MACC and JAC Bills – postpone second reading from 4-6 weeks to allow fuller study/greater consensus  by concerned stakeholders

The Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi wants to fulfill three reform pledges on anti-corruption, restore the independence of the judiciary and establish an efficient and professional world-class police service before he steps down from office next March.

Tomorrow, Parliament is slated to start debate on  the first of two of these reforms, the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) Bill and the Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC) Bill.

DAP, just like the other component parties in Pakatan Rakyat, would want to give as much support as possible to ensure the accomplishment of these three reforms.  However, we cannot give blanket support or endorse proposals which are inimical  to these reform objectives.

MPs saw the MACC and the JAC Bills only on Wednesday and there have been increasing concerns and reservations about the provisions in these two Bills as to whether they would be able to further the objectives of having a truly independent anti-corruption body to spearhead an all-out war against corruption and the restoration of the independence, impartiality and integrity of the judiciary.

I have given notice to move five amendments to the MACC to provide greater fire-power in the battle against corruption, strengthen the independence of the MACC from the Executive and reinforce the oversight powers of Parliament.

For instance, I am proposing that we should emulate the Hong Kong anti-corruption law by making it an offence per se  for a public officer to have possession of unexplained property, viz: new Section 16A on
“Possession of unexplained property”
:

(1) Any person who, being or having been the officer of a public body:

(a)	maintains a standard of living above that which is commensurate with his present or past official emoluments; or

(b) is in control of pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to his present or past official emoluments,

shall, unless he gives a satisfactory explanation to the court as to how he was able to maintain such a standard of living or how such pecuniary resources or property came under his control, be guilty of an offence.

I am also proposing amendments to Sections  5 and 58 of the Bill to make it very clear that the Chief Commissioner of the MACC shall have all the powers of a Deputy Public Prosecutor under the Criminal Procedure Code and that a prosecution for an offence under the Act shall not be instituted except by or with the consent of the Chief Commissioner, instead of the Public Prosecutor as provided in the Bill.

I also propose that one of the five check-and-balance bodies for the MACC should be a Parliamentary Committee, whose membership should be appointed by Parliament rather than by the Prime Minister and that such a committee should be headed by an Opposition MP.

These are not the only concerns about the defects of the MACC Bill.  Former Court of Appeal judge Datuk Shaikh Daud Shaikh Mohd Ismai, in an interview in New Sunday Times, have pointed to reservations in other provisions in the MACC Bill, in particular with regard to Sections 47 on “Legal obligation to give information”, Section 53 on “Admissibility of statements by accused persons” and Section 62 on “Defence statement” which greatly undermine the rights of an accused charged with corruption.

The JAC Bill also raises a hosts of questions and concerns, including the strong objection that (i) the Prime Minister can disregard the recommendations of the JAC; and (ii)  the appointment procedure of judges in the new bill violates the Federal Constitution, particularly with regard to the appointment of judges for Sabah and Sarawak in Articles 122B and 161E(2).

Furthermore, there is the question as to why the MACC and JAC are not being created by way of constitutional amendments so that they are given constitutional status and importance.

These are all very weighty issues and the second reading of the MACC and JAC Bills should not be rushed through next week but should be deferred for four to six weeks till mid-January or early-February to allow for  fuller study and greater consensus by  all concerned stakeholders.

I agree that the MACC and JAC Bills should be passed by Parliament before  Abdullah steps down as Prime Minister in March.  This deadline can still be met with the second reading and passage of the two Bills by Parliament deferred for four to six weeks.

For this reason, I call on the Prime Minister to stand down the second reading of the MACC Bill when Parliament meets tomorrow, and this should apply to the JAC Bill as well.  There are other government bills for Parliament to debate for next week’s Parliament.

(Speech at the opening of the Perak DAP State Convention at Heritage Hotel, Ipoh on Sunday, 14th December 2008)

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 14 December 2008, 6:11 pm and is filed under
Corruption
,
Judiciary
,
Parliament
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Dare ACA or MACC answer like this?

Q: How does the ICAC maintain its independence?

A: We are independent. There is nothing to maintain.

This is from the
Sunday Star interview
with Hong Kong’s Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) deputy commissioner and head of operations Daniel Li to illustrate the difference between ICAC and Malaysia anti-corruption body, whether the Anti-Corruption Agency (ACA) or the soon-to-be MACC.

I quoted this Q & A in Parliament during the debate on the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Agency (MACC).

I asked which Malaysian anti-corruption chief would dare to answer with such insouciance and categorical assurance without any hesitation or shadow of doubt about the independence of  the Malaysian anti-corruption body?

Unthinkable! Only last Thursday, the No. 2 in the ACA was publicly admitting that the ACA was being perceived as a “lapdog” of the authorities!

This was my answer to attacks  from UMNO MPs in the debate for my criticism of Daniel Li who had praised the MACC Bill as even better than Hong Kong anti-corruption legislation and had gone on to praise the “determination”  of the Malaysian Government to fight corruption.

I said I accepted Donald Li as an authority on ICAC and the battle against corruption in Hong Kong but that does not make him an authority on the MACC Bill or the corruption situation in Malaysia.

In my speech, I said  when standing up to debate the MACC Bill,  I had four  images  following the day-to-day developments in the country after the first reading of the Bill last Wednesday:

(1)	First the pervasiveness and the far-reaching effects, including lethal consequences, of corruption arising from the  Malaysiakini (10/12/08): report “Landslide survivor: We are victims of corruption”, which stated:

“A furious Ungku Farid Ungku Abdul, 54, did not hesitate in identifying the cause – and culprits – of last Saturday’s landslide in Bukit Antarabangsa.

“’We are victims of the corruption in Malaysia’, alleged Farid, a businessman, whose house was one of the 14 destroyed in the incident.”

Another tragedy that came  quickly to mind was the latest road carnage in the express bus North-South Expressway (NSE) crash in Tangkak which killed 10 and injured 14 the previous Sunday.

(2)	The irrelevance of the MACC following the Malaysiakini (13/12/08) report: “Law: Time for Supp oldies to ship out”

I was not referring to the SUPP deputy president, Tan Sri Law Hien Ding’s speech at the SUPP triennial delegates conference (TDC) on Saturday to ask the “old-guard leadership” of SUPP to have the courage to let go of power before SUPP reaches a point of no return, but his open admission of the corruption of money politics in the country’s election system, when he said:

“The 2006 Sarawak election and the 2008 general election struck a blow at old politics, and left us confronted with its legacy. A legacy of the old way that said elections had to be bought; spending could be reckless; there was no need to invest in the future because the present was all that matters.

“That is one legacy which we don’t need and must get rid of. In its place, we must acknowledge ourselves and tell the people that money politics is corruption and that vote-buying is a ‘No No’. Tell them that their future and that of their generations to come should not be sold for it has no price.”

The MACC Bill before Parliament  has absolutely nothing to say about curbing the corruption of politics particularly in general elections and by-elections.

(3)	Malaysiakini (11.12.08): “Dr.M: Vision 2020 now doubtful”

I did not want to debate the former Prime Minister’s  pessimism that Malaysia could become a developed nation in 12 years’ time – I had said in Parliament in April 2006 in  the debate on the Ninth Malaysia Plan that Malaysia  has gone “off-track” with regard to the  economic growth targets of Vision 2020 – or the Vision 2020 objective to create a Bangsa Malaysia.  I referred  to the Vision 2020 objective of Malaysia as a fully moral and ethical society, which must mean a corruption-free society.

(4)	After the first reading of the MACC bill last Wednesday, New Straits Times carried the headline: “Abu Kassim: Lapdog tag won’t stick any more” quoting the ACA deputy director-general Datuk Abu Kassim Mohamed when commenting that five bodies will scrutinize the MACC. On the same day, there was news of the indictment of former Taiwan president Chen Shui-bian and his family members on a host of corruption charges.  The question that cropped up was  whether with the MACC, the anti-corruption laws and systems would be strong enough where such high-profile  “big fishes” could be arrested and prosecuted in Malaysia?

For me, the debate on the MACC was a déjà vu for eleven years ago in 1997, the country was lifted up by the hope and even euphoria that at long last, there was going to be an all-out war against corruption with new anti-corruption laws and repeated assurances  from top government leaders that not only the “ikan bilis” but the “big fishes” and “sharks” would be brought to book for “grand corruption”.

The national media and relevant stakeholders, including Umno MPs and Ministers, were excited by the proposed anti-corruption reforms which was spearheaded by the then Acting Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim during the two-month leave of the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Dr. Mahathir Mohamad.

A  remarkable consensus and even  unanimity on an all-out war against corruption was forged after three  civil society initiatives  in the heady month of July 1997 on a proposed new anti-corruption law to give bite to the campaign to eradicate corruption.

