AES the only way to salvage Najib’s GTP and “Fighting Corruption” NKRA but has he and his Cabinet the political will and commitment to introduce and implement it?

Under the Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak’s “Government Transformation Programme” (GTP), the “Fighting Corruption” National Key Result Area (NKRA) has been proclaimed as “a key focus of the GTP” as “it could stand in the way of the country attaining its ambition of being a high-income nation” because:

“Corruption erodes public confidence in the ability of the Government and other key institutions in maintaining a fair playing field for all participants, and could dissuade private investment.”

“Corruption discourages greater participation in the national economy, and therefore has an adverse effect on Malaysia’s talent pool. There is also a growing concern that corruption is siphoning resources away from the economy, with reports noting that small enterprises were paying between 8% and 9% of their revenue base to pay bribes for licenses and permits.”

By government’s own estimates in January 2010, corruption could cost Malaysia as much as RM10 billion a year or 1-2% of GDP.

But what has Najib to show in his “Fighting Corruption” NKRA after more than three years as Prime Minister?

Najib had aimed to achieve a ranking of between 30 to 35 for Malaysia in the Transparency International (TI) Corruption Perception Index (CPI), but instead of improving, there had been an unchecked dive in both Malaysia’s ranking and score in the TI CPI for 2010 and 2011.

Malaysia was ranked No. 23 with a score of 5.28 in 1995 TI CPI. When Tun Mahathir stepped down as Prime Minister in 2003, Malaysia’s TI CPI for 2003 had plunged to 37th placing with a score of 5.2.

Under the fifth Prime Minister, Tun Abdullah, an ambitious five-year National Integrity Plan (2004-2008) was launched for Malaysia to improve its TI CPI ranking to at least 30th position in 2008, and the score of 5.2 for Malaysia in 2003 to reach at least 6.5 by 2008. (10 being the best and 1.0 the worst).

Malaysia failed to achieve the National Integrity Plan targets of at least 30th position and a score of 6.5 in 2008,  as both criteria worsened with Malaysia being ranked No. 47 with a score of 5.1.

In 2009, Malaysia registered the worst drop in both ranking and score, descending to No. 56th ranking with a  score of  4.5.

Although Najib’s GTP and “Fighting Corruption” NKRA targeted Malaysia to achieve an improvement of the  score from 4.5 to  4.9 in 2010, the score worsened to 4.4 with the  ranking remaining at No. 56.

This drop continued in the 2011 TI CPI with Malaysia falling to the worst ranking of No. 60 and lowest-ever score of 4.3.

The  TI CPI 2012 results are expected in a month’s time, and from all indications, Malaysia is likely to suffer from a further  fall in both TI CPI ranking and score if the various scandals in the past year are taken into account – including the RM250 million “cow-condo” scandal, the RM40 million Michael Chia “donation to Sabah Umno” scandal, the Bruno Manser Fund (BMF) expose of US$21 billion assets of Sarawak Chief Minister Tan Sri Taib Mahmud’s family with the wealth of Taib himself put at a whopping US$15 billion etc.

From the history of TI CPIs, Malaysia under Najib is not only more corrupt than under the previous Prime Ministers, whether Tun Mahathir or Tun Abdullah, Malaysia is also losing out to other countries, whether in ASEAN, the Asia-Pacific or even among OIC (Organisation of Islamic Conference) countries, in the battle against corruption.

A decade ago, Malaysian leaders pride themselves as leading the most technologically advanced and most industrially developed country in the OIC countries, towering head and shoulders over other countries in the OIC on the rule of law, accountability, transparency and integrity.

In 1996, Malaysia was ranked No. 26 out of 54 countries with a score of 5.32 – ahead of Jordan (No. 30 – score 4.89), Turkey (No. 33 – 3.54) and Egypt (No. 41 – 2.84).

Sixteen years later, in the 2011 TI CPI, Malaysia crashed to 60th placing with the lowest-ever score of 4.3 – losing out to six OIC countries and only one step ahead of Turkey, as illustrated as follows:

Qatar – No. 22 (rank) 7.2 (score)

UAE – 28 (6.8)

Bahrain- 46 (5.1)

Oman – 50 (4.8)

Kuwait – 54 (4.6)

Jordan – 56 (4.5)

Saudi Arabia – 57 (4.4)

Malaysia – 60 (4.3)

Turkey – 61 (4.2)

The AES (Automatic Enforcement System) to make unusual and extraordinary wealth an automatic corruption offence appears to be the only way to salvage Najib’s GTP and “Fighting Corruption” NKRA and halt the descent of Malaysia down the TI CPI ranking and score.

But has  Najib and his Cabinet the political will and commitment to really fight corruption by introducing and implementing AES to make unusual and extraordinary wealth a prima facie offence of corruption unless this presumption could be overturned in a corruption trial?

                This entry was posted on Monday, 5 November 2012, 3:12 pm and is filed under
Corruption
,
Najib Razak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Minister deserves a slap

By Martin Jalleh

                This entry was posted on Monday, 5 November 2012, 4:19 pm and is filed under
Education
,
Martin Jalleh
,
Orang Asli
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


MyKad ‘Islamisation’

by Martin Jalleh

                This entry was posted on Monday, 5 November 2012, 6:30 pm and is filed under
1Malaysia
,
Islam
,
Orang Asli
,
Sabah
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


9 takeaways from 2012 election

By Politico

NewJersey.Com

Tuesday, November 06, 2012

Election Day is finally here.

And even though neither Barack Obama nor Mitt Romney has been declared a winner yet, there are some things that will still hold true no matter which candidate wins the White House tonight — or in the wee hours of the morning.

Here are POLITICO’s nine takeaways from the 2012 campaign:

1. Luck matters — a lot

Obama has assembled some of the best field operatives around. His team has run the gauntlet before, prepared a ground game for five years, had a basic playbook for the 2012 cycle and (mostly) stuck to it. Obama’s natural skills as a politician are far better than Romney’s. The auto bailout helped Obama maintain what has been a small but consistent polling lead in critical states like Ohio.

And yet a little bit of luck goes an awfully long way. For all his troubles throughout his term, Obama caught some needed breaks.

Obama was fortunate to be blessed with an opponent who declined to define himself until after the party conventions at the end of the summer. That allowed Romney to be swift-boated over his main calling card — his business experience. Obama was fortunate to draw a rival who ran a curious ad strategy that allowed Democrats to swamp him.

He was fortunate his opponent never, until it was quite late, made effective overtures to Hispanics, the fastest-growing voting bloc. He was fortunate the eurozone didn’t totally collapse. And he was fortunate that Romney went with prevent defense in the final presidential debate.

The climate for Democrats has also improved as the unemployment rate dipped incrementally and more people think the country is heading in the right direction.

Hurricane Sandy clearly did help Obama somewhat, in crass political terms, but it didn’t alter the political landscape. Obama remains in dangerous territory for an incumbent heading into Election Day, under 50 percent in a number of states. But that just underscores how lucky he is that Romney didn’t run harder.

This is not to say that Republicans have had bad luck — they have in some cases, but candidate quality matters. Obama’s backers would also argue he made some of his own luck with smart policy. Still, bad decisions on one side are the good fortune of the other.

2. Super PACs — it’s complicated

They were the favored boogeyman of most Democrats and the entity Republican hopefuls openly embraced. They were going to be the game-changer this cycle, allowing a small pool of roughly a dozen billionaires to buy elections. They would throw the campaigns into messaging chaos by creating off-kilter moments (see Ricketts, Joe). They would swamp the airwaves.

They certainly did flood televisions. But beyond being used as an epithet by Democrats to goose the base, the verdict on super PACs is mixed at best.

Some of the issue is how money was spent. The conservative Crossroads groups raised $300 million to recapture the White House and the Senate majority but may not come up with either. The Koch brothers-backed Americans for Prosperity also raised vast sums toward the same goals.

Democrats had far less by way of super PAC money, but the pro-Obama super PAC Priorities USA Action got bang for its buck with surgically placed buys in a handful of battleground states — it was the chief purveyor of the Bain ads that drove up Romney’s negatives. Unions also flooded Democrats with support, but mainly in traditional ways, like get-out-the-vote operations.

Super PACs did play a large role in the GOP primary. Newt Gingrich’s super PAC kept his broke campaign alive through the South Carolina primary. Rick Santorum’s did the same. And Romney’s super PAC was a negative ad machine that ground Gingrich up, allowing the candidate some distance from the attacks and to conserve resources.

But in the general election, super PACs were simply less dominant overall. As for single rich donors like Sheldon Adelson, he may end up spending at least $100 million of his vast fortune to elect Romney…but not elect Romney.

This is not to say that super PACs have not mattered — they have. But in an era when both presidential campaigns were well-funded, maybe not the way everyone had expected. And it’s clear that just throwing money into races doesn’t automatically shake things up.

3. There were two different but parallel campaigns

One was taking place on Twitter and other places on the Web. The other was taking place in the battleground states.

The issues that flared up — hot, bright and out in the endless news cycle — often didn’t break through in a meaningful way to voters. Romney’s line about liking to fire people? Not really. Obama’s “You didn’t build that” gaffe? Polls showed it had no measurable impact.

The grinding, death-by-increments sensation of the 2012 campaign for reporters and pols was also not quite so visible to voters. Instead, voters saw two politicians speaking about serious, weighty issues involving the country’s economy only in extremely pedestrian terms. “I’m rubber, you’re glue” could have been a bumper sticker this year.

The result was a very media-driven campaign that played out with a subset of elite opinion-makers, and then a larger campaign about the mood and feel of the country that took place among voters. The divide was real between what the media found important versus what voters did.

So, too, was the partisan divide that both campaigns exploited. On the final day of the campaign, the Drudge Report had a giant, paid-advertising banner for the Romney-Ryan ticket. On The Huffington Post was a paid ad for the Obama-Biden ticket. Those two images, juxtaposed, tell you much of what you need to know about 2012.

4. There is no longer just one Election Day

What there are is a series of Election Days, which begin weeks before the first Tuesday in November. Early voting is taking place in more states than ever before this cycle, and while it has been far from problem-free — see Ohio and Florida — it has significantly changed the landscape.

The Obama campaign has made a huge early-voting push over the past several weeks, incorporating that effort into its playbook and trying to bank as much of the vote ahead of time as possible.

