi driver, based on their own experience.

Now, what is the real problem here? I once had the privilege of visiting Tengku Mahaleel Tengku Ariff in his office when he was CEO of Proton. At a briefing he gave us, he informed the group of visitors from Mimos Berhad that the real problem with Proton was that inadvertently it was positioned and marketed from the beginning as “a people’s car”.

Therefore, Proton was never really able with that brand reputation to reposition its image to compete with the imported versions of other saloons or others of an equal class and quality.

My take on this issue is however somewhat different. My view is that Proton was postured and positioned originally as a national car but over time, with many decisions and many related supplier-vendor crony relationships and concerns, the same car has been redefined as a matter of a “Melayu-developed car of pride” but no more as a Malaysian people’s car.

In fact, today, even the definition of what is a national car, I believe, has now been revised to suit this identity crisis. Today, if I am not mistaken, even an ordinary distributor of cars and marketer of foreign-made cars is even classified as a “maker of national cars”.

Crony interests among suppliers

I remember vividly the day Proton was revealed. Dr Mahathir Mohamad (TDM) had sold it to the nation as a matter of national pride and part and parcel of his pet Bangsa Malaysia agenda.

I did participate with pride in wanting to visit a showroom and see the car for myself. TDM had promised it would be delivered within two years. I even touched and pounded on it to feel the car and see if was made from “Milo and Ovaltine cans”.

But, sadly when real production began in Malaysia, market competitiveness took a back seat as “cronies of the mainstream agenda got the contracts to become vendors and suppliers.”

I speak with sincerity and no malice to anyone. I was faced with some real life cases when I tried to help a good friend from the Sikh community who was already in the curtain tape business and had secured an Australian supplier who could support the development of Proton’s safety belt development at very reasonable costs.

My friend’s family had been in this business for many years.

But, with many crony interests and other small but petty considerations, my friend had to finally give up after a few years of waiting and trying to become a Proton supplier.

With many ‘bad decisions’ like these, slowly but surely, the entire Proton supplier-vendor network in Malaysia may today come from only one community.

Therefore, my reflective question today for all readers is: Is Proton a still a Malaysian car or has it become a psychological symbol to project a Ketuanan Melayu identity?

The same can be asked of Malaysian batik. There was a time in public service when we would be frowned upon if we did not wear authentic Malaysian batik and instead wore Indonesian batik.

Today, I do not drive a Proton but I love Malaysian batik but do not really care whether someone wears Indonesian or Japanese batik. As long as our batik designers make excellent quality of Malaysian batik, I will pay for and wear them.

In my previous two columns, I have raised a similar identity crisis issue in different ways. For one of them, I received a lot of negative and emotional feedback from writers who could not understand or appreciate the need for a concept of nationality. Distinguished Prof AB Shamsul argues, “we are still not yet a nationality but only a state”.

Only one class of citizens

My question to all citizens and Proton, the corporate entity – when are we all ever going to become first-class citizens of the nation-state called Malaysia?

Can we really expect Lee Chong Wei to win the Olympic gold for badminton when there are those who say, “why bother to watch the finals of the badminton, because whether they are Indonesian, or Malaysian, or from China, these are all only Chinese players”. We have to see things beyond race and ethnicity for quality and excellence to be nurtured.

When are we really going to grow up and become proud to be Malaysian, whether Indian, Chinese or Malay or Kadazan or Iban? Or even not care, whether we were originally Javanese, Malayalee, or Cantonese, or Orang Sungai, or Orang Laut, or Orang Asal?

Come on Malaysia, we need to decide who we are and what we want to make out of life, while we make ends meet in this country of ours.

My argument, first made at the Perdana Leadership Talks, was that we all have multiple identities but we are all Malaysians first and foremost. If someone claims he is not, we should ask him to shape up or ship out.

Secondly, we all have a heritage of faith, which defines our worldview. That we cannot deny and this defines our belief systems. Thirdly, we all have an ethnic heritage which defines our culture, a mother tongue and our taste-buds.

Fourthly, we all have a personality. Some are extroverts and others introverts. Some are judgemental and others are feelings driven. Depending on which personality profile instrument you use, you can still learn some very interesting things about yourself and about others. Finally, from my dignity thesis, and the nature of human nature, we get the fact that we all have a human conscience.

Therefore, I dare say this; no one can convert me or force me to do anything that I would not want to do willingly. In the literature this is called free will. All humans have free will. That does not take away the sovereignty of God or what can be called God’s will. God exists at a different paradigm level and too often we cannot know or understand God because we reduce him to our level of thinking.