Heading the rio was the first  Round Table Conference on Corruption and Assembly of Voices in Petaling Jaya on 13th July 1997, which I had convened as Parliamentary Opposition Leader, to create a new culture of integrity in political life and public service with zero tolerance for corruption. It was a distinguished gathering of Malaysians (though many have now left us), personages  who had been concerned about corruption and integrity over the decades, including people like Tan Sri Ahmad Nordin, the most famous Auditor-General in Malaysian history; Tan Sri Harun Hashim, the first and most famous Director-General of the ACA when it was  formed four decades ago; Dr. Syed Hussein Alatas, Malaysia’s most famous authority on corruption and others like Tunku Abdul Aziz, Dr. Chandra Muzaffar, Tan Sri Samad Ismail, Datuk Param Cumaraswamy, Dr. Jomo K.S., Gurmit Singh, Prof Hamdan Adnan and Ruhanie Ahmad, then Chairman of the Barisan Backbenchers’ Club.

On 19th July 1997, a second important civil society initiative towards the same objective to strengthen the national integrity system was taken when the Barisan Backbenchers’ Club, together with Institut Kajian Dasar (IKD), Asian Strategic and Leadership Institute (ASLI) and the Centre for Leadership and Development Studies (CELDES), brought together political parties, government agencies, the private sector, trade unions, the consumer movement and NGOs in the historic “Consensus Against Corruption” Conference.  MPs from both sides of the House attended this meeting, which was declared open by the then Education Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak and closed by the then Foreign Minister, Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi

The third civil society initiative was the Round Table (II) on the Anti-Corruption Bill on 27th July 1997.

But by the third civil society initiative in a matter of a fortnight, the promise of a new “dawn for national integrity” was crushed, with the arrival of sudden “spring” which not only ended, but saw the onset of immediate “winter”.

This was my observation in my speech in Parliament on the Anti-Corruption Bill on  28th July 1997:

“Overnight, however, the climate seems to have changed, and this can be discerned from the changed atmosphere in a space of a few weeks – from the first Round Table Conference on Corruption held in Petaling Jaya on July 13 and the Consensus Against Corruption Conference held at Putra World Trade Centre on July 19 on the one hand and the Round Table on the Anti-Corruption Bill yesterday on the other.

“It would not be wrong to say that the climate appears to be quite “wintry” and I know for instance of mass media which have scrapped plans to provide full support to the all-out war against corruption because of the sudden change of climate, and the enthusiasm they have shown for this crusade seems to have withered away.

“In Malaysia, spring is very short before winter sets in. This is very sad.

“However, this is the challenge to all Malaysians who are committed to the cause of integrity in political life and public service – that they must be able to sustain their commitment regardless of the season, whether spring, summer, autumn or winter.”

Why did the 1997 “spring” for anti-corruption proved to be so short-lived? This was because Dr. Mahathir Mohamad returned from his two-month leave on 23rd July 1997 and he made it very clear his disapproval for Anwar’s campaign to push for an effective and meaningful anti-corruption law.

When the 1997 ACA was debated in Parliament, Malaysia was ranked No. 32 in the 1996 Transparency International (TI) Corruption Perception Index (CPI).  In the past 12 years, Malaysia had plunged 15 places to No. 47 in the 2008 TI CPI. In this period, Malaysia’s CPI score had hovered between 5.02 in 1996 and 5.1 in 2008 (10 perceived as “highly clean” while 0 perceived as “highly corrupt)   –  while other Asian  countries have  either improved both their rankings or  scores or both, viz:

Singapore

1996 – 7 (8.80)

2008 – 4 (9.2)

Hong Kong

1996 – 18 (7.01)

2008 – 12 (8.1)

Japan

1996 – 17 (7.05)

2008 – 18 (7.3)

Taiwan

1996 – 29 (4.98)

2008 – 39 (5.7)

South Korea

1996 – 27 (5.02)

2008 – 40 (5.6)

Malaysia

1996 – 26 (5.32)

2008 – 47 (5.1)

Malaysia’s CPI score in 1996 at 5.32 was the best in the 14-year series of the TI CPI from 1995 to 2008, i.e. better than any time after the passage of the 1997 ACA.  Why is this so?

In my speech, I said the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi wants to fulfill three reform pledges on anti-corruption, restore the independence of the judiciary and establish an efficient and professional world-class police service before he steps down from office next March.

DAP, just like the other component parties in Pakatan Rakyat, would want to give as much support as possible to ensure the accomplishment of these three reforms. However, we cannot give blanket support or endorse proposals which are inimical to these reform objectives.

I had  given notice to move five amendments to the MACC to provide greater fire-power in the battle against corruption, strengthen the independence of the MACC from the Executive and reinforce the oversight powers of Parliament.

However, the question before the House and the nation is simple and straightforward –  If Abdullah has no political will to conduct an all-out war against corruption in his heydays as Prime Minister in  the past five years, will the MACC Bill he is putting on the statute book in his last three months in office end up as a lame-duck law?

I put this question direct to Abdullah, who was in his seat in Parliament when I spoke. But he was expressionless.

Finally, I asked Abdullah how the MCAA could have credibility, not only with the many blemishes in the Bill but also at a time when nothing could be done to eradicate the worst money politics in Umno in the run-up to the Umno party elections next March.

                This entry was posted on Monday, 15 December 2008, 10:23 pm and is filed under
Corruption
,
Parliament
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


MACC Bill – will it propel Malaysia to be among world’s 10 or 20 least corrupt nations in five years’ time?

First amendment:

[Clause 5(6):

DELETE the words after “an officer of the Commission” and SUBSTITUTE “and shall have all the powers of a Deputy Public Prosecutor under the Criminal Procedure Code.”]

Until removed by the Anti-Corruption Act 1997, the Director-General of the Anti-Corruption Agency (ACA) had the powers of Deputy Public Prosecutor under the Criminal Procedure Code.

Thus, section 5(1) of the Anti-Corruption Agency Act 1982 states:

“5(1) The Director-General of the Agency shall have all the powers of a Deputy Public Prosecutor under the Criminal Procedure Code and all the powers of an officer of the agency.”

These powers of the ACA Director-General as Deputy Public Prosecutor were not given just by the ACA Act 1982, but were also in the Biro Siasatan Negara Act 1973, which was repealed by the 1982 ACA Act in order to effect a change in the name of the Agency.

Section 376(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code provides that a Deputy Public Prosecutor “may exercise all or any of the rights and powers vested in or exercisable by the Public Prosecutor by or under this Code or any other written law except any rights or powers expressed to be exercisable by the Public Prosecutor personally.”

Section 376(4) reads:

“The rights and powers vested in or exercisable by the Public Prosecutor by subsection 3 and sections 68(2), 184(2), 381, 385 and 386 shall be exercisable by the Public Prosecutor personally.”

As the six sections mentioned whereby the rights and powers of the Public Prosecutor must be exercised personally and cannot be delegated to the Deputy Public Prosecutor have nothing to do with the anti-corruption laws, this would mean that under the Anti-Corruption Act 1982, the Director-General of ACA had full independence, not only in terms of prosecution, but in full operational sense, such as investigations, search, seizure or arrest.

It is most unfortunate that on the  30th anniversary of the ACA, the important powers of the ACA Director-General as Deputy Public Prosecutor was  removed and his position downgraded, and this must be regarded as one important factor why in the past 11 years, Malaysia’s anti-corruption standing took a nose-dive from No. 26 in the 1996 Transparency International (TI) Corruption Perception Index (CPI) when Parliament passed  the Anti-Corruption Act, falling 21 places in 12 years to No. 47 in the 2008 TI CPI when Parliament is now debating the MACC Bill.

In this period, Malaysia’s CPI score had hovered between 5.02 in 1996 and 5.1 in 2008 (10 perceived as “highly clean” while 0 perceived as “highly corrupt) – while other Asian countries have either improved both their rankings or scores or both, viz:

Singapore

1996 – 7 (8.80)

2008 – 4 (9.2)

Hong Kong

1996 – 18 (7.01)

2008 – 12 (8.1)

Japan

1996 – 17 (7.05)

2008 – 18 (7.3)

Taiwan

1996 – 29 (4.98)

2008 – 39 (5.7)

South Korea

1996 – 27 (5.02)

2008 – 40 (5.6)

Malaysia

1996 – 26 (5.32)

2008 – 47 (5.1)

Parliament must ask: Will Malaysia’s ranking and score in TI Corruption Perception Index fall even lower with MACC Bill, just as they fell even lower from 1997-2008 after the passage of the Anti-Corruption Act 1997 because of provisions continue to put the Chief Commissioner under the thumb of the Public Prosecutor who is the Attorney General, with his record of selective and malicious prosecution and bias, as well as total lack of accountability and transparency.