The Romney campaign has pooh-poohed such efforts publicly, insisting it’s actually doing very well in this metric — better than John McCain, who was not a high bar in this regard — and arguing that the Obama camp is “cannibalizing” its Election Day share of the vote.

We’ll know soon which of them is right and which, as David Axelrod said two weeks ago, was bluffing. But the reality is that the landscape has changed in terms of how voting is conducted, and both parties need to adapt or face consequences.

5. Bill Clinton. Forever.

This is not a commentary on whether people do or should like the 42nd president. It is instead a reflection of his durability on the national stage.

There are few others in the Living Presidents Club, so it’s a tough metric. But Clinton’s love of campaigning and desire to be on stage is epic and empirical throughout 2012.

Yes, there are personal reasons why he’d want to lay groundwork nationally by helping Obama and down-ballot candidates — a big one being his wife’s potential political future. But the man also clearly enjoys this, and a lot more than either of the candidates currently running for the White House.

Clinton talked himself hoarse stumping for Obama over the weekend. He’s had advisers to the man who beat his wife in the 2008 primaries openly praise him to the press as the missing ingredient from the campaign this cycle. His positions — and his place in history — have been ratified by the Obama campaign.

And no one can argue he didn’t work hard enough for Obama.

6. About all that fact-checking…

The advent of fact-checking websites and reporters who crunch dubious claims from both sides has been a running theme this cycle. Both campaigns have alternately embraced the fact-checkers and slammed them.

The irony is that for all the fact-checking, both campaigns have invented their own narratives when it’s suited them — not to the same degrees but certainly for the same purposes.

The Obama campaign has made claims about Romney’s stand on abortion and the degree to which he’d curtail it a major focus of ads, despite the fact that they haven’t been totally accurate. The Romney campaign was slammed by Democrats for ads that accused Obama of “gutting” the Clinton-era welfare reforms, a claim that also was not quite based in fact.

But both candidates have, through selective media usage — soft interviews like “The View” and “People” for Obama, and friendly conservative outlets like Sean Hannity for Romney — been able to circumvent the mainstream press to say what they want.

The fact-checking industry is crucial. But it has also been thwarted plenty this cycle.

7. Ads don’t matter, unless they’re good

Given the plethora of ads aired in the presidential race on both sides, it’s remarkable how divided polls are at the close.

Between the campaigns themselves, and super PACs and other outside groups, the crush of TV spots in battlegrounds was impressive. So much so that it was hard to distinguish them after a while.

The Obama campaign made an early bet in terms of ad spending, placing heavy buys throughout the summer to define Romney early. Not all the ads were winners. But they had the benefit of airing before the commercial breaks during every show became clogged.

To that end, what matters more than ads themselves is making good ones — ones that stand out. That was an elusive goal on both sides this cycle.

For Democrats, the Priorities USA Action spots about Bain Capital were emotional gut-punches, using workers laid off from factories taken over by Romney’s company. On the Republican side, the most memorable spot was one by the Republican National Committee’s independent expenditure arm saying it was “OK to make a change.”

8. Both parties have soul-searching to do

This is less true for whichever party wins. But the Democrats and Republicans are facing questions about who will lead them, and what they will make their defining platforms, heading into 2016.

Obama has shown almost no interest in party-building, which is part of why Clinton has been able to enjoy the seventh or eighth of his nine political lives this year. He doesn’t want to do the grip-and-grins on behalf of other candidates.

Neither does Romney, who has never quite warmed to the world of retail politicking. If he becomes president, the party will need someone else — perhaps a Vice President Paul Ryan? — to tend to that effort in the way that Vice President Joe Biden has for Obama.

But Romney’s party is weighted with conservatives who may not embrace him in primaries, just as moderate Democrats held Obama at arm’s length in 2010 and this year.

That leaves an opening on both sides for someone to become the face of the party, if not the de facto leader.

9. Neither party has a deep female bench

In terms of field teams, most of the attention this cycle has been on Hispanic candidates — Julian Castro for Democrats, and Marco Rubio for Republicans.

Yet it’s notable how thin the benches on both sides are in terms of credible female candidates for the presidency (there were a large number of female Senate candidates running in 2012).

The obvious exception, of course, is Hillary Clinton, who may consider a 2016 bid — she has said she isn’t, but people close to the family are not convinced — and would likely be field-clearing if she does launch another campaign.

Beyond Clinton, there’s New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand and Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar for the Democrats. On the Republican side, there’s New Mexico Gov. Susana Martinez — a friendly Hispanic face who is pro-abortion rights, meaning she would have difficulties in the party primaries.

The decades of candidate-grooming on the GOP side has been largely focused on black and Hispanic officials at the local and state level. And the Democrats have not quite figured out what the next wave of strong female candidates looks like in the post-Clinton era, whenever that arrives.

Given that this is probably the last cycle in which a ticket will be all white and all male, it’s something both sides have to work toward.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 6 November 2012, 7:16 pm and is filed under
Elections
,
International
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


BN’s Evil Design of Divide-and-Rule Continues

By Martin Jalleh

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 6 November 2012, 10:09 am and is filed under
Martin Jalleh
,
Najib Razak
,
Religion
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


MyKad ‘Islamisation’ of Sabah’s Bumiputera Christians

— Bob Teoh

The Malaysian Insider

Nov 05, 2012

NOV 5 — Bumiputera Christians in Sabah continue to be “converted to Islam” by the National Registration Department (NRD) simply because they have “bin” and “binti” in their names. Sabah churches are seeking urgent solutions to the crisis but none seems to be in sight.

The NRD has made it clear it would continue to list Bumiputera Christians in Sabah as Muslims as long as they are known by bin or binti. It would also not rectify past entry errors by way of changing the religion listing back to Christianity in the identity cards (MyKad) of those affected.

The NRD would only act upon an order by a syariah High Court to determine whether those Bumiputera Christians whom it had listed as Muslims are not Muslims indeed.

Even if these native Christians get a hearing from the syariah court, both the NRD and Islamic authorities may not turn up, thus causing unnecessary delays.

A current test case has been mounted by a 53-year-old widow and her two adult daughters and supported by the respective local churches. All three are from the Dusun Banggi community.

Intim binti Lambatan was born in 1959 in Banggi, the northernmost island in Sabah. Her husband died 20 years ago. She was officially baptised in her church, the Sidang Injil Borneo (SIB), in Limbuak Darat, Kudat on mainland Sabah seven years ago and issued a baptism certificate.

The SIB is the biggest indigenous Protestant church in Sabah. Her elder daughter, Norina binti Nuhudan, 28, was baptised when she was 15 while her younger daughter, Listin Nuhudan, 22, was baptised when she was 14. Both are also SIB members.

When all three had their religion wrongly classified as “Islam” in their MyKad, they brought the matter up to their pastors. A Christian lawyer from another SIB church in Kota Kinabalu agreed to take up their case but the lawyer had to engage a Muslim counsel to act on their behalf in the syariah High Court.

In March last year a Christian lawyer, Victoria Jayaseele Martin, was barred from practising in a syariah court despite having a diploma in syariah law and practice from the International Islamic University Malaysia, in addition to a University of London law degree.

The test case was initiated several months ago when Intim went to the Kudat office of the Jabatan Hal Ehwal Agama Islam Negeri Sabah (JHEAINS), or the Sabah Islamic Affairs Department, to clarify the status of her religion.

On July 25, the department wrote to the syariah court in Kudat to say that Intim’s name is not on record in its Pendaftaran Pengislaman (Islamisation Register).

With JHEAINS’s clarification, she made a statutory declaration at the Kudat magistrate’s court stating that she is not a Muslim and that her name is not on the Islamic department’s register. She said she was not originally a Muslim but when she applied for her identity card, the word “Islam” was wrongly recorded on it.

But still the NRD would not rectify its error and issue her a new identity card with her correct status as a Christian. It looks like it is Intim’s responsibility to first go to the Kudat syariah High Court for a declaration that she is not a Muslim.

This she did by filing a case against the Ketua Pendafter Muallaf (Chief Registrar of New Believers) of Sabah on August 14. The director-general of the NRD was cited as the second respondent. She is asking for her status as a Muslim to be deleted from her identity card.

The Kudat syariah High Court then wrote back to the Islamic department to investigate further whether Intim is a Muslim on its register. The mention date was twice postponed to last Monday (Oct 28). But both the respondents did not turn up, thus causing more delays.

The problem has long reached a crisis in Sabah when SIB churches could not marry their members as some are found to be “Muslims” in their MyKad and the Registrar of Marriages would not recognise such marriages.

Two years ago, the National Evangelical Christian Fellowship (NECF), of which SIB is a member, met the NRD director-general and his senior officers. The NECF was given an assurance that the problem could easily be resolved by those affected filing what it called a “Borang A” to change the status of their religion.

The NECF was happy with that assurance and posted an advisory on its website: “Fuss-free way to change religion data in MyKad.”

“Christians who wish to change their religion to Christianity in their MyKad data are not required to tender any legal documents, such as baptism certificates. They only need to fill in ‘Borang A’ to effect the change,” the NECF then said.

“This was confirmed at a recent meeting between NECF Malaysia and top officials from the National Registration Department (NRD).”

But the NECF itself pointed out the catch. “This is not applicable if they had been registered as Muslims.”

The NECF said, at the meeting with NRD officials, it also raised the issue of east Malaysian Christians whose religion in their MyKad is recorded as “Islam” simply because their names carry “bin” and “binti”.

“This is a prevailing problem in Sabah and Sarawak where many indigenous citizens have names that carry bin and binti. The NRD automatically assigns their religion as ‘Islam’ even though many of them are Christians,” according to the NECF.

The NECF also said the NRD confirmed that those who are affected could change the data in their MyKad provided they had obtained clearance from the syariah court.

It looks like the NECF had bought a dud — the Borang A assurance by the NRD is just a ruse to continue its “Islamisation” by deception in Sabah. — mysinchew.com

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 6 November 2012, 8:48 am and is filed under
nation building
,
Religion
,
Sabah
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Resistance grows within BN against AES profits

By Leslie Lau and Md Izwan

The Malaysian Insider

Nov 06, 2012

KUALA LUMPUR, Nov 6 — A whopping 2.72 million speeding tickets will have to be issued in each of the next five years for the two concession holders of the controversial Automatic Enforcement System (AES) cameras to just recoup their reported RM700 million investments.

And considering the authorities had only collected an average of about 25 per cent of all traffic summonses a year — which increased to 65 per cent only after a general discount was offered last year — the two companies will have to issue far more summonses to account for the poor collection.