Let God remain God and man, man. A pot cannot question the potter. What we truly and actually need is to understand who we are and what our purpose in this life is. Once that is clear, then we can move on with the business of living our short life for the glory of our Creator. Our identity cannot be shaken or disturbed only because some called us names or even called us the wrong names.

My take is that if you are an anak Bangsa Malaysia, then you are a first-class Malaysian and no one – yes, no one, and not even the government – can deny you that right, unless you wilfully do something wrong.

May God bless Malaysia and Selamat Hari Raya to all Malaysians.

____

KJ JOHN was in public service for 29 years. He is now dean of the Faculty of Economics and Policy Science at UCSI University, Malaysia. The views expressed here are personal views of the writer and not those of the university or any other institution he is involved with. Please write to the columnist at
[email protected]
, if you have any feedback or views.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 6 September 2011, 12:25 pm and is filed under
nation building
,
Transport
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Lim: M’sia will have been governed by Pakatan if…

Monday, September 05, 2011

Daily Express Sabah

KEMABONG: DAP advisor Lim Kit Siang said if Sabah and Sarawak followed the political tsunami in 2008, Malaysia will have been governed by the Pakatan Rakyat now.

Speaking at the Kampung Kalibatang Lama about 40km from here, Lim believed that the participation of many people in the interior with the opposition showed that it is gaining momentum and prepared to give the Barisan Nasional (BN) a run for their money.

He said during the formation of Malaysia in 1963, Sabah was the richest state in the country but now it was being labeled as the poorest.

“That is why we want to take out the present government. We want the people power to clean them up,” he said.

Kemabong DAP chief, Willam @ Ensor Datuk Tingkalor expressed confidence with DAP chance here because within months it spread its wing here it had already registered 1,488 members.

Also on hand were Segambut MP, Lim Lip Eng, Sri Tanjung Assemblyman, Jimmy Wong, Sabah DAP secretary Dr Edwin Bosi and DAP interior leaders, Dr Benjamin Yapp and Donny Entong.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 6 September 2011, 5:44 pm and is filed under
DAP
,
Pakatan Rakyat
,
Sabah
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


MACC and constituency funds

By
Ronald Benjamin
 | September 06, 2011

The Malaysian Insider

SEPT 6 — The use of constituency funds as an election tool by the BN government to induce support should be investigated immediately by the MACC. Since the Election Commission has said that it is helpless, the MACC should step forward and investigate such a blatant act, which is the mother of all corruption.

The hesitancy to take action in a proactive manner against money politics would project the MACC as being impotent and unable to morally, proactively and culturally define its role as a watchdog capable of creating a climate of accountability where powerful politicians with government positions would not be able to get away with bribing voters.

There are two critical reasons for the MACC to act. Firstly, the coming general election is going to be the dirtiest in history. Winning at all cost has been Prime Minister Najib Razak’s aim and this has been well recorded in his speeches and actions.

The collapse of the Pakatan government in Perak and the attempt to bribe politician to jump ship have not been thoroughly investigated even though there have various allegations and police reports.

Such liberty to bribe politicians and voters would definitely take place since the prime minister has given his green light. If action is not taken the people’s democratic rights would succumb to corruption and this is the greatest threat to democracy and national security where politicians and the electorate could also be bribed by imperial powers in the long run since the culture of political bribery is already regarded as the acceptable norm by mainstream political parties in Malaysia.

It is also obvious that certain politicians in Pakatan parties have also followed the Barisan Nasional’s culture of using funds as a way to obtain support.

Political bribery is the anti-thesis to safeguarding national sovereignty of the nation, and it is surprising that politicians and intellectuals who are concerned about national sovereignty seldom speak out on this matter.

Secondly, the term money politics has not been properly defined in Malaysia. Money politics has been defined within political parties and the amazing part is that the party disciplinary committees would take action, and the said culprits would not be handed over to the anti-corruption agency. Certain individuals found guilty of money politics can also make a comeback by obtaining positions, such as taking over as chairmen of business entities and political leadership and this one of the most disgraceful aspects of Malaysian political culture.

Such a culture has permeated and taken root, and this shows that politicians have become very powerful where they can break all moral and legal norms and yet get away with it, and what makes it worst is they are rewarded for it.