Although the new MACC Bill reinstates somewhat  the powers of Deputy Public Prosecutor to the top officer of the MACC, the Chief Commissioner,  it is short of the DPP powers conferred on the Director-General of ACA before 1997, as apparent from the wording of Clause 5 (6)  of the MACC Bill, which reads:

“5(6) The Chief Commissioner shall have all the powers of an officer of the Commission and shall have such powers of a Deputy Public Prosecutor as authorized by the Public Prosecutor for the purposes of this Act”.

There is no reference of the MACC Chief Commissioner being given the powers of “Deputy Public Prosecutor under the Criminal Procedure Code” but he is now kept under a tight rein by the Public Prosecutor, with the provision of “such powers of a Deputy Public Prosecutor as authorized by the Public Prosecutor for the purposes of this Act”, which is further reinforced by Clause 58 which stipulates “A prosecution for an offence under this Act shall not be instituted except by or with the consent of the Public Prosecutor”.

This is why I am also proposing an amendment of Clause 58 to substitute the term “Public Prosecutor” with “Chief Commissioner” of MACC.

There is widespread concern among jurists, former judges, former prosecutors and academicians that the downgrading of the position of the ACA Director-General, which is not fully restored in the MACC Bill for the Chief Commissioner, is an important factor for the lack of public confidence in the  independence, impartiality,  professionalism and effectiveness of the anti-corruption body in the country – why in the history of anti-corruption in Malaysia, only ikan bilis are caught but jerung have always been let off scot-free.

When the Anti-Corruption Agency was founded in 1967 under the first Director-General Tan Sri Harun Hashim, the ACA’s public standing as an independent anti-corruption agency was highest in the 41-year history of the ACA.

Unfortunately, after Tan Sri Harun Hashim’s tenure, the ACA had not been able to build on the public confidence enjoyed by the ACA.

Otherwise, the ACA should have become a premier anti-corruption body in the world instead of allowing the Hong Kong International Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) which was formed seven years after the ACA in 1974 to establish the international reputation as one of the best known and successful organisations dedicated to addressing issues of corruption in both the public and private sectors, to the extent that the Malaysia has to learn from ICAC, when it should be Hong Kong having to learn from the ACA!

This was why the deputy commissioner and head of operations of Hong Kong’s Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) Daniel Li was feted as such a celebrity after the first reading of the MACC Bill, that his every word is regarded as ‘gospel truth” not only about the ICAC and anti-corruption in Hong Kong but also an authority on the MACC Bill and the corruption situation in Malaysia.

This was also what happened 11 years ago when the country was promised a new dawn in the battle against corruption with the enactment of the Anti-Corruption Act 1997, when Donald Li’s predecessor, ICAC Deputy Commissioner Tony Kwok Man-wai was regarded as such a “great catch” to promote the 1997 Anti-Corruption Act.

Isn’t it time for us to create the conditions and establish a record whereby other countries wanting to fight corruption would regard it as a “catch” to be able to invite top ACA or MACC officers to speak at their anti-corruption conferences and campaigns.

Will MACC create such conditions for Malaysia to even excel Hong Kong as a least-corrupt nation, as Daniel Li seems to be suggesting? If we want to create such conditions, then this and the other amendments to the MACC Bill which I am proposing should be adopted.

I wonder what Daniel Li could do if he is the Chief Commissioner of MACC. Why not engage Daniel Li to serve on contract as MACC Chief Commissioner for three years, to see whether the MACC Bill is better than the ICAC Ordinance and could make a world of a difference in propelling Malaysia from No. 47 in the Transparency International (TI) Corruption Perception Index (CPI) from the lowly No. 47 in 2008 to be among the world’s ten or 20 least corrupt nations in five years’ time?

(Speech when proposing amendments to Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) Bill during committee stage in Dewan Rakyat)

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 16 December 2008, 5:11 pm and is filed under
Corruption
,
Good Governance
,
Parliament
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Why afraid of a Special Parliamentary Commitee on MACC?

Second Amendment to MACC Bill –

Fasal 14:-

Menggantikan “Jawatankuasa Khas Mengenai Rasuah” dengan “Jawatankuasa Parlimen Mengenai Rasuah” setiap kali perkataan-perkataan berkenaan muncul di dalam Rang Undang-undang

[Replace  “Special Committee on Corruption” with “Parliamentary Committee on Corruption” where it appears in the Bill.]

Pindaan Fasal 14(2)

MEMOTONG dan DIGANTIKAN dengan “Jawatankuasa Parlimen hendaklah terdiri daripada tujuh anggota yang hendaklah dilantik oleh Dewan-dewan Perwakilan yang menggambarkan perwakilan di Parlimen dan diketuai oleh seorang Ahli Parlimen Pembangkang, dan tiada seorang daripada mereka merupakan anggota pentadbiran

[Clause 14(2) –  DELETE and SUBSTITUTE: “The Parliamentary Committee shall consist of seven members to be appointed by the House of Representatives  reflecting the representation in the House  and headed by an Opposition Member of Parliament, none of whom shall be a member of the administration.]

Pindaan Fasal-fasal 14(3) dan 14(4)

Memotong Fasal 14(3) dan 14(4)

[Delete Clauses 14(3) and (4)]

Pindaan Fasal 14(5)

Penomboran semula Fasal 14(5) sebagai Fasal 14(3) yang dipindakan menjadi “Jawatankuasa Parlimen hendaklah, tidak lambat daripada mesyuarat Parlimen pertama pada tahun berikutnya, mengemukakan laporan tahunannya kepada Parlimen mengenai semua aktivitinya sepanjang tahun yang berkaitan dengan laporan berkenaan.”

[Re-number Clause 14(5) as Clause  14(3) which should be amended to read: “The Parliamentary Committee shall, not later than the first meeting of Parliament of the following year, submit its annual report to Parliament of all its activities during the year to which the report relates.”]

Before his highly-principled resignation as the de facto Law Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department in September over the gross abuse of government powers which saw the arbitrary and frivolous detention of DAP MP for Seputeh and Selangor Senior Exco Teresa Kok, Sin Chew senior reporter Tan Hoon Ching and blogger Raja Petra Kamaruddin, Datuk Zaid Ibrahim had spoken publicly of the proposed legislation for the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC).

He said that a constitutional amendment would be needed as well as a new MACC Act to replace the Anti-Corruption Act 1997.

He spoke about the need to set up a Special Parliamentary Committee on the Prevention of Corruption and an Anti-Corruption Advisory Board, as well as the proposed Operations Review Panel and the Corruption Prevention and Consultancy Panel, the former two under the new legislation while the other two could be done administratively.

Under the MACC Bill before the House, the Special Parliamentary Committee on the Prevention of Corruption has disappeared and instead we have in Clause 14 a “Special Committee on Corruption” which clearly is not a Parliamentary Committee in the true sense of the term which establishes the principle of MACC responsibility to Parliament but a mere Special Committee on Corruption comprising MPs but which is finally responsible to the Prime Minister rather than to Parliament.

As a result, this Special Committee on Corruption comprising MPs is not a creature of Parliament but a creature of the Prime Minister, making a mockery of the claim that the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission is to enjoy true independence from the Executive coming under parliamentary responsibility.

The other four “check-and-balance” committees, whether the Anti-Corruption Advisory Board; Special Operations Review Panel; Corruption Prevention and Consultative Council; and a Complaints Committee are all beholden to the Prime Minister or the Executive, making nonsense of the principle of parliamentary responsibility of the MACC.

In fact, the MACC Bill is so watered down that the principles of its independence from the Prime Minister’s control and accountability/responsibility to Parliament can be quite tenuous and even fictitious.

The original intention to amend the Constitution to give the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission a constitutional status has been abandoned while there is no clear-cut provision to establish its responsibility and accountability to Parliament.

The appointment provision is quite ludicrous – the seven members to be appointed by the Yang di Pertuan Agong, which means on the advice of the Prime Minister.

Clause 14 (3) provides that seven MPs shall be nominated by the Leader of the House of Representatives, who again is the Prime Minister, i.e. the Leader of the House (who is the Prime Minister) advising the Prime Minister to advise the Yang di Pertuan Agong on the appointments.

As the Special Committee on Corruption is to comprise MPs, why is the Prime Minister shy in calling it the Parliamentary Committee on Corruption?

Is this just to give the impression of some form of “parliamentary” scrutiny without actually permitting robust and proper parliamentary stewardship?

If such a Parliamentary Committee on Corruption is to be meaningful, its composition must reflect the parliamentary representation of the different political parties in the House and its membership decided by MPs themselves and not by the Executive. Furthermore, the Chairman of the Parliamentary Committee on Corruption should be an Opposition MP.

(Speech 2 when proposing amendments to Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) Bill  during committee stage in Dewan Rakyat)

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 16 December 2008, 5:11 pm and is filed under
Corruption
,
Good Governance
,
Parliament
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


JCA Bill cannot be supported – gives notice to vote againt SSB Bill

The year 2008 is coming to an end. I remember that I had described 2007 as an “annus horribilis” in my 2008 New Year message on 31st December last year.