Such calculations have led to apprehension on the part of a growing number of Barisan Nasional (BN) politicians who are concerned about the profit motive that is built into the concession agreements.

“The privatisation of the AES could be seen as attempting to make profits because some (cameras) are placed in inappropriate places,” Umno’s Seri Gading MP Datuk Mohamad Aziz told The Malaysian Insider.

The two firms awarded the contract to implement the enforcement system — ATES Sdn Bhd and Beta Tegap — will spend between RM300 million and RM400 million each to set up traffic cameras at 831 “black spots” nationwide.

Both ATES and Beta Tegap are entitled to RM16 per valid summons for the first five million issued. They will then split the remaining revenue evenly with the government up to a cap of RM270 million each.

The firms will each receive 7.5 per cent from the remaining revenue and the government will keep the rest.

Based on the business model, both companies will collect RM80 million each for the first five million summonses issued by each company. This works out to a total collection of RM160 million.

Under the second tier of the agreement, the companies will get a total of RM540 million, bringing the total amount due to the two companies to RM700 million.

Based on the even split in revenue with the government, the RM540 million figure represents 3.6 million summonses of RM300 each.

To hit the RM700 million break-even mark, a total of 13.6 million summonses of RM300 each for speeding and other major offences will have to be issued via the AES cameras.

The two companies will have five years to get to the 13.6 million summonses break-even point before the entire system reverts to the government.

To ensure the companies profit from the deal with the government, they will almost certainly have to issue more than 13.6 million summonses a year.

All such additional summonses will see the two firms each receive a 7.5 per cent cut.

Assuming the two companies were targeting a total profit of RM100 million after five years, it would be 7.5 per cent of RM1.4 billion in summonses of RM300 each.

This works out to another 4.6 million summonses, bringing the total number to 18.2 million summonses for speeding and other serious offences for the two companies to pocket RM50 million each in profits after five years.

According to federal estimates for Budget 2013, the government expects to see an additional RM1.02 billion in revenue from its share of AES enforcement, but it has not stated how much will be paid out to the two companies.

While defenders of AES enforcement have attacked critics for being irresponsible over road safety issues, some BN politicians like Mohamad remain concerned about the possibility of voters being made to pay for the profits of the two companies.

“We have to suspend (the AES) so that the public is not pressured,” he said.

“We have to fine-tune the system before we introduce it.”

Gerakan’s deputy president Datuk Chang Ko Youn said he accepted that the private sector has to make a profit from any contract.

“But the terms have to be fair to the government and taxpayers,” he told The Malaysian Insider.

BN politicians are understandably concerned about the introduction of AES just months before elections are due.

Pakatan Rakyat (PR) politicians have already started using the controversial AES system as campaign fodder, and yesterday’s announcement that police speed traps would be maintained alongside the speed cameras could make things more difficult for BN as it seeks to maintain its hold on Putrajaya.

States controlled by PR parties have already given notice that they will block the installation of AES cameras as permits are required from local councils, in a populist move targeted at taking advantage of public unhappiness.

BN politicians and supporters have accused PR of being irresponsible and have argued that the AES was meant to ensure better road safety.

But opponents of the AES system have pointed out that opposition to the new speed cameras was a result of suspicions over the fact that enforcement has been privatised to companies that take a cut from summonses issued to motorists.

There is also growing concern among BN politicians that insisting on the AES could prove costly to BN in the next elections which must be called in the next six months.

Last week, Umno MP Datuk Bung Mokhtar Radin crossed the political divide and backed the opposition PR pact in calling for Putrajaya to suspend enforcing the AES, saying it could be used as campaign fodder against the ruling BN.

Bung Mokhtar, a seasoned Umno lawmaker, is the most senior member of the ruling coalition after Umno Youth leader Khairy Jamaluddin to urge the federal government to delay the newly-introduced traffic enforcement system.

Kedah, Penang, Kelantan and Selangor ― all governed by PR ― have decided to suspend approval for the AES that detects speeding motorists and issues fines.

Several influential non-government organisations including the umbrella body representing civil servants, Cuepacs, have also opposed the enforcement, saying the system was not currently suitable. They also want the government to review the locations where the AES would operate.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 6 November 2012, 9:09 am and is filed under
Elections
,
Good Governance
,
Transport
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


What would Tunku do today?

 — Ooi Kok Hin

The Malaysian Insider

Nov 06, 2012

NOV 6 — When students look at portraits of Tunku Abdul Rahman Putra al-Haj (1903-1990), the first Prime Minister of Malaysia is perceived as a distant figure from an era gone-by. He’s the Father of Independence, the legend, and the unknown. We are told how great he was; yet we know so little of him. He is a myth. This shouldn’t be happening, because Tunku was a prolific writer. After his retirement, Tunku actively wrote two columns for The Star newspaper: Looking Back and As I See It. Several articles from the first column were compiled into a book with the identical title. From that book, I draw several of Tunku’s views which are applicable in our country today.

1. Abolish AUKU

Tunku had a long and dreadful conflict with Communists. But when the government conjured a Communist conspiracy theory behind the student unrests of the early 1970s, Tunku was quick to reject that theory. “Student [ego] movement is widespread in the world. They like to be known, they like to be seen and they like to be heard like grown-ups,” Tunku wrote in 1974. He refused to blame the students and understood that suppression of the young minds will not help Malaysia to be vibrant and dynamic country. In order to be ahead of our regional peers, we need to develop intellect and critical thinking. Tunku expressed desire to include students in our country’s politics and decision-making process. He suggested, “Perhaps one or two seats be given to Universities so that their members can participate in Parliament and play their parts in the country’s politics”.

“My own view is that personal attention must be given to students when they enter the University though they are men and not boys anymore,” Tunku wrote. “Men means they are on terms of equality with the professors and others who run the Universities and Colleges. The only difference is that they are undergraduates, having joined the University to find for themselves useful careers in life.” Such is Tunku’s faith in our potential and capability. It is clear that not only Tunku would abolish AUKU, but also he would work to encourage student participation in politics.

2. Revamp or resign from The Star

The Star was a small English-language daily in Penang in 1974 when Tunku was approached by its owner, Datuk Loh Boon Siew, to become its chairman. Tunku accepted the offer. With the help of his popular column every Monday, The Star quickly became a national newspaper. Today, The Star is the largest in terms of circulation in Malaysia. However, Tunku would be very disappointed if he sees what had happened to his paper. While The Star still provides news and services, it became a political mouthpiece of the government since Ops Lalang.

The current chief editor, Datuk Seri Wong Chun Wai, wrote at the preface of Tunku’s republished book, “[Tunku’s] refreshing take on the country’s political scene, a stark contrast to the propaganda in other papers then reeled readers in and his columns helped The Star at the forefront of the print media scene.” Sadly, the paper became the opposite of what it once was. Like other independence fighters who condemned the old newspapers being the mouthpieces of the colonial masters, Tunku would surely not tolerate his paper being mouthpiece of their master. He would demand The Star to show more autonomy, or resign from the news outlet.

3. Less bitter politics

How would Tunku deal with the opposition? And, to a certain extent, activist groups like BERSIH? “I adopted as policy whatever I thought was good for the people and the country,” Tunku wrote. “It was my duty to care for the people as best as I could, and to do everything within my capacity or powers to ensure that people had peace, contentment and happiness, in other words enough food, enough money and a place to live in.” Such words may be simply dismissed as sugarcoating and mere rhetoric in today’s politics. But Tunku’s deeds matched his words. He was willing to risk his political career by engaging with the enemy; an act which was perceived as soft and compromising by his critics. He preferred to negotiate than to relentlessly attack the other side. Thus he met and negotiated with British officials, Chin Peng, Lee Kuan Yew, and opposition leaders.

What would that tells us in today’s context? If Tunku was willing to meet and talk around the table with Chin Peng, wouldn’t he be willing to do the same with Ambiga and A. Samad Said? If he were able to discuss properly and write formally to inform Harry Lee that Singapore must leave due to his antics, would he resort to personal attacks which are so prevalent in today’s politics? Tunku was convinced that direct approach to meet face to face and put it all out on the table would allow all sides to see where they stand. Tunku even won admiration from opposition leaders. “For me, it is still Tunku Abdul Rahman who was above it all,” said Karpal Singh. “He was the one man who was determined to be leader for all Malaysians, regardless of race.”

4. More focus on ‘being Malaysian’ to tackle brain drain

What about our unmentionable racial issues? In an article published in 1975, Tunku expressed support for policies assigned to push the bumiputras ahead. However, he claimed that “many bumiputras put all their money into businesses in which they have no experience, and lose all their money…or they sold their rights to others for paltry sums.” He said there is too much exhortation going on and told a story when he was the PM. “I remember that once when Encik Aziz Ishak was Minister of Agriculture he confiscated all the licenses of Chinese rice dealers in Northern Perak and Province Wellesley with which to win over the Malays. But this way of doing things are wrong; it was the adage, “robbing Petter to pay Paul.” Tunku offered a remedy. “Immediately I ordered these licenses to be returned, but any licenses that were required for bumiputras should be given without limits. Nobody complained, as no one suffered.”

He also explained that when his government opened up large tracks of land, built roads, supplied water and electricity and lent out money to small traders and fishermen to improve their lot, never a word was said about bumiputras. “This phrase was introduced to play up the differences between people, those who were indigenous and those who are immigrant…it tends to split our people, and to turn back the status of Malaysians to the position we were in before under our imperialist masters. [divide-and-rule separation]’ Tunku still supported the policy providing aids to poor bumiputras, but he feared that “the policy of winning the hearts and minds of the people will suffer a severe setback unless care is employed in the use of the word “Bumiputras”. Tunku has always wanted to make people feel belonged in this country, and that there is no other home except here. “I tried to make everyone feel that Malaya [Malaysia] was his home, and that I expected every man to do his duty to this country, irrespective of racial origin.”

Tunku was a far-sighted man. He envisioned a happy nation where Malaysians are among the happiest people in the world. Though he is no longer our “happiest prime minister in the world”, (as he used to call himself) he still has valuable wisdom and advice to be shared with us. All accessible through his words. “We have the past to guide us through any present or future peril — but we must be resolute, and never let up, if we want our Malaysia to remain the peaceful, good country we love.”