Therefore, it is vital for the MACC to take action against money politics at the national level. The critical information that taxpayers would want to know is the source of the constituency funds, how they are obtained, who approves them, and on what authority, basis and reason such funds are released.

It is sad that till today there is no answers forthcoming from the government and the justice system in Malaysia where money politics is concerned.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 6 September 2011, 4:17 pm and is filed under
Corruption
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Military personnel’s husband registered as female voter

G Vinod | September 6, 2011

Free Malaysia Today

The DAP has detected 22 more cases of discrepancies in postal votes in Negri Sembilan.

KUALA LUMPUR: The DAP detected 22 more cases of discrepancies involving fresh postal voters registered at an army camp at the Rasah parliamentary constituency in Negri Sembilan.

One that stands out is a female military personnel, Yuzina Nodin, who had registered her spouse also as a female postal voter with an almost similar name, Yuniza Nodin.

“I never knew the Malaysian army allowed same-sex marriages. This is a joke,” DAP Youth chief Anthony Loke said at a press conference at the party’s headquarters here today.

Also present was DAP election committee secretary Vincent Wu.

Loke, who is also Rasah MP, said the rest of the newly registered postal voters at the Rasah military camp, mostly spouses of military officers, had discrepancies in their MyKad numbers.

“We found 19 spouses of male army personnel are registered under their husband’s MyKad numbers, which are odd numbers. The other two female army officers registered their spouses using the former’s MyKad numbers, which are even.

“It’s a known fact that only males are given odd numbers in their MyKads while females carry even numbers. Can the Election Commission (EC) explain this?

“In addition, most of them have the same date of birth as their spouses,” said Loke.

Open to voting fraud

This is not the first time Loke detected discrepancies involving postal voters. Last month, he uncovered the case of a 111-year old military officer who registered as a postal voter in the Bagan Pinang state assembly seat.

Loke also said a retired military personnel, M Kalidass, told the Perak DAP recently that he was still registered as a postal voter in Kluang, Johor.

“When we checked using his MyKad number, he is registered as a voter in Sungai Siput parliamentary constituency. However, when we used his former military identification number, the EC website also shows him to be registered as a postal voter in Kluang,” said Loke.

This could increase chances of a voting fraud as anyone could use Kalidass’ postal ballot to vote on his behalf, he added.

He said that a postal ballot would be issued under Kalidass’ name and any unscrupulous individual could use the latter’s ballot paper to vote.

“We are not allowed to enter an army camp. Nobody knows who is responsible for the ballot papers there,” said Loke.

Loke said he would file a complaint with the EC after compiling a full list of discrepancies involving postal votes.

“However, I doubt we can do much as the (electoral) list had already been gazetted,” he said.

Minor errors can be amended

Loke added the trend is worrying as his constituency alone saw an increase of about 600 army postal voters between April and June.

“In 2008, there were about 2,000 postal voters in my constituency and I suspect the number may double soon,” he said.

Meanwhile, EC deputy chairman Wan Ahmad Wan Omar urged Loke to file an official report at the nearest EC office as soon as possible.

“I appreciate Loke’s efforts. He can submit his official complaint at our office in Negri Sembilan. He can even approach me directly,” he said when contacted.

Although the list had been gazetted, Wan Ahmad said EC still had authority to amend minor errors in the electoral list such as the MyKad numbers, gender and religious status.

On the errors, he said EC’s data entry clerks or the assistant registrars tasked with registering postal voters at the defence ministry could have made the mistakes in the course of compiling the particulars.

Wan Ahmad said the EC would not tolerate such mistakes from anyone, even if they were the assistant registrars at the defence ministry.

“We will inform their superiors and blacklist them,” he said.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 6 September 2011, 6:03 pm and is filed under
Bersih
,
Elections
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


No MRT land return guarantee shows bad faith, says DAP

By
Yow Hong Chieh

The Malaysian Insider

Sep 07, 2011

KUALA LUMPUR, Sept 7 — DAP has accused Putrajaya of bad faith for not guaranteeing the return of land acquired for the Klang Valley Mass Rapid Transit (KVMRT) project even while admitting that the wholesale acquisition was done for the sake of convenience.

DAP publicity chief Tony Pua said expediency was no reason to abuse the law and jeopardise landowners’ rights, particularly since the National Land Code 1965 had been amended in 1990 to allow underground land to be acquired without affecting surface property.

The “convoluted” explanation from the Land Public Transport Commission (SPAD) yesterday justifying the government’s decision to acquire land in toto in spite of these existing legal provisions showed that acquisition was little more than a land grab, he alleged.