Malaysians had  heaved a sigh of relief at the end of 2007, a year which had opened with such great promise as it was to celebrate the 50th Merdeka anniversary of the nation.

But 2007 proved to be an “annus horribilis” (a horrible year) for Malaysians.

Despite  the 50th Merdeka anniversary costing over RM100 million of taxpayers’ money in public celebrations, 2007 proved to be one of the most divisive and troubled year in the half-a-century of Malaysia’s nationhood as well as one of great disappointment as the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi failed in his four-year report card to fulfill the great pledges of reform for which he was given the  landslide historic 2004 general election victory in winning over 91 per cent of the parliamentary seats.

The result is the March 8 political tsunami in the last general election nine months ago and the belated promise by Abdullah to fulfill at least three reform pledges before he steps down as Prime Minister in March.

Yesterday, DAP and Pakatan Rakyat MPs supported the passage of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) Bill with great reservations and considerable unhappiness, as nobody in government is really convinced that when the bill is implemented,  the MACC can rival the Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) of Hong Kong or  Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) or that Malaysia will catapult to be among the world’s ten or second least corrupt nations in the world from the lowly 47th place in the 2008 Transparency International (TI) Corruption Perception Index.

Today, we are debating the Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC) Bill, representing the second of the three reform packages – but however much we want to support long-overdue efforts to restore the independence, impartiality and integrity of the judiciary, we do not find it possible to support this second reform Bill as it fails to address the root causes of the series of judicial crisis and scandals  in the past two decades.

The third “reform” legislation is  to be tabled in Parliament next February to fulfill Abdullah’s pledge to create an efficient, incorruptible, professional, world-class police service for which the Dzaiddin Royal Police Commission was formed and whose key proposal was the establishment of an Independent Police Complaints and Misconduct Commission.

If the Billl to be tabled in February is the same as the Special Complaints Commission Bill (SCC) which was tabled and withdrawn in Parliament last December, where instead of an IPCMC “lion” with teeth and claws, there is instead a toothless and clawless Special Complaints Commission, I must give notice that we will have to reject the third reform bill.

The JAC Bill before the House is totally unsatisfactory and unequal to the task to restore national and international confidence in the independence, impartiality and integrity of the Malaysian judiciary, which was held in high international esteem two decades ago.

I do not want to repeat the many cogent reasons which had been advanced by DAP and Pakatan Rakyat MPs in the debate why the Judicial Appointments Commission as proposed by this Bill is completely unsatisfactory.

Just before this debate, I received the following SMS which emanated from a judge – “whole of KL, shah alam, kelantan, terengganu, pahang perils, johor not even one Chinese magistrate and sessions court judge. Chinese officers all put in AG Chambers in law reform or drafting division! Why like this?”

I leave it to the Minister to respond to this SMS complaint.  I just want to note in passing that for close to  two-and-half  years, there has been  no proper multi-racial representation in the Federal Court with not a single Chinese Federal Court judge  – which had never happened in Malaysian judicial history before.

I had raised this issue in Parliament  before and after the March general election but it has still to be rectified.

The JAC Bill raises a hosts of questions and concerns, including the strong objection that (i) the Prime Minister can disregard the recommendations of the JAC; and (ii) the appointment procedure of judges in the new bill violates the Federal Constitution, particularly with regard to the appointment of judges for Sabah and Sarawak in Articles 122B and 161E(2).

Furthermore, why the JAC is not being created by way of constitutional amendment so that they are given constitutional status and importance.

In fact, JAC Bill, if passed in its present form, risks being challenged as to its constitutionality in the courts.

But the greatest objection to the JAC Bill is the failure to grasp this golden opportunity to address the root causes of the loss of national and international confidence in the independence, impartiality and integrity of the judiciary in the last two decades.

I share the disappointment of the  former United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers, Dato’ Param Cumarawamy with the JAC bill and who made two salient points:

• Without amending article 121 of the Constitution to restore the doctrine of separation of powers and conferring the judicial power on the courts, judicial independence cannot be secured by merely conferring on the chief executive of the government the duty to uphold judicial independence.

• The power of the Prime Minister to remove the eminent persons in the Judicial Appointments Commission at any time without giving reasons pursuant to clause 9(1) virtually gives legal legitimacy for executive dominance over the judicial arm of the government.

(Speech on the Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC) Bill in Dewan Rakyat on Wednesday, 17th December 2008)

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 17 December 2008, 12:39 pm and is filed under
Judiciary
,
Parliament
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Complaint against Teluk Dalam Resort

Letters

by Eddie Paul C

(The following is a letter of complaint against Teluk Dalam Resort sent to the management by a Singaporean of his unhappy experiences but who has not received any reply after three weeks.)

Subject: RE: TELUK DALAM RESORT

Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2008 08:44:06 +0000

We had the opportumity to stay at your resort from 17-20 Nov 2008. We had booked our stay via telephone from Singapore for the Cempaka Bungalow through your staff Ms Fadzilla who did a good job to convince me to give a try to stay at your resort. We normally would stay at the Pangkor Island Beach Resort. Sadly to say that our stay at your resort was a horrible experience. We regretted very badly but it was an experience anyway.

Please let me enlighten you with our bad experiences during our stay as follow:

1. At the Check-In reception on our arrival on 17 Nov we were advised to take an additional bed at RM40.00 per night. We consented to it.

2. We were then allocated bungalow No: 343. I would compliment the ambience, the setting and the beautiful bungalow. However, on approaching the premises we noticed a dirty looking mattress with some used towels placed on the railing probably left by the previous guests. We just passsed them by. We proceeded to look underneath the beds (which we normally did – just in case) in both rooms. To our horror the floor was atrocious – dusty, littered with cigarette butts, bits of papers, etc. However, outside the bungalow at the rear door there was heavy litterings with items such as cigarette butts and wrappers, chewing gum wrappers, used condoms, etc. This is really disgusting. Your house-keepers MUST be complimented for her failure.

3. As we were tired after a long drive we decided to take a stroll along the beach. To our horror the approach to the beach was littered with styrofoam, papers, etc and the undergrowth was overgrown and left unattended for ages.

4. We later proceeded to the swimming pool, and to our horror many tiles both around the pool and inside the pool were damaged. There was no evidence to show that rectification work was ever carried out. I infact had a minor (fortunately) cut under my foot. We also noticed that algae was growing in all the joints (tiles) in both pools – we can see them at the bottom of the pool and on the walls waiting to be cleaned and removed. Your staff did nothing to clean the pool of these harmful algae growth. Infact I suffered ulcers on my lips after my swim which I showed to your staff Ms Pang at check-out. Algae growth has been proven to be be harmful. My grand-daughter had to consult our family doctor in Singapore for similar mouth ulcers. I can send you receipt to show you proof. Please DO something about this.

5. After our swim on our return to the bungalow the ‘extra bed’ has still not arrived or made up. We later proceeded for our dinner at your restaurant. When we returned to the bungalow after our dinner at obout 8.30 pm we noticed that the dirty looking mattress was still left on the railing with a new bedsheet and a blanket just added. We did not make a fuss as the beds were sufficient for my wife, my maid, my 2 young grand-children (8 and 10 years old) and myself.

6. The next morning I noticed that the dirty mattress, bedsheet and blanket were still on the railing. I took photographs of them, and proceeded to your reception counter to lodge my unhappiness to your staff Baizura. I also told her that I don’t need the ‘extra’ bed for the obvious reasons as we were expected to use the filthy mattress, we had to make it ourselves (DIY) and apparently one of us had to sleep on the floor as it came with a 2-inch mattress only. On our return after breakfast the items were promptyly removed.

7. On 19 Nov while we were swimming in the pool in the late afternoon all of a sudden one of your staff brought a ‘floater rope’ to tie it across the pool, and a group of staff I believe from the Health Ministry (I noticed ‘Kesihatan’) came and told us to leave. We left but did not make a fuss as we are ‘guests’ in Malaysia as your civil service staff are known and can create problems for us during our stay if we ever did. I truly felt your staff and that of the Health Ministry were unethical, and acted like ‘gangsters’ to guests of the resort. Had this happened in my country I would have marched to the reception and the Health Ministry to lodge my strongest complaint. Yes, they have numbers but we also have equal rights to use the pool as we also paid for our lodging, if not more.

8. We had dinner at your restaurant and was surprised that the 3 main courses were all with ‘chillies’ – chilly crabs, rendang and one other chilly item. Personally, I think your resort must also change the mind-set, and also consider the plight of non-Malay children.

9. When we checked out on 20 Nov I spoke to your staff I believe Ms YS Pang and Ms Fadzilla regarding our unhappiness and showed them the photos I had taken. We have been to many resorts throughout Malaysia – Port Dickson, Penang, Langkawi, Pangkor, Kelantan, Tioman, etc I think this is one very bad experience we ever had. If Teluk Dalam Resort ever wants to woo more tourists it has to work tremendously hard to improve your service quality. Most of your staff has this attitude which we use it very commonly in Singapore – a ‘boh chap’ attitude.