* Ooi Kok Hin studies at The Ohio State University.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 6 November 2012, 4:05 pm and is filed under
Bersih
,
Education
,
Media
,
nation building
,
Parliament
,
Politics
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


No fatwa on ‘belligerent infidel’ term used in ‘Utusan’, says minister

By Mohd Farhan Darwis

The Malaysian Insider

Nov 06, 2012

KUALA LUMPUR, Nov 6 — The National Fatwa Council has never issued any fatwa (religious orders) to refer to non-Muslims as “kafir harbi” or belligerent infidels, minister Datuk Seri Jamil Khir Baharom said today, referring to the label some conservative Muslims had used to describe the secular DAP opposition party earlier this year.

The minister in charge of Islamic affairs also said that any statements calling non-Muslims as “kafir harbi” or “kafir zimmi” are merely personal opinions, and added that Muslims are not bound by these personal convictions.

His statement comes just months after Umno-owned Malay daily Utusan Malaysia reported several Islamic religious scholars as saying that it is “haram” or forbidden for Muslim voters to support the DAP, which they have described as a “belligerent infidel” party.

“Until now, there is no fatwa or legal opinions related to the position of non-Muslims in Malaysia as Kafir Harbi or Kafir Zimmi issued by the state Fatwa Committee, or MKI (National Council for Islamic Affairs Malaysia),” Jamil Khir said in a written reply to PAS president Datuk Seri Abdul Hadi Awang.

Legal opinions are only valid and recognised after receiving approval from the states’ Fatwa Committee and the MKI, Jamil said.

“Fatwa and legal opinions in this country can only be issued by the authorities.

“Therefore, any opinion or institutions apart from the two entities cannot be considered as fatwa, but only personal conviction.”

Abdul Hadi, who is also Marang MP, had asked the minister in the Prime Minister’s Department what action would be taken against those who had described certain non-Muslims in Malaysia as “belligerent infidels”.

The PAS leader had also expressed fear that the usage of such terms could affect the existing peace among the different races in the country.

The Malay-Muslim community make up some 60 per cent of Malaysia’s 28 million population.

While Islam is recognised as the religion of the federation, the Federal Constitution protects the rights of citizens to practise freely the religion of their choice.

Jamil Khir said one should not use freedom of speech as grounds to issue statements that can confuse the society, especially Muslims in this country.

“Although the government affirms the principle of freedom of speech and in giving opinions, but matters that are related to religious issues are sensitive issues for Muslims,” he said.

Utusan Malaysia had drawn the opposition pact’s ire for allegedly stoking “religious conflict” after running a controversial report on its front page on August 8 titled “Haram sokong DAP” (Forbidden to support DAP).

Opposition Leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim has previously said the Malay broadsheet’s reports were a political campaign by religious extremists to instil disaffection towards Pakatan Rakyat parties, pointing out that the ruling Barisan Nasional, including its mainstay Umno, has previously said it was against carrying out “hudud”, the Islamic penal code that metes out harsh punishment for offenders.

He had said the reports by Utusan were a “campaign by religious extremists to punish the DAP” for not supporting the enforcement of hudud.

The Pahang mufti has also backed a growing campaign among Umno-aligned religious leaders, declaring it forbidden for Muslims to support the DAP after several Islamic scholars called the secular party “kafir harbi” and distinguishing it from the MCA or MIC as parties that have accepted the faith’s supremacy in multireligious Malaysia.

The phrase “kafir harbi” has historically been used to describe non-Muslims who are seen as enemies of Islam, and whose deaths are allowed or justified in a war setting as they are seen to be attempting to kill Muslims.

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 7 November 2012, 8:31 am and is filed under
DAP
,
Islam
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Rakyat berharap selepas pilihanraya ini mereka tidak dibohongi lagi

― Aspan Alias

The Malaysian Insider

Nov 07, 2012

7 NOV ― Bila pilihanraya akan diadakan Tuhan sahaja yang tahu. Inilah kali pertama seorang Perdana Menteri belum lagi disahkan oleh rakyat sokongan mereka terhadap beliau. Mandat yang sekarang ini adalah mandat dan sokongan rakyat terhadap Abdullah Badawi.

Najib tidak berani membuat keputusan kerana beliau masih ragu untuk mengadakannya kerana rakyat semakin hari semakin menunjukkan sikap tidak berpuas hati dengan kerajaan pimpinan Najib yang meminjam mandat Abdullah Badawi.

Tetapi tidak mengapalah. Bagi pandangan ramai lagi ditangguhkan pilihanraya ini lagi mudahlah untuk menundukkan BN kali ini. Oleh kerana terlalu lama menangguhkan pilihanraya ini maka lagi jelaslah yang kerajaan hari ini yang mempunyai segala-galanya untuk memperkuatkan diri mereka tidak berdaya untuk menolak arus perubahan yang ingin dibawa oleh rakyat.

Apa yang pasti Najib akan terus keluar menjelajah ke seluruh negara kerana beliau terpaksa melakukannya disebabkan Umno di peringkat bawahan tidak bergerak dan tidak berdaya untuk berfungsi lagi.

Maka kita terpaksalah menanggung kos perbelanjaan penjelajahan Najib yang setiap kali lawatan itu memakan belanja yang berjuta jumlahnya. Semuanya itu adalah tanggungan rakyat belaka. Saya selalu berkata yang kita terpaksa menanggung perbelanjaan Perdana Menteri dalam siri kempen untuk menegakkan benang basah mereka.

Bagi Pakatan Rakyat, mereka tidak menggunakan wang kerajaan untuk berkempen. PR tidak menggunakan jutaan wang rakyat seperti yang dibelanjakan oleh BN dalam kempen mereka. Seperti contoh yang akhir sekali yang kita tengok ialah semasa Himpunan Kebangkitan Rakyat di Seremban 3 November lepas dalam mana rakyat berpusu-pusu hadir di dalam hujan yang lebat dan keadaan padang yang becak.

Jika BN hendak mendapatkan keramaian seperti itu di dalam hujan lebat itu mungkin Umno dan kerajaan terpaksa berbelanja jutaan ringgit wang rakyat dan entah berapa ratus biji bas yang terpaksa disewa mereka. Itu tidak masuk tempahan karipap lagi. Agaknya jika BN melakukan kempen dengan jumlah kedatangan yang sebegitu ramai mungkin tidak kurang 200,000 karipap dan 200,000 pulut udang dan yang lain-lain.

Selalunya kedatangan dan sambutan terhadap anjuran Umno tidak akan mencapai sasaran kehadirannya. Semasa perjumpaan Hari Raya yang dianjurkan di Alor Setar beberapa bulan yang lepas, Umno telah menjemput 70,000 orang tetapi yang hadir hanyalah 3,000 orang sahaja.

Ratusan ribu karipap dan satay terpaksa dibahagi-bahagikan kepada yang datang. Maka berboyong-boyonglah orang-orang Umno membawa balik kueh-kueh dan satay yang telah disediakan sebegitu banyak untuk perjumpaan itu.

Sesungguhnya begitulah keadaan dan sokongan orang ramai terhadap Umno. Walaupun Najib datang dengan karipap yang berlori rakyat tetap tidak menghiraukan Umno itu lagi. Mereka sebenarnya bukan berkehendakkan karipap tetapi mereka mahu melihat jika ada tanda-tanda Umno dan pimpinannya akan berubah. Mereka mahukan perubahan dan transformasi yang dijanjikan oleh Najib dan Muhyiddin itu, tetapi mereka tidak juga nampak tanda-tandanya.

Mungkin Najib beranggapan dengan bantuan BR1M itu adalah satu tindakan transformasi yang dijanjikan oleh Najib itu. Tetapi kalau benar itulah dia transformasi yang dijanji-janjikan itu maka rakyat akan merasa hina dan akan menghukum Umno dalam pilihanraya kali ini. Pemberian BR1M itu tidak lebih tidak kurang sebagai satu bantuan kebajikan masyarakat kepada fakir miskin setiap kali Hari Raya Aidilfitri setiap tahun.

Malahan pemberian bantuan dari badan kebajikan masyarakat kepada fakir miskin lebih konsisten kerana mereka yang telah mendapat bantuan itu akan menerimanya setiap bulan sedangkan BR1M ini hanya diberikan semasa pilihanraya sahaja untuk membeli jiwa dan hati rakyat sahaja. Kalau pemberian BR1M itu menjadi kaedah pilihan untuk meningkatkan pendapatan rakyat kepada RM48,000 setahun, ia merupakan satu usaha yang tidak datang dari pemikir yang baik dan setanding dengan cita-cita yang disebut oleh Najib itu.

Sebenarnya Umno tidak tahu apa yang dimahukan oleh rakyat. Najib berfikir rakyat masih boleh digula-gulakan dengan bantuan BR1M yang sejemput itu. Rakyat mahukan pemimpin-pemimpin mereka yang bersih dan terhindar daripada kegiatan rasuah. Rakyat mahukan kerajaan yang tidak menipu rakyat seperti mengadakan projek-projek pembangunan dengan harga yang ditambah-tambah kerana pertambahan kos sesuatu projek itu termasuk komponen rasuah yang akan diterima oleh pemimpin-pemimpin mereka.

Mereka tahu jika kos membangunan sesuatu projek infra itu rakyat akan membayar kosnya yang terlalu tinggi itu. Rakyat mahu melihat yang penggubal dasar dan penjawat awam tidak terlibat dengan “business” dan berlumba-lumba dengan rakyat untuk berniaga. Rakyat sudah benci dengan sikap pimpinan yang menerima komisyen dengan pembelian kapal selam dengan jumlah yang beratus juta ringgit itu.

Rakyat mahukan sejuta ekar tanah rancangan Felda yang tidak berpeneroka itu diberikan kepada rakyat yang tidak bertanah dan bukannya untuk disenaraikan di Pasaran Saham Kuala Lumpur yang hanya memberikan keuntungan kepada pemodal dan kapitalis di kalangan kroni-kroni pucuk pimpinan sahaja. Sejuta ekar itu boleh menempatkan 80,000 orang peneroka. Itu yang dimahukan oleh rakyat kepada barisan pimpinan hari ini.

Rakyat hendak tahu apa cerita sebenarnya tentang isu RM40 juta yang dikaitkan dengan Musa Aman dan Nazri Aziz itu. Rakyat tidak lagi menaruh harapan untuk masa depan mereka kerana terlalu banyak perkara yang tidak sepatutnya berlaku dan berkait dengan pemimpin berlaku setiap hari dan masa.