“All the various untenable excuses being raised leads only to a single possible conclusion — the land acquisition exercises proposed in Chinatown, Bukit Bintang and other prime locations are nothing but poorly masked attempts at profiteering and land grab,” Pua said in a statement today.

“They are in breach of the spirit of the Land Acquisition Act 1960 where the government is only to acquire private land, and only that which is necessary for public use and benefit, and not for profit.”

He added that SPAD should “stop tunnelling a deeper hole” for itself by trying to legitimise the government’s excessive land acquisition and urged the commission to stick to its role of independently regulating and ensuring efficient and effective public transport.

“It should not become a partner-in-crime for the government to justify its ‘land grab’ exercises, which is completely irrelevant to the planning and design of the MRT system,” he said.

SPAD chief executive Mohd Nur Kamal said in a letter to The Malaysian Insider yesterday that affected landowners can apply for stratum titles from the government after acquisition but added there was no guarantee Putrajaya would re-alienate surface land back to the original owners.

He also denied accusations leveled by critics who claim the land acquisition exercise on Jalan Sultan in the heart of the capital was just a cover for a land grab.

SPAD had reportedly told traders there whose land will be acquired that they could hold on to their property at a meeting on August 23 brokered by MCA president Datuk Seri Dr Chua Soi Lek.

The commission had earlier insisted it would have to demolish buildings within the corridor of the station and tunnel prior to construction to ensure public safety given their age and uncertain soil conditions.

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 7 September 2011, 12:37 pm and is filed under
DAP
,
Transport
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Setting the record straight on land acquisition for the MY Rapid Transit project

—
Mohd Nur Kamal

The Malaysian Insider

Sep 06, 2011

SEPT 6 — The Suruhanjaya Pengangkutan Awam Darat (SPAD) would like to refer to the various reports, opinions and views which have been published and aired recently concerning land acquisition for the MY Rapid Transit project. We are concerned that some of these views are being put forth based on inaccurate, incomplete and a lack of understanding of the issues and facts.

Before acting on such views, we would like to encourage the public to examine first the intentions of the parties in making misleading views as they may be designed to confuse and aggravate the situation or incite fear among those whose land are affected by the project.

We hope to set the record straight on matters concerning land acquisition. At the same time, we wish to clarify the many inaccurate interpretations that have emerged concerning the solution for the property owners along Jalan Sultan in Kuala Lumpur.

Compulsory land acquisition for the alignment is needed for the purpose of constructing the railway and is undertaken via the Land Acquisition Act 1960. The alignment was determined through a three-step process to ensure that the optimal one is arrived at. The first step is the establishment of fixed points along the corridor in which the MRT alignment must serve. These are major developments and landmarks within the corridor which need public transport services.

Secondly, the alignment has to connect these fixed points. To arrive at the best alignment, a balance of six factors have to be reached, namely minimising social impact, optimising journey time, constructability, optimising ridership, minimising land acquisition, and ensuring integration with existing and future public transport networks.

Finally, the alignment has to go through public scrutiny where it is displayed to the public for feedback for three months. For the Sungai Buloh-Kajang alignment, the Government managed to minimise the need for private land acquisition by more than half after the public feedback was obtained. Now, about 70 per cent of the alignment runs on road reserves and Government land while the rest is on private land requiring land acquisition.

Land compulsorily acquired under the Land Acquisition Act 1960 is solely for the technical needs for the MRT project, namely for the tracks whether elevated or underground, stations, and support facilities such as park and ride facilities.

Learning from the success factors in Hong Kong, our Government is exploring the “rail plus property” scheme as a way to minimise spending on public transport infrastructure while enhancing operator sustainability and keeping the MRT fare affordable at the same time.

Any property development under the “rail plus property” scheme will be mainly on Government-owned land that is unused, under-utilised, or not being utilised optimally where it can be developed as transit-oriented development. Indeed there may be instances where private land may be purchased to enhance the development potential but this will be done on a “willing buyer-willing seller” basis.

Therefore, the accusations that the land that is being compulsorily acquired for the MRT project is tantamount to land grabbing, is baseless.

Also generating a lot of debate and misunderstanding is the land acquisition for the tunnel section of the MRT alignment. Many have argued that it is unnecessary for land acquisition to be done and provisions concerning the disposal of underground land in the National Land Code 1965 are being used to back this argument up.