10. By the way, on arrival at the Jetty we were the only family to board the Teluk Dalam Resort bus whilst the rest (about 30-40 people) boarded the other bus to the PIBR. After our stay we knew the reason why – and it is very obvious.

I hope you will investigate my feedback to you in order for you to improve on the service quality of your resort, and perhaps we may return one day!

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 18 December 2008, 5:32 pm and is filed under
Letters
,
Tourism
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


MACC/JAC Bills – don’t count chickens before they are hatched

The Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Abdullah should not count the chickens before they are hatched as he did  yesterday following the passage of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) and Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC) Bills when he indulged in  the following hyperbole:

MACC –
“They (foreign investors) will know there is no corruption or very little of it”
; and

JAC –
“we will bring back the confidence of the public in the judiciary”
.

As I said during the debates on the MACC and JAC Bills, nobody in Government really believe

(i)	that the MACC could check the rot of corruption in the country and catapult Malaysia into the stratosphere among the world’s  ten or twenty least corrupt nations, with the MACC able to rival the Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) in Hong Kong or the Corrupt Practices Investigation Board (CPIB) in Singapore; and

(ii)	that the JAC could fully restore national and international confidence in the independence, impartiality and integrity of the judiciary after two decades of erosion and devastation or even to prevent in future  the repetition of controversial appointments like  the  Zaki Azmi appointment as Chief Justice.

After the 1988  “mother of judicial crisis” which saw the sacking of the Lord President Tun Salleh Abas and two Supreme Court judges, the late Tan Sri Wan Suleiman Pawanteh and Datuk George Seah,  the country had seen the appointment of six heads of the judiciary in the past 20 years, three of whom had brought shame and scandal to the institution of the judiciary in the country and the world spanning 17 years in the past two decades.

Could the JAC ensure that this long dark chapter of the Malaysian judiciary could never happen again?

The MACC and JAC Bills should pave the way for the restoration of public confidence in the independence, impartiality and integrity of key institutions in the country, but the signs are not there that this will be the case, with big question marks about the professionalism and integrity of key institutions remain unanswered – including those concerning the Inspector-General of Police and the Attorney-General.

In these circumstances, instead of counting the chickens before they are hatched, what should concern Malaysians is chickens coming home to roost as a result of the MACC and JAC Bills.

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 18 December 2008, 11:12 am and is filed under
Corruption
,
Judiciary
,
Parliament
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


100 dead and over 45,000 dengue cases this year – “conspiracy of silence” outrageous

I feel totally  outraged at the conspiracy of silence involving the government headed by the Health Minister, Datuk Liow Tiong Lai and even the media to play down the worst dengue epidemic in the country’s history which has to date claimed 100 lives and recorded over 45,000 dengue cases.

It came as a shock to me, as it must be to all Malaysians, that 100 lives have been lost to dengue in the first 50 weeks of this year.

No mainstream newspaper headlined or even reported this shocking news or that the country is facing the worst dengue epidemic in history, which has been confirmed by the
latest dengue statistics
 by the Director, Disease Control Division, Ministry of Health, Datuk Dr. Hassan Abdul Rahman yesterday that dengue fever claimed  two more victims last week, bringing the number of fatal cases in the country to 100.

Dr. Hassan did not give the latest total number of dengue cases  in the country as on December 13, 2008 when they have also established a dubious new record of exceeding 45,000 cases – which is another shocker that the total number of dengue  cases have crossed the  40,000 mark even before the full year is over.

Liow should explain why there is a conspiracy of silence to play down the worst dengue epidemic in the country when he should be spearheading a nation-wide anti-dengue  public campaign to save lives by reducing avoidable deaths as well as mitigate considerable unnecessary sufferings?

Liow should end this conspiracy of silence by spearheading a nation-wide anti-dengue campaign as well as making public all  the available facts and figures about the worst dengue epidemic confronting the country, with week-by-week data of dengue cases and fatalities, not only nationally but also on a state-by-state basis.

It has been reported that Malaysia has the first fatal case of Chikungunya, which was completely unheard of recently.

Again, no proper ministerial leadership had been provided by Liow to educate the Malaysian public about this emerging disease in the country.

It will be sad and tragic if the Health Minister of the country is only interested about Sime Darby Bhd’s takeover of the National Heart Institute but not concerned about maintaining high standards of public health in the country.

                This entry was posted on Friday, 19 December 2008, 12:26 pm and is filed under
Good Governance
,
Health
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


IJN – No to privatization

by
Dr. Chen Man Hin

When Institut Jantung Negara (IJN) – National Heart Institute – was launched in 1992, the Malaysian government promised that IJN would be a centre to serve all people with heart diseases, irrespective of race and with due care and treatment for the poor.

Assurance was given that heart patients would be treated fairly as in all government-run hospitals and that IJN would not be an exclusive hospital for the rich and well-to-do. People from all walks of life would be allowed to enjoy the facilities in the special heart hospital.

This aspiration of IJT to help poor heart cases is now shattered by the announcement that IJN would be handed to a private company, albeit the largest corporation in the country – Sime Darby.

PRIVATISED HOSPITALS ARE RUN ON A BUSINESS BASIS WITH OBJECTIVE OF EARNING PROFITS – TO MAKE MONEY

It is unlikely that Sime Darby will run IJN as a social and charitable hospital, like a government hospital. Its objective is to earn as much profits as possible.  There are too many private hospitals in the country which charge substantially, which only the rich could afford.

With Sime Darby at the controls of IJN, the poor who form the majority of the patients will suffer, and being unable to pay, they will not have access to health care offered by IJN as of today.

The government stands to lose by giving control of IJN away:-

1  IJN is a going concern and successfully managed and bringing great benefits to the people and a sound reputation  internationally as a well-organised  heart centre.

2. as an institute with excellent facilities and  world class medical expertise, it is well placed to lead the battle against  the threat of heart disease as the number one  killer in the country.  This is the sacred duty of IJN.  This role cannot be performed by a private hospital whose aim is to make profits.

3. The government must not relinquish its responsibility by giving up the one place where heart patients look confidently for care and treatment, in particular the poor of this country.

                This entry was posted on Friday, 19 December 2008, 6:32 pm and is filed under
Dr. Chen Man Hin
,
Health
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


RM4.6b PKFZ scandal  – OTK should answer five questions and not just rehash chronology of events

Transport Minister Datuk Ong Tee Kiat should not dilly-dally or backtrack  from  his repeated promises eight months ago  to
“tell all”
about the RM4.6 billion Port Klang Free Zone (PKFZ) scandal.

For instance, the Star  report of April 8, 2008 headlined

“Ong to tell all on Port Klang Free Zone”
quoted him as saying:

“I wish to inform the rakyat about the true situation – whether it was actually squandered, not squandered, and where it has gone to, as well as the breakdown of the budget.”

Now, Ong is backpedaling from his promise, as he said yesterday that he would announce the
chronology of events
in the PKFZ issue but not into its financial aspects – allegedly because PricewaterhouseCoopers “is still finetuning its report on the financial aspects involving PKFZ as there are some formalities it needs to look through before concluding the report”.

This is a most extraordinary turn of events as more than a month ago, Ong had said publicly that the PricewaterhouseCoopers report into the PKFZ scandal was ready to be made public “soon”.

The Star report of Nov. 16,
“Report into PKFZ scandal to be made public soon”
quoted Ong as promising that “everything would be settled” by the fourth quarter of this year and that he would reveal what had been compiled.

Let me tell Ong: don’t just rehash the chronology of events of the PKFZ scandal (I doubt he would have anything new to add to what I had revealed already in Parliament on the PKFZ chronology of events) but just answer the five questions about the RM4.6 billion PKFZ scandal which I had posed to him more than eight months ago on April 9, 2008, viz:

1. Was it true that when the Port Klang Authority and the Transport Ministry insisted on buying the 1,000 acres of Pulau Indah land for PKFZ at RM25 psf on a “willing buyer, willing seller” basis, in the face of strong objection by the Attorney-General’s Chambers and the Treasury which had recommended that the land be acquired at RM10 psf, the Cabinet had given its approval subject to two conditions: (i) categorical assurance by the Transport Minister that the PKFZ proposal was feasible and self-financing and would not require any public funding; and (ii) that every RM100 million variation in the development costs of PKFZ would require prior Cabinet approval.

2. In the event, the first condition was breached when the PKFZ project ballooned from RM1.1 billion to RM4.6 billion requiring government intervention and bailout while the second condition was breached with the original PKFZ development costs of RM400 million ballooning to RM2.8 billion without any prior Cabinet approval ever sought for every RM100 million increase in development costs.