Semuanya itu melibatkan wang rakyat. Oleh kerana semua ini berlaku setiap hari dan kepada hampir setiap pemimpin Umno maka rakyat membuat persepsi yang pemimpin-pemimpin kita tidak ada masa untuk memimpin negara tetapi menghabiskan masa untuk membuat duit dan kekayaan secara haram itu tidak berhenti-henti.

Umno gagal untuk memahami kehendak rakyat dan rakyat pun sudah hilang keyakinan yang Umno akan mampu untuk memahami isi hati rakyat yang dipimpinnya. Manakan boleh segala-gala kesalahan ini hanya boleh ditebus dengan bantuan Rakyat 1 Malaysia yang sejemput itu? Umno ingat kami di bawah ini sebagai apa? Hamba abdi? Keldai-keldai untuk membawa barangan berat atau untuk dijadikan sebagai peminta sedekah dan penerima bantuan kebajikan masyarakat sahaja?

Umno akan dapat jawapannya apabila pilihanraya ini sampai.

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 7 November 2012, 4:14 pm and is filed under
Corruption
,
Elections
,
Najib Razak
,
UMNO
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Sabah’s ‘development or else’

Erna Mahyuni

The Malaysian Insider

Nov 07, 2012

NOV 7 — A long time ago, Sabah was like the miserable child in a messy custody battle. Custody battles are hard. It’s not easy for a judge to rule on what truly is best for a child. Who could provide a better environment? The rich parent or the one who makes up for it in affection what he or she lacks in money?

Sabah got to choose… and chose the poorer parent, who wasn’t getting paid child support from the other, richer parent: Umno. Umno was still mad about the PBS walking out and like all vengeful “spouses” chose to try and beggar PBS and, by proxy, Sabah.

But in the end, choice didn’t matter. Because Sabahans’ right to choose who they wanted to lead them was taken away from them by the Great Frog Exodus.

It’s funny that Sabah’s chief minister, Datuk Seri Musa Aman, can so blithely state that Sabah has grown as a “progressive, prosperous, peaceful and stable state” under Barisan Nasional.

That’s like saying after starving and torturing a child for leaving your care and then bribing someone to place the child in your hands, you expect the child to be grateful for receiving what it was due, after you denied it child support for eight years?

Look at the recent power outages at the Kota Kinabalu International Airport. That stems from years of the Umno administration beggaring Sabah after PBS left the fold. I grew up getting used to the power cutting out all the time, with no warning and no knowledge when it would return. And that still hasn’t changed ― frequent power outages still happen because now, like then, there isn’t enough power to meet the state’s needs.

Even a half-hour outage here gets people cursing at TNB while in Sabah, we had to live with far worse.

So much money is still being poured into ridiculous mega projects and failed cattle farm endeavours while Sabah’s infrastructure is still 20 years behind Selangor and Penang. The state isn’t enjoying the money from our own natural resources; it’s being used to bankroll the rest of the country which, isn’t very fair now is it?

Rather than give the cattle project to the NFC, they could have asked people who knew what they were doing. They could have asked Sabahans. Sabah is the biggest producer of beef in the country, but beef is also more expensive in the state than anywhere else.  We even have our own homegrown dairy chain, Desa Cattle, capable of producing 900,000 litres of milk per year. But is milk cheaper in the state than elsewhere? Nope.

We have ample land and potential for agriculture and animal husbandry. But what are the future plans for Sabah? To build more palm oil plantations. How progressive! How innovative!

What utter rubbish.

What else is rubbish? All the people telling us that all we need to do is vote BN out. We tried that, remember? All it takes is an incentive here, and an incentive there, and look, it’s frogs jumping all over the place when it’s not even raining season. Oh, wait. Election season is rainy season. It rains money and promises, instead. And don’t forget the sewing machines.

I can’t help being pessimistic. Sure, I’d like to believe that someday Sabah and Sarawak wouldn’t get such a raw deal. That we’d be appreciated for being more than a “vote bank” or “ignorant savages who will give us all their oil and gas for another national holiday.”

But I’m beginning to think that Sabah isn’t going to change until the state’s been milked dry. When there’s nothing left to take. Fleas and parasites don’t stay on dead bodies now, do they?

Maybe that’s what it will take. Losing everything. So there will be nothing to lose when Sabahans finally grow back the spines they lost after PBS politicians turned traitors.

It’s not that I don’t love my state. I do. I just know that Sabahans are very good at suffering and weathering hardship. We’re almost too good. Because at this rate, it will take an ocean of suffering before we finally decide that we must turn the tide or drown.

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 7 November 2012, 2:12 pm and is filed under
Sabah
,
UMNO
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


The strategy that paved a winning path

By Scott Wilson and Philip Rucker

The Washington Post

Wednesday, November
7

In early spring, President Obama’s veteran campaign staff in Chicago confronted the question that would ultimately determine the presidency: how to run against Mitt Romney?

The choice discussed on frequent calls between the White House and One Prudential Plaza was whether to campaign against Romney as a flip-flopper — a former centrist governor of Massachusetts who turned conservative to win his party’s nomination — or use his career as the head of Bain Capital to cast him as a protector of the privileged at the expense of the middle class.

“The most striking data we saw early on was on the ‘understands problems of people like me’ question,” said a senior White House official involved in the discussions. “Into the summer, Romney was in the teens in this category.”

The choice was made. The onetime campaign of hope and change soon began a sustained advertising assault that cast Romney as a heartless executive, a man who willingly fires people and is disconnected from how average Americans live their lives — an approach reinforced by Romney’s mistakes along the way.

While the Obama campaign bet it could set the campaign’s course in the summer of 2012, Romney’s senior staff in Boston put its their money on winning a decisive autumn, when it believed voters would tune in to the race in earnest and their jobs-first message would convince the nation it was time for a change.

But, as the attacks mounted, so did concern within the Romney camp.

“Ann would come to me and say, ‘Eric, what are we going to do about this? It needs to be addressed,’ ” said Eric Fehrnstrom, Romney’s senior adviser, referring to the candidate’s wife. Romney’s family longed to tell the story of the “real Mitt,” but advisers told them that the time for that would come later, during the convention and debates.

Another Romney adviser said: “The group think today is if we were to go back and change one thing, we’d spend more money and more strongly defend Mitt and push back on the ‘rich guy,’ the tax rate issue, the Bain Capital issue. We knew it was coming and we should’ve done more positive ads to get his favorables up.”

This account of how Obama won is based on more than two dozen interviews with campaign officials on both sides, advocacy groups and super PACs, and current and former White House officials. Obama advisers requested anonymity to speak candidly about the race in advance of Election Day. Several Romney advisers did the same.

Obama’s decision to focus on Romney helped set an angry tone for the multibillion-dollar campaign, the first presidential race since the Citizens United decision changed the financial calculus of U.S. elections. But among the most critical elements of his success was the quiet work his staff accomplished last year, not this one, in reviving and expanding a vast field organization that lay dormant for much of Obama’s presidency. The turnout Tuesday of African Americans, Latinos, women, and young voters in swing states was a testament to its success.

Obama, weighed down by a poor economy, also needed help — and he often got it from Romney. The Republican’s brash condemnation of Americans who do not pay federal income taxes, his quick criticism of the administration for a spike in Middle East violence, and even his selection of a running mate that brought unexpected tension into the campaign all worked against his mid-fall effort to surmount Obama’s lead.

Amid an angry populism in the country, Obama’s effort to portray Romney as a part of the economic problem resonated in the upper Midwest, where the race in many ways was cemented. In Ohio, Obama’s early decision to bail out the auto industry, and Romney’s opposition to the plan, helped frame the contest in the incumbent’s favor before it even began.

“He looked the part,” a senior Obama campaign official said, “the Brylcreemed executive who comes into a town and asks why we’re making Electrolux vacuums here when we can do it cheaper in China.”

In the final stretch, Obama almost squandered his hard-won lead with a bewildering performance in his first debate with Romney. But, for a candidate whose political career has been touched at times by luck, Hurricane Sandy arrived with a week left in the race and disrupted Romney’s effort.

The campaign bore almost no resemblance to the expansive one Obama waged in 2008 — by strategic choice and by financial necessity. Without the clear financial advantage it had last time, Obama’s campaign relied more on the tools of micro-marketing than on the oratorical gifts of the nation’s first black president.

Gone were the soaring speeches that clarified Obama’s candidacy four years ago. Instead the president focused on Romney. Meanwhile, his campaign spoke early and often with “persuadable” voters, selected for targeted e-mails and doorstep visits through demographic data unavailable last time.

“We turned a national election into a school-board race,” a second senior Obama campaign official said.

A 2011 move

Before the effort to define Romney began, before they even knew for certain Romney would be the opponent, the Obama campaign laid the groundwork for victory in a race that would be won in the margins of a polarized electorate.

In January 2011, nearly two years before Obama would face voters, top strategist David Axelrod, campaign manager Jim Messina and other advisers moved from the White House to Chicago to be insulated from what one campaign official described derisively as “Washington’s chattering classes.”

It was not an easy time in Washington. Republicans had just swept the midterm elections and retaken the House. The national unemployment rate was nearly two points higher than when Obama took office.

But what really worried the Chicago brain trust was money — the hundreds of millions they expected the Romney campaign and outside groups to spend on defeating the president.

The Karl Rove-led American Crossroads and affiliated Crossroads GPS, alone, said it would raise $300 million — a goal the group met, an official there said last week. Two-thirds of the funds were spent on the presidential race.

In 2011, something unexpected happened: nothing. The predicted onslaught was largely absent, giving the campaign in Chicago the time and resources to set up the organization a full year before the general election. Without having to respond to negative advertising, the campaign spent its time and money on preparation.

“One of the great mysteries was why they waited so long,” a third senior Obama campaign official said. “We were like the Brits during World War II, staring at the sky waiting for the bombs to fall. They never came.”

The Obama campaign, on the other hand, spent $126 million in 2011 — more than three times Romney’s total that year. The campaign opened field offices, began an extensive outreach effort in swing states and enriched a voter database with information unavailable in the last election.

Some of that expensive new data included viewer habits, collected by cable companies, that provided clues to voter traits and preferences. In a race where middle-class female voters were courted by both camps, the Obama campaign advertised heavily on the CBS’s sitcom “2 Broke Girls,” according to a Yahoo analysis of Federal Elections Commission data. The campaign bought detailed voter updates, issued every two weeks.