While the legality of having separate owners for surface and underground land is not in dispute, one has to realise that The National Land Code 1965 provides that only the owner of a piece of land can allow an underground cubic layer of underground land, known as the stratum, be owned separately from his property on the surface.

There are two principal ways in which the process of separating the ownership of surface and underground lands can be carried out. One way, is to have all affected individual land owners apply for stratum titles to be issued to the Government. The other way is for the Government to first acquire the land and then subsequently re-alienate the properties on the surface back to their original owners while keeping ownership of the stratum.

After various factors were considered — criticality of the project timetable, the benefit of the Government instead of each individual owner handling the process, the need to evacuate all inhabitants of the affected buildings, the flexibility of allowing the owners to choose right up to the last moment to not want the return of their properties — the option of acquiring all affected property at the outset and then re-alienating or re-leasing the properties on the surface back to their original owners after tunnelling works are completed seems to be the preferred one.

Reasonable technical steps will be taken to ensure the integrity of the property during tunnelling works. Once tunnelling is completed, the property will have to be inspected to ensure that their structural integrity is intact. If needed, repairs will be carried out. Only after these buildings are certified fit for habitation will the original owners be allowed to take back possession of these properties.

This is the formula that is being worked out for the property owners of Jalan Sultan after a meeting between SPAD and the representatives of the landowners.

This was clearly stated by Datuk Seri Dr Chua Soi Lek at his press conference after the meeting and reinforced by SPAD Chairman YB Tan Sri Syed Hamid Albar over the issue of acquisition of Jalan Sultan properties.

Transcripts of the press conference by Dr Chua, which were made available, showed that Dr Chua had said the “Government will proceed with the acquisition but with the condition that it would strengthen the buildings affected by the construction of the MRT tunnel, for the safety of the buildings’ occupants … But after the tunnel is completed in about six months, they will be allowed to move back in to conduct business as usual.”

SPAD Chairman YB Tan Sri Syed Hamid Albar subsequently reiterated the principles agreed to, namely that acquisition of land was required but at the same time, the owners will get the opportunity to return to their original properties. YB Tan Sri Syed Hamid Albar added that all parties understood that there were many details to be worked out in order for this to be achieved such as compensation, timeline, and the rights of current tenants occupying the properties.

While the process of ironing the finer details out is being done, the Government is in no position to make guarantees of the return of these properties. What is important is that the Government has listened to the feedback from the people and that all parties involved have reached an understanding on an outcome that will be mutually acceptable without sacrificing on the greater good for the rakyat. This clearly shows that the Government is acting in good faith and will continue to do so in resolving this and any future issues related to the MRT.

Additionally, Jalan Sultan is a unique situation because of its heritage/cultural value and impact on tourism. Its preservation is also made possible because the tunnelling and track laying works below it do not require space for construction works on the surface. For underground stations, we will need to excavate the full extent of the station’s footprint downwards from the surface of the earth. Any existing building on the required land will have to be demolished.

Everywhere in the world, any building standing above a station would have been built either AT THE SAME TIME or AFTER the station was completed, not before. As the full footprint of the station needs to be excavated, there is no choice but the full extent of the land will have to be acquired and not just the exits at the surface.

* Mohd Nur Kamal is the Chief Executive Officer, Suruhanjaya Pengangkutan Awam Darat (SPAD).

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 7 September 2011, 10:21 am and is filed under
Transport
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


The making of a hero out of our own stupidity

By
Mohd Arshad Raji

September 5, 2011

I received this distressing email from a colleague regarding the death of Bernama’s cameraman Noramfaizul Mohd Nor who was shot while on UMNO Putra’s humanitarian mission in famine stricken Somalia. For those Malaysian soldiers that had served Somalia during the troubled period of the early 90’s would know the dangers fronting them, and UMNO Putra’s humanitarian mission in that god forsaken failed state is to my mind a total waste of time and effort. Noramfaizul’s death was in vain and there is no denying this, and to declare Noramfaizul’s a hero now is the making of UMNO Putra’s own stupidity.

DEATH OF BERNAMA CAMERAMAN by a retired soldier

I write with two emotions – one of sadness and the other of anger. I was just watching the news and am taken aback at this sad episode. One life – a father, a husband, a son an employee and a citizen just gone……….like that.