3. The Transport Minister had unlawfully issued four Letters of Support to Kuala Dimensi Sdn. Bhd (KDSB), the PKFZ turnkey contractor — to raise RM4 billion bonds, which were regarded as government guarantees by the market. The Transport Minister had no such powers to issue financial guarantees committing the government, as it could only be issued by the Finance Minister and only after Cabinet approval. The first Letter of Support was issued by the former Transport Minister, Tun Dr. Ling Liong Sik on May 28, 2003, which was Liong Sik’s last day as Transport Minister while the other three were issued by Liong Sik’s successor, Datuk Seri Chong Kong Choy.

4. Whether it wasn’t true that in recognition that the four unlawful “Letters of Support” of the Transport Minister had nonetheless given implicit government guarantee to the market that the Cabinet had in middle of last year gave retrospective approval for the unlawful and unauthorized four Letters of Support by the Transport Ministers in the past four years creating RM4.6 billion liability for the government in the bailout of PKFZ.

5. Why no action had been taken against the two previous Transport Ministers, both Liong Sik and Kong Choy, as well as the government officials responsible for the unlawful issue of the four “Letters of Support” – getting the government embroiled in the RM4.6 billion PKFZ scandal?

                This entry was posted on Friday, 19 December 2008, 1:48 pm and is filed under
PKFZ
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Abdullah’s sensible/commendable comments on nation-building – why not adopted in his heyday as PM?

In his interview with
Sin Chew Daily
in the past two days, Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi made the most sensible and commendable comments on nation-building in Malaysia.

The greatest pity is that he did not adopt them when he has the real power to influence the government and nation in his heyday as Prime Minister.

Firstly, in
“Change Or Perish, Pak Lah Tells UMNO”
,
Sin Chew
reported:

Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi said the Malays have changed their old thinking and value system, only that UMNO seems to have “forgotten” that the Malays have indeed changed.

He said the Malays have changed, but if UMNO remains unwilling to change, then the party will eventually head for destruction.

“UMNO has forgotten that the Malays have changed their own thinking and perspectives. It has forgotten that the Malays have changed their value system. The Malays are no longer what they used to be. They unreservedly express themselves. They even wave the DAP flags!”

Abdullah said during an exclusive interview with Sin Chew Daily at his private residence in Kuala Lumpur that during his five-year tenure as the prime minister, he has managed to change the mentality of the Malays.

He said young Malays believe they can stand on their own feet, and this is the major value that has changed the young Malays today.

“Young Malays feel that they need the opportunities, so they begin talking about DAP and PKR. They believe they have better opportunities there.”

Secondly, in
“Pak Lah: NEP No Longer In Existence”
,
Sin Chew
 reported:

Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi emphasised that the New Economic Policy is no longer in existence today.

“The NEP is a policy which is no longer in existence. The objective of this policy has been to eradicate poverty, as you all know.”

He said during an exclusive interview with Sin Chew Daily at his private residence in Kuala Lumpur that the way the NEP was implemented had triggered the dissatisfaction among many people, including some Malays, adding that Malaysians needed a more transparent policy and open market.

The first  question is whether the rest of the Umno leadership, led by the Umno President-elect and Prime Minister-in-waiting, Datuk Seri Najib Razak, are prepared to publicly  endorse Abdullah’s “Umno – Change or Perish” analysis – accepting the reality that when Malays support the DAP or PKR, it is not because they are traitors to the Malay race but because they reject the political fallacy equating “UMNO with  Malays and Malays with UMNO”,  regarding themselves as Malaysians first and Malays second, just as their other Malaysian counterparts who must regard themselves as Malaysians first and Chinese, Indians, Kadazans or Ibans second!

Similarly, does the rest of the Umno leadership led by Najib accept that the New Economic Policy “no longer exists” as it is a specific  policy meant for 20 years from 1970 and 1990, although  the objectives of eradication of poverty regardless of race and restructuring of society to reflect the country’s multi-racial character in all sectors of society should be continuing programmes.

If this had been Abdullah’s clear-cut  nation-building policy and philosophy from the first day  he took over as Prime Minister five years ago, the country would have spared many nation-building crises arising from high-handed, arbitrary, hegemonic and most divisive extension of the New Economic Policy till 2020, giving rise to keris-wielding excesses and “ketuanan Melayu” demands.

Will Najib and the rest of the Umno leadership endorse Abdullah’s most sensible philosophy on nation-building, viz:

·	that Malays have changed including supporting the DAP to further the legitimate aspirations of the Malays and that UMNO will perish unless Umno could also change; and

·	that the New Economic Policy is no longer in existence and the country should no longer be divided by irresponsible calls for the extension of the NEP while the country should continue with its national objectives of poverty eradication and multi-racialisation?

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 20 December 2008, 12:02 pm and is filed under
Abdullah Ahmad Badawi
,
Najib Razak
,
nation building
,
NEP
,
UMNO
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Which  earlier – next Sarawak state election or 13th national election?

Which will be held earlier – the next Sarawak state general election or the 13th national general election?

The conventional wisdom  will be the former as the Sarawak state general election is expected to be held in the next 12 to 18 months.

In the May 20, 2006 Sarawak state general election, the Sarawak Barisan Nasional suffered a major and unforgettable blow when its political  hegemony in the Sarawak State Assembly was smashed with the loss of nine state assembly seats – six to the DAP.

After the “political tsunami” of March 8, 2008 general election, where five states in Peninsular Malaysia fell to Pakatan Rakyat and the Barisan Nasional lost for the first time its parliamentary two-thirds majority, the expectation and hunger for greater political change is thick in the air all over the country.

In the first six months after the March 8 general election, Sabah held the political centre-stage as the pivotal state to take the “political tsunami” to a higher level.

Although this has still to come to fruition, the political centre of gravity has shifted to Sarawak which is expected to go to the polls in the next 12 to 18 months – providing a critical test whether the political changes started in the May 2006 Sarawak state general election and expanded in the March 2008 national general election will culminate in a great political tsunami in the next Sarawak state general election with the toppling of Sarawak Chief Minister Taib Mahmud and the Sarawak Barisan Nasional state government.

In the next Sarawak state general election, DAP and PKR must endeavour their utmost to ensure that they could unite their resources and efforts to present a single slate of candidates to ensure that the ‘political tsunami” can come fully to Sarawak for a new government to be formed.

However, I am not certain whether the next Sarawak state general election will be earlier than the next 13th national general election, as the first thing Najib Razak must decide when he takes over as Prime Minister from Abdullah Ahmad Badawi  in early April next year is whether to hold a snap general election to take full advantage of the initial “honeymoon” euphoria of a new Prime Minister.

It is not going to be an easy decision for Najib.  Both his predecessors, Dr. Mahathir Mohamad and Abdullah had taken full advantage of their first months as Prime Minister to win big in their first general election.

The temptation for Najib to go down the same route will be very great, although he would be faced with problems which both Mahathir and Abdullah did not have to face – the worst-ever economic crisis and the possibility of Barisan Nasional and Umno losing power.

But is there any surety that Najib will be on a better wicket if he forgoes the advantages of having a snap general  election in his early months as the new Prime Minister by calling his first polls only after some three years as Prime Minister, i.e. 2012, when he would have to campaign on the results he could deliver as PM and not on promises or nd appeal to the voters to give him a chance to perform?

Najib must be mindful of the most famous political prophecy “RAHMAN” as to whether the final and sixth alphabet “N” signifies not only his becoming the sixth Prime Minister, but whether he would be the last in the line of UMNO Prime Ministers before giving way to a new Malaysian government and political coalition.

(Speech at the Miri DAP Branch Dinner to celebrate 30th Sarawak DAP Anniversary in Miri on Saturday, 20th December 2008)

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 21 December 2008, 4:56 pm and is filed under
DAP
,
Sarawak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Hukum hudud not Pakatan Rakyat policy

Media reports
that PAS vice president Datuk Husam Musa has said that PAS will implement hudud if Pakatan Rakyat takes over the Federal Government has created a frenzy of reaction.

Hukum hudud is not Pakatan Rakyat policy and it is for Husam to clarify what he actually said.

DAP’s stand on the secular  character of Malaysian nation and state as agreed in the social contract by our forefathers when Merdeka was achieved 51 years ago remains consistent and unchanged.

If unclarified, Husam’s statement would create unease,  anxiety and opposition  not only among the 11% of  the Chinese voters in the critical Kuala Terengganu by-election on January 17  but also among both Malay and non-Malay  voters whether in Terengganu or the rest of Malaysia.

                This entry was posted on Monday, 22 December 2008, 11:37 am and is filed under
DAP
,
Pakatan Rakyat
,
PAS
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Husam confirms – hukum hudud is not Pakatan Rakyat policy

Bernama

December 22, 2008 20:31 PM

PAS Admits Difficulty Getting Consensus On Hudud From Opposition Partners

KOTA BAHARU, Dec 22 (Bernama) — PAS has admitted that the implementation of Hudud and Qisas laws would have to be postponed even if Pakatan Rakyat is able to take over the government in future.