The tools allowed campaign officials to determine — on a house by house basis, rather than on a Zip-code-by-Zip-code basis – how people were likely to vote and whether they were likely to vote at all.

Voters were given “support” scores and “turnout” scores to tell the campaign’s field offices who to go after and how. Field workers were outfitted with mobile applications to give an instant report on every doorstep chat.

“The president defied political gravity for a long time, and a lot of the reason was because of this,” the second Obama campaign official said. “And none of this would have existed if we had spent 2011 bailing out the boat.”

By midsummer, though, Obama had problems as president that overshadowed, at least publicly, the progress being made in Chicago. The prolonged fight over the debt ceiling, during which Obama became the face of a dysfunctional political system, had left him at his weakest point in office.

Crossroads GPS spent $16 million on negative ads during that period, and although that was largely it for the year, the ads did damage. Obama scraped bottom in August 2011 when a Gallup poll showed his job approval rating at 38 percent.

“We had entered Jimmy Carter territory,” the second senior White House official said.

Discouraged, Obama left for his summer break on Martha’s Vineyard. It was a time to figure out the future.

“The president was at the center of the thought process after the debt ceiling,” the second senior adviser said. “He knew where we were, and he was very frustrated with where we were.”

During the next months, Obama injected a new populism into his message, culminating with a speech in Osawatomie, Kan., where Theodore Roosevelt had called for a “new nationalism” a century earlier.

“This is a make-or-break moment for the middle class and all those who are fighting to get into the middle class,” Obama said. “At stake is whether this will be a country where working people can earn enough to raise a family, build a modest savings, own a home and secure their retirement.”

It was the essential message, delivered variously as an attack against Romney and as a pledge to voters, of his campaign to come.

Romney: Battered and broke

When Romney launched his campaign in June 2011, he offered himself as the lone Republican who could nurse the ailing economy back to health.

He was back for a second try at the White House, and this time his advisers believed their man, a turnaround specialist during years in the private sector, had met his moment.

What was unclear then was the toll the Republican primaries would take over the next 10 months.

When Rick Santorum finally suspended his campaign in April of this year and Romney emerged as the presumptive nominee, he was battered and broke. He had spent most of the roughly $100 million he had raised and would not be able to tap into his general election funds until after the August convention.

His political image was in tatters, too. He had turned to the right to secure the nomination, complicating his general election run. He suggested “self-deportation” to remove immigrants in the country illegally, and on Tuesday, Latinos turned out overwhelmingly in favor of the president. And Romney defined his term as governor of Massachusetts as “severely conservative.”

“We wanted the primary to end earlier than it did,” said Beth Myers, a senior adviser and Romney confidante. “We recognized we were at a tactical disadvantage for this period. Everything we did had to really matter.”

By then, the Obama campaign strategy to go after Romney’s business career had been set in Chicago.

But the Romney campaign thought it was prepared. Throughout 2011, Romney aides researched each of the roughly 100 deals that Bain Capital made during the candidate’s tenure as chief executive so they could prepare for criticism. When it came in the GOP primaries, Romney easily turned it away, accusing his opponents of attacking success itself.

That instilled a false sense of confidence. When Obama began going after Romney’s time at Bain, advisers in Boston convinced themselves it already had been litigated.

“The Bain attacks were arrows that just bounced off Mitt Romney,” Fehrnstrom said. “They didn’t do lasting damage.”

The Obama campaign thought otherwise.

Deputy campaign manager Stephanie Cutter argued for a series of Bain-related ads in the late spring. A Massachusetts native, Cutter had studied Romney’s unsuccessful 1994 bid to unseat then-senator Edward M. Kennedy (D) and the role Bain had played in it. There was a playbook, and Cutter, as much as anyone, knew it.

In May, the ads began.

“Bain Capital walked away with a lot of money that they made off this plant,” a former employee at GST Steel, a company bought by Bain and eventually closed down, said to the camera. “We view Mitt Romney as a job destroyer.”

The Obama campaign dispatched former Bain employees to Romney primary events. It looked like the work of state party committees, but the organizing force behind it was the campaign in Chicago.

It also looked, at first, like a mistake.

Democrats such as former president Bill Clinton, Newark Mayor Cory Booker, former representative Harold E. Ford Jr. (D-Tenn.), and Steven Rattner, who oversaw the president’s bailout of the auto industry, all condemned the ads as unfair to capitalism.

Still others referred to it as Obama’s attempt to “swift-boat” Romney, the tactic of using a perceived strength against a candidate. The term recalled the 2004 presidential race, when Sen. John F. Kerry’s sterling Vietnam War service record was turned into a liability.

“I think the criticism actually helped push the issue onto local news more than it would have,” a fourth senior Obama campaign official said.

At Romney headquarters, senior officials noticed alarming movement in their internal polls.

“It was the cumulative weight of everything they were doing that moved numbers, changed impressions and made it more difficult for us to climb out of the political hole they put us in,” said Neil Newhouse, Romney’s pollster. “We knew it was hurting. But it was a matter of how long can we survive and how can we raise money to push back.”

Complicating the campaign’s response was Romney’s discomfort discussing his personal wealth. With an estimated net worth of between $190 million and $250 million, Romney is one of the richest Americans ever to win a major party’s presidential nomination, and he has never been at ease talking about it.

Romney refused to disclose more than two years’ worth of tax returns and finally did so only under pressure, leading Democrats to suggest that he was hiding something.

That image was reinforced by Romney’s planned expansion of his La Jolla, Calif., beach house, which included a car elevator, his wife Ann’s passion for the elite equestrian sport of dressage and the couple’s summer getaways to their lakeside compound in New Hampshire.

The Romney campaign fought back, complaining about articles they believed contained factual inaccuracies. But advisers chose not to air a number of positive testimonials from business leaders that they lined up on Romney’s behalf. The campaign lacked money, and did not want to distract from the candidate’s core case against Obama’s economic record.

The Republican super PACs, sitting on millions of dollars, also decided not to defend Romney at a time when the campaign could not afford to defend itself.

This became a source of deep frustration for some campaign strategists in Boston, who were legally barred from coordinating with the outside groups. One senior campaign adviser lamented, “We didn’t have any of our allies providing us any kind of cover.”

The Republican problem may also have been the message — or the lack of a single one.

During one week over the summer, the three big GOP super PACs had a different anti-Obama ad up featuring a distinct aspect of his record, including the government’s role in the failed solar-panel manufacturer Solyndra, the lack of jobs, and the rising federal debt. The Romney campaign was hitting Obama for allegedly diluting welfare reform.

All touched on the Republicans’ central theme — that Obama had failed in his management of the economy — but the impression left on voters may not have been as indelible as the Democratic effort.

“There were no ads for him on his positive vision,” said Bill Burton, co-founder of Priorities USA, the pro-Obama super PAC. “We were out there by ourselves defining what people knew about him based on his experience in private equity.”

Selection of Paul Ryan

Even before Romney secured the nomination, his advisers began discussing potential running mates, and the habitually cautious candidate made clear that he did not want to repeat the error of 2008, when John McCain made a dramatic pick in Sarah Palin but failed to run a thorough vetting.

The selection of Rep. Paul Ryan, a conservative favorite from Wisconsin, would pose other challenges later. But when Ryan, 42, stepped off the USS Wisconsin as Romney’s running mate on Aug. 11, it surprised and delighted the Republican base.

Within the Obama campaign, advisers believed the Ryan pick was a mistake. Ryan was not well-known enough in his home state to help Romney win it, and his conservative positions on fiscal and social issue were likely to bother some independents.

“They were coming up to a convention that was essentially a hostile gathering for Romney,” the third senior Obama campaign official said. “He thought Ryan would help with that.”

Even inside Romney’s campaign, some advisers worried Ryan would be identified too closely with his proposal to turn Medicare into a voucher program, an idea that could alienate seniors critical in Florida.

Those concerns translated into disagreements between Ryan and the leadership in Boston. One week after his selection, Ryan, on his own, gave a speech about Medicare to residents of the Villages, a city-size retirement community in central Florida.

“We want this debate. We need this debate. We will win this debate,” he declared.

To the relief of Romney’s advisers, the debate never materialized. But they did not allow Ryan to set the agenda again.

As part of his role, Ryan had wanted to talk about poverty, traveling to inner cities and giving speeches that laid out the Republican vision for individual empowerment. But Romney advisers refused his request to do so, until mid-October, when he gave a speech on civil society in Cleveland.

As one adviser put it, “The issues that we really test well on and win on are not the war on poverty.”

Ryan did not complain publicly. But he later had reason to.

Benghazi backfires

After a troubled summer trip to Britain, Poland, and Israel, Romney placed foreign policy to the side.

The overseas excursion, described by a member of Romney’s national finance committee as “a mistake from beginning to end,” had been followed by an awkward convention. The Romney campaign searched for something to turn its fortunes around.

On Sept. 11, amid developing reports about an attack on U.S. diplomatic missions in Egypt and Libya, Romney aides found a political opportunity.

Hours earlier, the U.S. Embassy in Cairo had issued a statement responding to outrage in Egypt over an anti-Muslim film made in California. Romney’s advisers viewed the statement as misplaced sympathy for the attackers.

Within hours, on the advice of his messaging shop and with the blessing of his foreign policy advisers, Romney approved a statement that accused Obama of sympathizing with anti-American interests in the Muslim world. It was sent out shortly after 10 p.m.

By sunrise the next day, it was clear to Romney that they had acted too quickly. The campaign learned that four Americans had been killed in an attack on a U.S. mission in Benghazi, Libya, including Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens. Even to some Republicans, Romney’s hasty statement looked insensitive.

“We screwed up, guys,” Romney told aides on a conference call that morning, according to multiple people on the call. “This is not good.”

His advisers told him that, if he took back his statement, the neoconservative wing of the party would “take his head off.” He stood by it during an appearance in Florida. Two days later, Obama traveled to Joint Base Andrews to meet the four flag-draped coffins.

From then on, including during the final debate on foreign policy, Romney was reluctant to engage Obama on the Libya attack, a useful way to discredit his otherwise strong record on national security issues.

“The governor felt snake bit by the reaction to our public pronouncement,” said one senior adviser. “I think it made him shy about aggressively prosecuting the Benghazi case against the Obama administration.”

As Romney remained largely silent on the subject, Republicans and some prominent Democrats called on Obama to make clear how the attacks were carried out and by whom.