Now, allow me to point out a few things. I am well aware of being in an environment of civil war, or a state of anarchy. I served at the UNPF HQ during the Balkan War. I have a few questions:

1. Why were our media people travelling with a Somali government military vehicle? The Somali government military is one party to the warring factions and is surely subject to military attacks by the rebels.

2. Were they wearing bullet proof vests and clearly identifiable as media representatives?

3. Were our media people adequately briefed, trained and deployed with safety and security as uppermost principles?

I ask all these questions simply because I notice recently, political parties behaving like NGOs and political personalities behaving like kampong heroes, and of course wanting maximum media coverage at home. WHO IS RESPONSIBLE TO PUT THIS POOR CAMERAMAN IN HARM’S WAY?

We (the Malaysian soldiers) were different – as we were operating under the auspices of the UN and we were simply duty bound to the MAF. There were adequate training sessions and preparations for us to fit the assigned role.

I was a desk officer for Sarajevo and had to go in and out of that place very often. I insisted on being unarmed, kept faithfully my helmet and flak jacket and always anticipated the situation and made no sudden moves whatsoever. All these came with training and understanding our position and role. There was always “fear” in my mind and I am not ashamed to admit this as a soldier. This fear was not one of cowardice, but a sense of rational thinking that keeps one alive. Correct reaction to every situation is critical for survival.

I am not accusing this poor victim of stray bullets in a firefight of anything. I am accusing the organizers, the government and any other agency that contributed to this sad episode. If the Putra fellows went in with the Somali government, then they did it wrong as a humanitarian agency. You simply tie yourself to other “INTERNATIONALLY RECOGNISED AGENCIES” who are experienced, logistically well supported and have the legitimacy to exist in the war zone for example, UNHCR, MSF, ICRC etc.

Our politicians are a bunch of fools!!!!!!!!. I was watching on TV how this Azeeeeeez fellow demanded from a Somali (official I suppose) that the President of Somalia should initiate a thorough investigation and report to our Prime Minister. Helloooooo Azeeeeez! Firefights and sniper forces are a norm in war zones and the Somali military is subject to attack by rebel forces. What arrogance and lack of understanding of international protocols! These goons are responsible, and now I want to watch the drama of “situating the appreciation” and how these UMNO boys will absolve themselves of responsibilities by spinning stories of how the poor cameraman died for “Bangsa, Agama dan Negara”. What a pathetic lot.

Finally, my heartfelt condolences to the family of the deceased; may God bless his soul.

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 7 September 2011, 9:38 pm and is filed under
Defence
,
Media
,
UMNO
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Putrajaya says ‘good faith’ shown despite lack of MRT land guarantee

By Shazwan Mustafa Kamal

The Malaysian Insider

Sep 08, 2011

KUALA LUMPUR, Sept 8 — The government today insisted that it had shown “good faith”, contrary to opposition accusation, by agreeing to meet and negotiate with Jalan Sultan traders.

The  traders’ lots are under risk of being forced-acquisitioned for the Klang Valley Mass Rapid Transit (KVMRT) project. The government has refused to guarantee the return the land to traders once the project is completed, which the opposition says is insincere.

Land Public Transport Commission (SPAD) chairman Tan Sri Syed Hamid Albar brushed off the accusations today, and maintained that the government had shown “good faith’ by agreeing to discuss and meet with affected Jalan Sultan traders.

“(Although) we cannot give our guarantee, we have shown our good faith in negotiating with them and looking into that possibility,” he said.

“I think we have been fair, looked into all sides, after we have acquired there is a next process . A process of application, legal process…stratum titles. It’s good we never give empty promises. But we have made possibility for engagement, we are very sincere about this,” Syed Hamid (picture) told reporters here.

SPAD chief executive Mohd Nur Kamal said in a letter to The Malaysian Insider recently that affected landowners can apply for stratum titles from the government after acquisition but added there was no guarantee Putrajaya would re-alienate surface land back to the original owners.

SPAD had reportedly told traders there whose land will be acquired that they could hold on to their property at a meeting on August 23 brokered by MCA president Datuk Seri Dr Chua Soi Lek.

The commission had earlier insisted it would have to demolish buildings within the corridor of the station and tunnel prior to construction to ensure public safety given their age and uncertain soil conditions.

Elaborating further, Syed Hamid said that the MRT project will benefit Jalan Sultan traders and enhance property value of the area- and that the project would be a “catalyst” for urban development where it had the potential to generate better employment opportunities and overall quality of life.

“Let us look at the developmental aspect. Urban railway development is a catalyst for development.