This is because it will require the agreement of its two other Pakatan Rakyat partners, Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR) and DAP, which has already objected to the plan.

The admission was made by PAS vice-president Datuk Husam Musa at a press conference, here, today as the three opposition components had signed an agreement in August, stating that any policy change should have a multilateral agreement among them.

Husam said PAS would not act unilaterally in coming up with the Hudud law if the party ruled the country but would instead work together with DAP and PKR on the matter.

“However, PAS will continue with its struggle to implement Hudud law, which is God’s law, by explaining to all quarters, including the Pakatan Rakyat component parties, until they are ready to accept the law.

“We will discuss the Hudud law and if they cannot accept its implementation when the time comes, we will postpone it,” he said.

In Islamic law, Hudud usually refers to the punishments that are fixed for certain offences including theft, robbery, illicit sex, alcohol consumption and apostasy. Punishment for these offences are corporal in nature, involving whipping, stoning to death and amputation of limbs.

Qisas (law of retaliation) refers to offences that involve bodily injury or loss of life. The punishment is death or imprisonment, but compensation in the form of money or property is accepted if the victim’s guardian forgives the offender.

Husam said many things had be done before the Hudud and Qisas laws could be brought to Parliament, including holding a referendum or discussions with the legal bodies.

He said at the same time, several national issues such as racial unity, the New Economic Policy (NEP), corruption and the economy, would also have to be addressed fast.

“The Hudud law is still hypothetical. There are other issues that have to take precedence,” he said.

He cited the NEP which focused on the advancement of the Malays in the field without taking into consideraton the poor among the Indians and Chinese who also needed assistance, hence PAS regarded the NEP as unIslamic.

He said PAS would continue to explain to the people Hudud and Qisas laws to discourage them from committing crime.

Asked how long would the people have to wait for the implementation of the laws, Husam said: “What’s wrong with waiting longer? Umno has not done it after more than 50 years in power.”

                This entry was posted on Monday, 22 December 2008, 10:24 pm and is filed under
DAP
,
Islam
,
Pakatan Rakyat
,
PAS
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Sarawak DAP expands into Iban areas

by
Wong Ho Leng

Chairman, DAP Sarawak

21.12.98

In November 2008, DAP approved the formation of two (2) predominantly Iban branches at Sibu Jaya and Sungai Merah, both in Sibu (Another predominantly Iban branch approved was Bintangor Scheme B).

This morning, members from these 2 branches gathered at the Sibu DAP office to hold their first Annual General Meeting (AGM) and elect the first office bearers.

The small DAP premises was filled to the full by these members. Every chair was occupied. Some members even had to stand throughout the meeting.

More branches will be formed in rural areas in the next few months. The formation of these branches will bear testimony that we are not content to work in the Chinese areas alone and shout for the rural constituencies from outside. We are determined to go rural, and to see improvement in the lives of all races, in particular, the economically besieged and poor Dayaks. These rural areas should have DAP Iban leaders serve them. They should go for change.

Several Iban leaders spoke at the meeting before the election of office bearers. They had one common theme in their speeches – the BN Government has neglected them despite promising the skies. They felt that their leaders have always resorted to threats and intimidation, dissuading them to join Opposition parties. They urged their members not to fear, because their community leaders are paid by the BN to speak for the BN Government. Often, their plights have not been relayed to the Government. Their voices were not heard. Needless to day, their speech were laced with the desire to see change.

Several SUPP and Dayak leaders used to tell me that the political sky-change in Sarawak will take place if the Ibans wake from their bondage to their leaders. These people are poor, and that is an asset to the BN. They hold them by the thread of poverty. They would promise them the sky but will not deliver.

I can see the desire to see change in the mindset of the Ibans. It looks like the end of BN Government in Sarawak is at hand.

In my speech, I said that the Ibans comprise 30% of the population in Sarawak. Though the biggest race, they are the poorest in Sarawak. They face problems not only in their land but also with earning a living in Sarawak. Many of the Iban youths have to leave Sarawak to work in the factories in Johore, Selangor and Penang. It is said that there are 40,000 Ibans working in Johore alone. They are also employed in the factories in Singapore.

Why can’t they seek employment in the state of their birth? Why have they to look for greener pastures outside Sarawak?

I said from the bottom of my heart that the Ibans are poor because the BN Government has not looked after them well. With so many years in the Dewan Undangan Negeri, I know that their elected wakil rakyat are happy with the BN Government. As a result not much has changed in the lives and welfare of the Iban communities.

I said that during my time in the Dewan Undangan Negeri, I have not heard the Iban elected wakil rakyat of the BN fighting earnestly for the community, especially in solving the problems concerning the NCR land.

Over the years, we see NCR land taken from the Ibans. Yet, despite their so called involvement in the New Concept of NCR Development, many Ibans have complained that they have not been given their just rewards and dividends.

The Ibans should help themselves by booting out the BN Government in the next state election.

                This entry was posted on Monday, 22 December 2008, 2:12 pm and is filed under
DAP
,
Sarawak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Tee Kiat has taken Malaysians for a ride in his long-awaited  “tell all” report to the nation  on the RM4.6 billion PKFZ scandal

I would not have used the strong and harsh language in response to the Transport Minister, Datuk Seri Ong Tee Kiat’s
long-awaited “tell all” report
on the RM4.6 billion Port Klang Free Zone (PKFZ) scandal, like the doyen of Port Klang bloggers, Capt. Yusof Ahmad, former pilot superintendent of Klang Port Authority and pioneer general manager of West Port, who delivered this  censure  in his blog,
Ancient Mariner
:

“If this isnt treachery and deceit, then I dont know what is.”

Or another blogger,
de minimis
, who exclaimed tongue-in-cheek:

“I also hear that most hardware shops in the Klang Valley ran out of stock with white paint for the whitewash needed for the Minister’s Press Conference…”

There can be no doubt however that Ong had taken Malaysians for a ride  in his long-awaited “tell all” report to the nation on the RM4.6 billion PKFZ scandal – as it told absolutely nothing from what he promised when he was appointed Transport Minister after the March 8 “political tsunami”.

In one of his first statements on the PKFZ scandal on becoming Transport Minister, Ong had promised:

“I wish to inform the rakyat about the true situation – whether it was actually squandered, not squandered, and whether it has gone to, as well as the breakdown of the budget.”

Ong has failed to deliver on this pledge.

He could not even answer the
five questions
about the RM4.6 billion PKFZ scandal which I had posed to him immediately after his public pledge to “tell all” about PKFZ,  particularly about the history of impropriety in land transactions, illegal issue of Letters of Support, Cabinet bailouts and retrospective ratification of illegal decisions by the two previous Transport Ministers, Tun Liong Liong Sik and Datuk Seri Chong Kong Choy although he had all the answers without having to await the outcome of the PricewaterhouseCooper audit report.

Ong had failed to “walk the talk” to “tell all” about the PKFZ scandal.  Instead he was swaggering in his white-wash of the PKFZ scandal.

He knew for instance that the two previous Transport Ministers had acted unlawfully in issuing the four Letters of Support to Kuala Dimensi Sdn. Bhd, the PKFZ turkey contractor, to raise RM4 billion bonds, which were regarded as government guarantees by the market – which was why the Cabinet had to subsequently give retrospective approval for the unlawful and unauthorized four Letters of Support creating a RM4.6 billion liability for the government in the bailout of PKFZ.

Can Ong deny that there was such retrospective Cabinet approval in the middle of last year for the unlawful and unauthorized four Letters of Support issued by the two previous Transport Ministers?

Ong does not need to await any PricewaterhouseCooper report to admit this important fact as he should be fully aware of it.

Ong should be forewarned that his reputation for Ministerial accountability, transparency and integrity risk being buried by the RM4.6 billion PKFZ scandal, if he continues to be seen as being a party to a cover-up  to prevent a full disclosure of the PKFZ scandal.

Ong can  still  salvage his Ministerial reputation but time is running out, quick and fast.

                This entry was posted on Monday, 22 December 2008, 1:36 pm and is filed under
MCA
,
PKFZ
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                Both comments and pings are currently closed.


Islam and the Malay Mindset:  What Went Wrong?

by
M. Bakri Musa

This was the topic for a small group discussion at a recent seminar organized by Kelab UMNO New York/New Jersey.  I was a passive participant at this dialogue, at least initially.

            In the ensuing discussions, the students duly reaffirmed the greatness of Islam, citing many ready examples.  Islam emancipated the ancient Bedouins out of their Age of Jahilliyah (Ignorance), and did it all within a generation.  Islam then spread as far westward as Andalusia and eastward right up to China.  In the process Islam inspired and created great civilizations and empires that lasted till at least the early part of the last century.

            After over 1400 years however, Islam (at least the physical empire, though not the faith) was done in by European colonialism.  With colonialism’s ending, there was a quick resurgence of Islam.  Today it is the faith of a quarter of the world’s population, and fast growing.