A New York Times-CBS News poll published a week before the election showed that a majority of likely voters disapproved of Obama’s handling of the Benghazi attack.

The 47 percent

The Obama campaign moved quietly through Romney’s bumpy summer, and then, for a candidate who has enjoyed moments of good fortune through his political career, another one came.

On Sept. 17, less than a week after the Benghazi attack, Mother Jones magazine began publishing secretly recorded footage of Romney speaking derisively about “the 47 percent” of Americans who pay no income taxes at a spring fundraiser.

“I’ll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives,” he told the guests, who paid $50,000-a-plate to attend.

The video played perfectly into the image, showcased in Obama’s Bain ads, of Romney as a candidate whose chief concern was protecting the wealthy.

“It reinforced a negative perception of the governor that was being peddled by our opponents, so yeah, of course we were concerned about it,” Fehrnstrom said.

Those close to Ryan, whose idea of talking about rising poverty was rejected by the campaign, were also frustrated.

“If we had been speaking out about these issues before this happened, it would’ve inoculated us a little bit,” an adviser said.

Within a few hours of the video’s release, Romney conceded during a news conference in Costa Mesa, Calif., that his remarks were “not elegantly stated.” The campaign hit a low point.

“Among some of the senior members of the campaign, you found people slip into talking about the campaign in the past tense,” one Romney adviser recalled.

In Chicago, Cutter, the deputy Obama campaign manager, and Ben LaBolt, the communications director, walked into Axelrod’s office within minutes of the video posting on the magazine’s Web site to decide what to do.

By the end of the day, the campaign had issued a statement denouncing Romney for “writing off half the nation.” Then, for a few days, it stood back and watched.

As a fifth senior campaign official said, “We didn’t know what to make of it at first, only that we had to play it right.”

Within 36 hours, Priorities USA aired an ad about the taped comments. And the Obama campaign followed with its own, using Romney’s words behind a series of black-and-white photos of working Americans, veterans and seniors.

At a campaign rally in Woodbridge four days after the tape’s release, Obama told a raucous stadium crowd that “we’ve always said that change takes more than one term or even one president, and it certainly takes more than one party.”

“It can’t happen if you write off half the nation before you even took office,” he said.

First debate and aftermath

In the week that followed, Obama widened his lead in the polls. The race appeared over as October approached, the incumbent cruising to a win.

But inside the Obama campaign the new polling showed something that senior advisers worried would not last. The post-47 percent surveys reflected a migration of Republican-leaning independents toward Obama.

Whether they would be there on Election Day was uncertain, and that question occupied Obama advisers as the president left for a resort outside Las Vegas to prepare for the first debate.

For weeks, Obama had resisted the intensive practice that his advisers wanted him to take on. He was the president now, and even those closest to him had a harder time ordering him to do something he didn’t want to do.

And he didn’t want to prepare for the debate, one of those political duties, like donor phone calls, that Obama disdained. Once in Nevada, Obama managed to escape “debate camp” for a visit to the Hoover Dam and another to a campaign field office.

“It’s a drag,” Obama told the staff. “They are making me do my homework.”

Trailing in the polls, Romney knew the debate was perhaps his last opportunity to reverse the trajectory of the race. During flights between campaign stops or in his hotel room before bed, he studied.

The preparation paid off. In the hours after Romney’s successful debate, his advisers began seeing encouraging data. His “47 percent” remarks had nearly disappeared from the concerns that voters expressed to the campaign’s pollsters.

“It got washed out big time,” said Newhouse, Romney’s pollster.

Romney had pushed around Obama, who appeared alternately sleepy, distracted and peevish. And the conservative Republican from the primaries had made a swift turn to the center on a number of issues important to independent voters.

No one thought what happened in Denver was possible, at least not so late in a race that had been underway, by some measure, for five years.

Calls from nervous donors flowed into the Obama campaign, and within days, a series of polls suggested the race was again too close to call a month before Election Day. To Obama’s advisers, the gains from Romney’s stumbling September vanished in a night.

“The rubber band that had stretched toward us the previous month suddenly snapped back to where it was,” said the second senior Obama campaign official.

Obama was angry with himself and began studying the tape in preparation for the second debate that was more than a week away.

Vice President Biden called him the day after the Denver debate, and the president said he regretted letting him down. For a campaign that had good fortune on its side for months, suddenly nothing seemed to work in its favor.

The polls showed Romney gaining steadily, despite a good September jobs report released days after the debate that showed that the unemployment had fallen to the lowest point since the month that Obama took office.

As nervous Democrats wondered whether Obama had given the election away, Biden was asked to steady the base in his debate against Ryan.

Unlike Obama, Biden had been preparing, off and on, for months. Advisers had put together one hundred questions that Biden should expect to get, and during even the smallest windows of free time on Air Force Two, they would quiz the vice president: “So why is the economy better off than it was four years ago?”

“I’m nervous,” Obama told him during a call on the day of the debate, according to advisers. “Is this how you felt when you were getting ready to watch me?”

Hours later, Biden turned in an aggressive defense of the administration’s record. Before he had even left the stage at Centre College in Danville, Ky., he was handed a mobile phone.

It was Obama calling with congratulations.

The final stretch

The Obama campaign headquarters in Chicago thinned out in late October as some of the 700-plus staff flowed into the field. Perched on some desks and shared tables were signs advising “Keep Calm and Carry On,” a message from Britain during the Blitz in World War II.

In the final days, Obama swept through swing states in an effort to rally his supporters and urge them to the polls, at one point suggesting that casting a ballot would be suitable “revenge” for a nasty campaign. He drew on “Obamadata,” as the campaign refers to its voter lists, to hold conference calls directly with thousands of voters and volunteers.

Romney, too, bounced through Ohio, Virginia, Florida. Polls showed narrow leads — for both candidates — with little over a week to go before Election Day.

Then Hurricane Sandy arrived, stalling out the campaigns. It couldn’t have come at a worse time for Romney.

Obama left the trail for the White House, taking charge of an emergency response that even some Republicans praised.

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) was among them.

For months, Christie had been one of Romney’s staunchest allies. He had predicted Romney’s knockout performance in the first debate and spoke for him whenever asked.

With days to go, Christie turned his kind words to Obama. He called Obama “outstanding” in the aftermath of Sandy and, as the two walked the storm-thrashed streets of Atlantic City, he noted that he could not “thank the president enough for his personal concern and compassion for our state.”

Six days later Obama secured his second term.

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 7 November 2012, 3:56 pm and is filed under
Elections
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Yen Yen’s High Standards of Wastage

By Martin Jalleh

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 7 November 2012, 5:44 pm and is filed under
Martin Jalleh
,
Tourism
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Crumbs for the masses

Mohd Ariff Sabri Aziz |	 November 8, 2012

Free Malaysia Today

Every business and economic project undertaken by Umno is a means by which a small powerful group enrich itself at the expense of the majority.

COMMENT

Bread for the political aristocrats and crumbs for the masses. That’s the economics practised by Umno leaders who display the characteristics of economic crimes.

The recent listing of Felda Global Ventures, for example, will go down in history as a wilful conspiracy to shortchange the Felda settlers.

What do common Felda folks know about the stock market because now all the physical assets that constitute the basis of Felda’s business are converted into paper assets.

The assets traded over the counter do not reflect the integrity and soundness of the physical assets, but reflect the manipulations and agility of stock market players.

Why place a known corrupt person as chairman and replacing conscientious Felda officers with obliging conspirators?

The fact that Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak agreed to this reflects his complicity in suckering the Felda settlers. It’s a premeditated plan to plunder Felda.

Every business and economic project undertaken by Umno is a means by which a small powerful group enrich itself at the expense of the majority.

That’s the idea behind Dr Mahathir Mohamad’s economics. Mahathirism is the centralisation of power, emasculation of the judiciary, arrogance, rampant corruption, feigning inclusiveness while actually fanning divisiveness.

This is a Malaysia founded on the principle of natural selection turned on its head.

Instead of free competition, Mahathir carries out selective breeding – now this is Mahathir’s economics. Economic deprivation of the majority is Umno’s agenda.

It’s all about wealth and power for the selected few, economic injustice for the majority.

Umno and Mahathir have created a society consisting of a few millionaires and billionaires while more than 8.5 million Malays live with a monthly income of RM1,500 and a further 3.2 million non-Malays living on the same monthly income.

Simply put, 40% of the population lives under the RM1,500 monthly income level. How would this group fare in Najib’s high-income driven agenda?

Najib is a poor copycat of Mahathir

His New Economic Model (NEM) is but a continuation of Mahathirnomics – the use of absolute and discretionary power to create winners from a selected field of friends and cronies.

It is the same rapacious greed displayed by politicians that is behind the decision to award the Automatic Enforcement System (AES) business to two private companies.

The government has contracted out the income generating resource to Beta Tegap Sdn Bhd and Commercial Circle Sdn Bhd.

If this revenue source earns the country RM50 billion a year, why outsource it?

And what do we do with the over 3,000 cameras already installed by the police at so many places in the country?

Najib’s NEM is just an extension of Mahathirnomics – the same selective life-giving patronage for friends and cronies in business. Should these friends fail, there are always the contingent funds to bail them out.

We have a government that is lazy, driven by rapacious greed, eager to surrender revenue-earning assets in order to support the leisurely life of the rich and powerful political aristocrats.

The writer is a former Umno state assemblyman but has now joined DAP. He is a FMT columnist.

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 8 November 2012, 9:15 am and is filed under
Felda
,
Mahathir
,
Najib Razak
,
UMNO
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


End the smear campaign

— Islamic Renaissance Front

The Malaysian Insider

Nov 08, 2012

NOV 8 — We at the Islamic Renaissance Front condemn and lament the irresponsible mischaracterisation of Nurul Izzah Anwar’s statement on religious freedom.

She merely summarised the gist of the well-known Quranic verse in Surah al-Baqarah which clearly stressed that there is to be no compulsion in matters of faith, for truth and error has already been clearly stated.

Because of that she has been subjected to the crudest level of character assassination from those seeking to stoke controversy and gain political mileage for the upcoming elections.

Islam is not an ethnicity

In particular, the danger lies in the unmistakably ethnic nature of the sentiments that are motivating the on-going smear campaign against her. The erroneous assumption being encouraged is that Malays can only be Muslims.

This, to be sure, goes against the elementary confusion of an ethnicity with a religion. Here, we should pause to reflect on how that very confusion is also discernable in conservative Zionist thinking, which some Malay Muslims who are so enraged by Nurul Izzah’s statement are also supposed to oppose.