“It’s not only one side which gets benefit, (there will be) enhancement of value of property in that area, people’s ability to work and get employment..their standard of living is improved, quality of life is better,” he said.

The SPAD boss denied accusations levelled by critics who claim the land acquisition exercise on Jalan Sultan in the heart of the capital was just a cover for a land grab.

“There is no such thing as wanting to grab land or to be interested to acquire land so that we can enrich anybody..nonsense. People are trying to divert attention.

“Do we need good public transport? Yes. Even in Jalan Sultan, when I met them they said they are for MRT,” he added.

The former Home Minister stressed that the land acquisition was done with the view that the “public gets the best land transport system.”

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 8 September 2011, 10:14 pm and is filed under
Good Governance
,
Transport
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Malaysian procurement system riddled with corruption, says US cable

The Malaysian Insider

Sep 09, 2011

KUALA LUMPUR, Sept 9 — The seedy and allegedly corrupt side of Malaysia’s defence procurement has been laid bare in a US embassy cable, with startling revelations on how Umno politicians, agents, civil servants and military officials receive 30 per cent “commission” on deals.

In a note on the opaque procurement system here revealed by whistleblower site Wikileaks, the US embassy noted that American companies operating here had three main complaints about the system: the lack of transparency, outright corruption, and Bumiputera requirements.

The undated cable sent during the Abdullah administration between 2004 and 2009 also noted that many government tenders do not follow procurement rules.

A US aerospace executive told the US embassy here defence deals were done through shadowy agreements with no tendering process. For example, the then-Prime Minister Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi’s (picture) sister-in-law arranged a US$400 million (RM1.2 billion) contract to buy military cargo aircraft from Airbus.

The deal was announced following Abdullah’s return from a trip to France.

“The US executive asserted that PM Abdullah’s brother told him this deal was ‘done for political and other reasons, such as commission’,” noted the US embassy cable made public through Wikileaks.

Similar scenarios were described for the procurement of T91 Polish tanks and SU-30 Russian aircraft, noted the executive, who also said that once someone purporting to work for then-Deputy Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak approached him about a deal and suggested “you will get a part of it.”

The US embassy noted that Malaysian political parties including Umno rely on “money politics” for much of their operating funds.

“Projects or tenders often are awarded as political patronage with a cut of funds circulating back to the party through different channels,” noted the embassy.

These revelations come at a time when there has been some scrutiny surrounding the deal to buy Scorpene submarine. More than RM500 million was allegedly paid to a local consulting company Perimekar and the opposition has pointed fingers at Najib who was the defence minister when the deal was inked.

Pakatan Rakyat (PR) politicians have also questioned the inflated costs of several new defence deals announced by current Defence Minister Datuk Zahid Hamidi.

The US embassy noted that lack of transparency was also evident when it came to awarding contracts in the information communication technology (ICT) sector. A manager at a US ICT firm pointed out that it was shortlisted for a tender with Telekom Malaysia Bhd but lost to another company that did not even bid for the contract.

Though the cable was sent during the Abdullah administration, there is little evidence that the procurement system has improved. Anecdotal evidence suggests that lip service is paid to open tender system with the preferred choice being direct negotiation.

This trend is especially true for large contracts and concessions where politically-connected companies are involved.

The Malaysian Insider reported yesterday that a consortium led by 1MDB and Puncak Niaga have been given the greenlight by the government to buy IWK for RM1. The consortium will assume the debts of RM1.5 billion but will obtain a concession for 60 years.

                This entry was posted on Friday, 9 September 2011, 10:15 am and is filed under
Corruption
,
Defence
,
Good Governance
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


The haze and the malaise

Ethnic politics makes Malaysia’s transition to a contested democracy fraught and ugly

Sep 10th 2011

Banyan | The Economist

SKYSCRAPERS and lampposts in Kuala Lumpur are still festooned with flags left over from independence day festivities at the end of August. Fittingly, this week they were shrouded in the annual “haze” of smog from forest fires on the Indonesian island of Sumatra. Malaysia’s politicians are not in the mood to celebrate nationhood and unity. Rather, with an election in the offing, everything is a chance for political point-scoring.