More importantly, the smear campaign is un-Islamic in how it particularly contravenes a clearly stated principle in the Quran which calls for the freedom of conscience: no human being is to be forced to believe in something he or she does not want to.

The evidence is plain for all to see. Consider another example in the following passage:

“And [thus it is] had thy Sustainer so willed, all those who live on earth would surely have attained to faith, all of them: dost thou, then, think that thou couldn’t compel people to believe”. [Quran,10:99]

In other words, the belief that Malays must be made to remain Muslim goes against the principle of reason and justice — the cornerstone of Islamic epistemology.

It thus makes no sense to believe that the principle of non-coercive assent is to be upheld only for non-Muslims and it would be null and void once a person converts to Islam. Those who believe that are mistaking Islam for Hotel California, where you can check out anytime you like, but can never leave.

More worryingly, that outlook all too easily assumes that Islam is morally inconsistent; never mind the problem that it would also require a strong Islamic state to force Muslims into conformity.

Freedom matters

Virtue is only virtuous — and not opportunistic, accidental, foolish or political — when it is done out of free will.

Thus, rather than police and threaten others into good behaviour and belief, much time, effort, cost, conflict and ill will can be spared through compassionate and transparent communication whereby our convictions and the ethical choices we make, emerge from out of a clear grasp of the principles and values that colour our moral horizons.

This — seeing the straight path after the seriousness, honesty, patience and labour of inner reflection — is enlightenment.

We believe it takes no moral, social or political cost at all to err on the side of charity and trust, and let every individual set on his or her journey to arrive to that very point of self-consciousness. After all, no one forced Muhammad to the cave.

All this, very sadly, is far from the minds of Muslims today. Muslims all too easily react in anger, without taking any time to consider the ethical ramifications of their demands. They mistake self-righteousness for injustice; the suppression of freedom for happiness and in the process they cannot tell the difference between on one hand, the inner monologues of victimisation that has shaped their egos and on the other, their conscience.

In that frenzy of rage, the personal has been drowned by the political. There is no Muslim condition to speak of, just enraged mobs. The only “winners” to speak of in the meantime are those seeking to exploit religion for ethnocentric ends.

The Islamic Renaissance Front calls upon all our friends and comrades who believe in the freedom of conscience to speak out against the rising tide of religious chauvinism and speak truth to power.

* This letter bears the names of Ahmad Farouk Musa, Ahmad Fuad Rahmat, Rizqi Mukhriz, Fadiah Nadwa Fikri, Ehsan Shahwahid, Muhammad Anas Daniel and Shawn Syazwan of the Islamic Renaissance Front (IRF).

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 8 November 2012, 12:05 pm and is filed under
Islam
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Huge bonus payout for Sime Darby bosses

By Habhajan Singh and John Gilbert

Free Malaysia Today

November 8, 2012

Unionists riled up over 20 months’ bonus paid to plantation managers and senior staff for 2011.

KUALA LUMPUR: A good number of plantation managers and senior staff at conglomerate Sime Darby Bhd took home bonus payouts ranging from 12 to 14 months with their September pay cheque.

Some planters and staff from other divisions of one of the largest government-linked corporations (GLC) received bonuses of as much as 20 months for the bonus payout for 2011, according company officials.

It is understood the highest payout against what is seen as meagre bonuses given to lower-level workers at its wholly-owned subsidiary, Sime Darby Plantation Sdn Bhd, has raised the ire of its unionists.

“It’s a planters market [at the moment]. Last year, most plantation companies would have paid out good bonuses,” said one industry executive.

Sime Darby declined to comment on the bonus payout, with one offical saying that staff remuneration information was confidential.

All Malayan Estate Staff Union (AMESU), the union outfit for the plantation workers, is looking at the issue with a view to taking further action, sources familiar with the union told The Malaysian Reserve.

The issue comes at a time when Sime Darby is seeking shareholders’ approval for a proposed performance-based employee share scheme of up to the company’s 10% issued and paid-up ordinary share capital.

The proposed scheme, to be voted at its extraordinary general meeting (EGM) today, is meant to award shares to selected employees for the “attainment of identified performance objectives” of the group. It is supposed to “attract, retain, motivate and reward” the “valuable selected employees,” the company said in a circular to shareholders dated Oct 16.

Absolute discretion

The number of shares offered to a selected employee is at the “absolute discretion” of a committee established to implement and administer the scheme, with a cap of not more than 10% of the shares allotted for the scheme, the document added.

The big bonus payout, especially for planters, was attributed to the good crude palm oil (CPO) prices last year.

“For the plantation managers and staff who had done their bit to ensure profitability and good management, they would have qualified for the bonus payout. The bonus is tied to performance,” the executive added.

The division had earned an average CPO price of RM2,925 per metric tonne (MT) for financial year 2011 (FY11)/FY12, compared with RM2,906 per MT in the corresponding period last year, according to its 2012 annual report.

On average, Sime Darby plantation managers earn a basic monthly salary of RM7,000 to RM10,000 while the senior managers earn between RM13,000 and RM30,000.

Hence, a manager with a RM10,000 monthly salary who received a 14-month bonus would have taken home an annual gross salary of RM260,000.

A senior manager at the upper end of the pay spectrum, who also got a 14-month bonus payout, would have taken home a gross annual salary of RM780,000.

That would be close to RM822,000 that Sime Darby’s non-executive chairman Musa Hitam earned for FY11/ FY12. “Of course, not everyone got that. Some got less, maybe seven months. It’s tied to their key performance indicators [KPIs]. They must hit their KPIs to qualify for the bonus,” the executive said.

For the financial year ended June 30, 2012, Sime Darby, on the whole, posted RM4.2 billion in net profit on the back of RM47.6 billion in revenue. The net profit, which was up 13% from the year before, was also 27% higher than the FY11/FY12 KPI target of RM3.3 billion.

Largest contributor

On revenue count, the plantation division’s share was 29.7%, making it the largest contributor to revenue.

“At the other companies, they may not have received such high bonuses, but they would have been rewarded in several other ways.”

“To start with, they may have a higher basic salary. They may also receive other perks,” said another plantation executive.

Sime Darby president/group chief executive and also executive director Mohd Bakke Salleh’s remuneration for FY11/FY12 was RM5.24 million.

In his report in the 2012 annual report, Mohd Bakke noted that the plantation division’s “continued focus on strengthening operational efficiencies” resulted in an increase in the oil extraction rate (OER) to 21.8% in FY11/FY12 from 21.4% the year before.

The improvement in the OER, coupled with higher average CPO price, ensured that the division’s performance for the year “remained healthy”, he added.

The plantation division contributed RM3.2 billion to the group’s pretax profit despite a lower fresh fruit bunch (FFB) production due to the prolonged dry spell and palm stress, according to its 2012 annual report.

As one of the world’s largest palm oil producers, Sime Darby noted that in the 2012 annual report that its plantation division produces about 2.44 million tonnes or approximately 6% of the world’s CPO annually.

Its upstream operations span across Malaysia, Indonesia and Liberia with a land-bank totalling 878,797ha, of which 522,489ha have been planted mainly with oil palm and some rubber, it added.

The division operates and manages 201 estates, 62 mills and nine refineries worldwide, employing around 80,000 people, it said.

For FY11/FY12, Sime Darby’s plantation division achieved a pretax profit of RM3.2 billion, down 3% from the preceding year, due to the reduction in FFB production which had declined by 3% to 9.8 million MT, compared to 10.1 million MT in the same period last year.

However, on a group basis, the decline in FFB production was mitigated by higher average CPO price earned and the improvement in the OER, the company noted.

This content is provided by FMT content partner The Malaysian Reserve.

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 8 November 2012, 11:59 am and is filed under
Corporate
,
Labour
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


In cleaning out Bersih and Suaram, Putrajaya soils itself

 — Jaleel Hameed

The Malaysian Insider

Nov 07, 2012

NOV 7 — It is a government that has ruled since Merdeka, but it sure looks like the Alliance and its offspring Barisan Nasional (BN) has to learn some lessons early.

Take Bersih for example, kind sirs in Putrajaya.

What did the government achieve by demonising Bersih every step of the way, from its financing to its office-bearers to declaring it illegal and yet offering to work with the electorai reforms movement?

The answer is nothing, sir.

In fact, the organisation is stronger than ever and its co-chair, Datuk Ambiga Sreenevasan is world renowned as seen by her award from the White House, the French government and now a spot on the global television station, CNN.

And all Bersih are asking for are fair and clean elections in Malaysia, sir. It is an inherent right in any modern democracy. Are we saying Malaysia isn’t modern or a democracy, sir?

All the actions against Bersih, sir, says a lot about government that it prefers to demonise its own citizens than guarantee clean polls.

How hard is it to guarantee free and fair elections? Any harder than helping other countries back to their own two feet, working for peace in Mindanao or Lebanon?

Pray tell, sir.

And now the same mistake is being repeated with the human rights group Suaram. Instead of cooperating and finding out if there were kickbacks in the Scorpene submarine deal, the government machinery is going around trying to demonise Suaram.

Why haven’t the Putrajaya strategists learnt their lessons? Or are they so dogmatic in their mindset and believe that Malaysia is still in the 1960s or God forbid, sir, the 1980s when Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad ruled supreme and whispers were only printed in telefaxes?

But it is too late for that now because the barn door is wide open and the horse has bolted. You can go after Suaram all you want but it is not going to stop the French probe into the Scorpene deal.

It is also not going to prevent Malaysians from debating; talking and debating over whether some people have became very rich as a result of the deal.

So the Registrar of Societies can do all it wants to intimidate the Bar Council president, or Petaling Jaya Utara MP Tony Pua and other Malaysians who have called Suaram a non-governmental organisation (NGO), nothing is going to stop the discussion on the submarine deal.

Not even the action of some hastily put together Umno groups masquerading as NGOs and pro-government bloggers will undo what has been done.

The story is out there, and just like Bersih, Suaram will have their day and tell all, sir.  So stop smearing them because you are just soiling yourself further, sir.

Sir, if you really can adapt to the 21st century, best get out of the way of those who can and will help create a transparent Malaysia. Because that is the way to go for us Malaysians, sir.

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 8 November 2012, 12:19 am and is filed under
Bersih
,
Corruption
,
Elections
,
Human Rights
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.