That includes independence itself. One huge banner in the centre of the capital shows the country’s six prime ministers since the British left in 1957, with the incumbent, Najib Razak, in the foreground, gazing into a visionary future. All six hailed from the United Malays National Organisation (UMNO), which has led the “Barisan Nasional” (BN) coalition government ever since 1957. Some opposition politicians now complain that the official narrative of Malaysia’s history ignores the role of non-UMNO freedom fighters. Since the most recent general election, in March 2008, the opposition has had a real chance of winning power. For the first time since independence in 1957, the BN lost its two-thirds majority in Parliament that allowed it to amend the constitution on its own. No longer a one-coalition state, the opposition argues, Malaysia has to rethink its own history.

The next election is not due until 2013. But, out of tradition and political calculation, Mr Najib is expected to call it earlier—and to win it. Some think it could come this year, after a generous government budget in October. A crowded calendar of regional summitry makes that awkward, and Mr Najib has other reasons for delay. Since he took over in 2009, he has launched a plethora of initiatives to improve Malaysians’ lives and a “Performance and Delivery Unit” to implement them. Results take time.

Three factors, however, argue for a hasty dash to the polls. The first is that Mr Najib, who took over UMNO and the prime ministership after the BN’s unprecedentedly poor showing in 2008, still had an approval rating of 59% in a recent survey. That is well below his initial popularity, however, and he will not want to mimic Britain’s Gordon Brown in delaying too long before seeking his own mandate. Second, economic storm clouds are gathering in the West. Malaysia’s economy is still growing at over 4% a year, but is vulnerable to a downturn in external demand.

Third, the opposition coalition is in some disarray. Its figurehead, Anwar Ibrahim, is on trial for sodomy, illegal in Malaysia, and many expect him to go back to jail soon, as he did (for the same alleged offence) in 1998. He is a divisive figure. But without him, there is no obvious opposition candidate for prime minister. The president of his party is his wife, and its most impressive politician is his 30-year-old daughter, Nurul Izzah. The other components of the coalition are the Democratic Action Party, which draws its support from the Chinese minority, and an Islamic party known as PAS, whose religious conservatism alienates many liberal Malays. So there is even talk of a revival of the prime ministerial ambitions of Razaleigh Hamzah, a veteran UMNO rebel, as an opposition rallying point.

The government helpfully provided another rallying point with its cack-handed crackdown on an NGO-led protest in Kuala Lumpur in July calling for electoral reform. Mr Najib has since agreed to a parliamentary committee to look into the demands, which are mostly unexceptionable: to clean up voters’ lists, allegedly swollen with “phantoms”; to extend the election-campaign period, at present just seven to nine days; to tighten up the postal-vote system; and so on. But he has not agreed to postpone an election until after the committee has ruled.

Whatever technical reforms are made before the next election, it will still be dominated by the original sin of ethnic discrimination set out in the country’s 1957 constitution. This was designed to allay the fears of the majority ethnic-Malay population of being marginalised by Chinese and Indian minorities, which now make up respectively 23% and 7% of the population of 28m. Perks, much extended after race riots in 1969 (still often referred to in Malaysia as if they happened yesterday), gave Malays privileged access to public-sector jobs, university places, stockmarket flotations and government contracts.

Both government and opposition talk of dismantling these privileges, which have contributed to corruption and large-scale emigration. Mr Najib has indeed started tinkering with Malay privileges, much to the outrage of the UMNO right and a vocal Malay-rights ginger group known as Perkasa. Ibrahim Ali, Perkasa’s front man, argues that, with the Malay vote split, the minorities have disproportionate electoral power, to which the mainstream parties pander.

Malay power

That is nonsense. As elections loom, it is the Malay voter whose opinion matters, and he is assumed to resent any effort to curtail his privileges. And that means that both coalitions have to resort to defending the indefensible: a system in which families that have lived in Malaysia for generations are told to tolerate discrimination on the basis of ethnicity, to bolster allegedly fragile racial harmony. Malays and minorities alike lament that the races are living increasingly separate lives—studying in different schools, eating different foods and going to different parties. The divide is further widened as more Malays, who, constitutionally, are all Muslims, become religiously conservative.

The Malaysian malaise stems from the congruence of two seemingly conflicting trends. One is the healthy development of pluralist competition in a system that had seemed stuck for ever in an UMNO-dominated quasi-democracy. The other is the sharpening of ethnic and religious dividing lines. It is alarming that, instead of seeing competitive politics as a way of bridging the ethnic divide, too many Malaysian politicians see the ethnic divide as a way of winning the political competition.

from the print edition | Asia

                This entry was posted on Friday, 9 September 2011, 3:21 pm and is filed under
Najib Razak
,
nation building
,
UMNO
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.