            Islam has been part of the Malay world for well over half a millennium.  It is very much an integral part of our “Malayness” such that the statutory definition of a Malay is tied to the faith.  Our embrace of Islam remains firm if not enhanced, despite being under complete Western (specifically British) colonial domination for a good portion of the time.

            With the resurgence of Islam, Malays like Muslims everywhere yearn for the return of those earlier glorious days.  Thus far that is all there is to it – just a yearning; much of the Muslim world remains tragically mired in poverty, with its citizens deprived of their basic human dignity and rights.

            In Malaysia, the achievement gaps between Malays and non-Malays continue to widen despite the political leadership and public institutions being dominated by Malays.  This glaring disparity remains a continuous source of communal angst, triggering more than just a few occasions of mass “acting out” behaviors as keris wielding and shrill calls for Ketuanan Melayu.

            Why is Islam unable to emancipate Malays as it did the ancient Bedouins?  What went wrong?  Being true believers, the students rightly asserted that there is nothing wrong with this great faith, rather with our understanding – and thus practice – of it.

            We are obsessed with rituals at the expense of appreciating the essence of Islam, the students observed.  The universal message of Islam is lost with the associated Arabism, they continued.  We are consumed in being Arabs, or at least aping them in the belief that it is the same thing as being Islamic or pious.

            In teaching our young we are too preoccupied with being punitive and not enough with being positive.  When they are naughty or grab a toy from another child, we would admonish them by saying that God would punish them by burning them in hell.  Such concepts are beyond the comprehension of young minds, except to imprint on them horror-filled images of suffering and torture.

            A more understandable and thus effective way would be to teach those children to imagine how they would feel if someone were to steal their toys.  Such an approach would also be an excellent way to impart upon them the Golden Rule, to do unto others what you want done to you, a basic precept in all faiths.

            We make our young recite and even memorize the Quran at a very early age without expending commensurate time and effort in teaching them the meaning or significance of those verses in our every day lives.  We have reduced this great religion to a series of rituals instead of being a guide to a “total way of life” that is righteous, pleases Allah, and leads to a harmonious society.  We pray, fast, pay our tithe, and undertake the pilgrimage but then go right ahead and accept bribes, neglect our jobs, and ignore our families and society.

           We go to great lengths avoiding pork and improperly slaughtered chicken and cows, rightly considering them haram, but we have no compulsion in accepting bribes or neglecting our duties.

            The students did a credible job of societal self-introspection.  As they were summarizing their conclusions to present to the larger group, I enquired how we as a society have strayed from the central message of Islam.  More relevantly, how could we rediscover the essence of Islam so that it too would do for us what it did for the ancient Arabs?

Taqlid,  Bidaa,  and  Tajdid

Taqlid and bidaa are two central concepts in the learning and transmission of Islam.  Taqlid refers to following the teachings of those more learned and pious than and before us.  Specifically, it refers to adhering to the practices of one of the established schools of jurisprudence or mahdhab.

            The Arabic root of the word means to place a collar around the neck, as we would to guide an animal.  The operative word there is “guide,” to lead us along the straight path.

            Malay villagers however, do not put a collar around our kerbau (buffalo) rather a ring through its nose.  It serves the same purpose, and more.  For in addition to leading the animal we also effectively control it.

            Therein lies the problem.  Does taqlid mean letting us be guided or be controlled?  Is taqlid a collar slung loosely around our neck to nudge us to the left or right as a rein to a horse, or a ring pierced through our nose as with our kerbau?  There is a vast difference between paying deference to precedents (as lawyers and judges do) versus being held captive by them.  If it were the latter, slavery would still be legal in America.

            Likewise with bidaa; with every khutba the Imam would duly warn the flock of the awesome Hellfire that awaits those who would dare engage in bidaa.  Invariably the word is translated as “innovation.”  “Innovation” means more than just change; it implies change for the better, and thus something commendable and to strive for.  Bidaa obviously does not mean innovation; it is closer to corruption or adulteration, hence the dire warning against partaking in it!

            My point here was to sensitize the students to the potential treacherous trap in interpreting the meaning of words especially where translations were involved.  Such dangers exist even without translations, as words can change their meanings and connotations over time.  During the prophet’s time for example, poets were held in low regard, as clearly stated in some Quranic verses, as they used their talent to mock the prophet.

           Thus when a religious scholar quotes a verse from the Quran or hadith and then confidently assert with such certitude, “And the verse means … ,” that belies an arrogant mindset, impervious to reasons and intolerant of differing interpretations.  A more humble and also accurate way would be to add the proviso, “When approximately translated.”  Translations are at best approximate and provisional.

            Our Prophet Muhammad, s.a.w., anticipated this erosion and corruption of the faith, as had happened to earlier revelations to other prophets before him.  Hence the Quranic references to the appearance of a “prophet amongst us every hundred years” to renew the faith by getting rid of the inevitable accretions of extraneous practices and beliefs that would inevitably develop over time.  “Prophet” here of course means “leader,” as to Muslims Muhammad, s.a.w, was the Last Prophet.

            This concept of renewal or tajdid is a long established tradition in Islam.  However, we cannot have renewal if we remain a slave to precedents, or if we consider every change a bidaa or an affront to taqlid.  Islam has never been short of reformers, right from the first rightly-guided caliphs to the rationalists Mutazilites and many modern-day reformers.  Like reformers in other faith, some have paid dearly for their attempts.

            America with its freedom provides fertile ground for the renewal of Islam.  America is also fortunate in having many brilliant Islamic scholars who have been driven away from their native land for their innovative ideas.  To their folks back home, these reformers are engaging in bidaa, a mortal sin.

            We are also fortunate in America to have the freedom to explore the rich and varied traditions of our faith.  In Malaysia you could be detained under the ISA for reading Shiite literature!  To put that in perspective, that is the same punishment if you were to engage in subversive or communist activities.  Add to that the favorite past time of our leaders:  banning books and restricting speakers!  That ring through our noses can be very restricting!

What went Right

To end the students’ discussion on a positive note, I asked them to consider the flip side of their query, to ponder what went right.  I nudged them to imagine what would have happened had Islam not landed on our shores.

            One student reacted with horror at that prospect as we would then still have our animist ways and Hindu beliefs.  At which point I enquired whether the Balinese (who are racially Malays) are somehow inferior to us because they are not Muslims.  Or for that matter the Protestant Bataks in Sumatra.

            As that seemed to dampen the discussion, I volunteered that there are many things that went right with Islam and Malays.  Seeing it strictly from my professional perspective, I am glad that Malays are Muslims.  When I was a surgeon in Malaysia, I never saw a single case of alcohol-related injuries among Malays.  Before America had its strict drunk driving laws, a large part of my work as a surgeon was to repair the horrible damages wrecked by drunks.  In the Philippines, alcohol-related crimes and injuries are rampant.

            I wish our Quran would have similar explicit prohibitions against drugs and corruption as it does against alcohol!

            On a higher level, Islam introduced the written word to our world.  Once a society adopted a written culture, there is a quantum lap in its intellectual development.  Yes, before the arrival of Arabic Malays had Sanskrit, but that was a dead language.  Many of the ancient Malay literature are adaptations of stories from the Middle East, and our language borrows heavily from Arabic.

            On that positive note we ended the discussion.  What went wrong is not with Islam rather how we have missed the essence of this great faith in our obsession with its peripherals.

December 21, 2008

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 23 December 2008, 8:24 am and is filed under
Bakri Musa
,
Islam
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


RM4.6 billion PKFZ scandal – no need for MCA to campaign in KT if OTK continues to hide the truth

“Nothing to hide”
 – this was the front-page headline of
Sun
yesterday on Transport Minister, Datuk Seri Ong Tee Kiat’s “tell-all” press conference on Sunday  on the RM4.6 billion Port Klang Free Zone (PKFZ) scandal – which told absolutely nothing!

Although Ong adopted the stance that he had “nothing to hide”, in actual fact he had hidden the most important fact in his “chronology of events” on the RM4.6 billion PKFZ scandal – the RM4.6 billion retrospective approval given by the Cabinet in June 2007 to bail-out the four unlawful “Letters of Support” which gave implicit government guarantees issued by the two previous MCA Transport Ministers to the money market for  the RM4.6 billion bonds for the PKFZ project.

Both  the two previous MCA Transport Ministers had acted unlawfully, as they had no powers to issue financial guarantees committing the government, which  could only be issued by the Finance Minister and only after Cabinet approval.

However,  the Malaysian Government would have created a major crisis of confidence in the international money market if the Cabinet had not bailed out the two MCA Transport Ministers and given retrospective approval to the four Letters of Support which gave implicit government guarantees to the RM4.6 billion bonds issued by  Kuala Dimensi Sdn. Bhd (KDSB), the PKFZ turnkey contractor,  for the PKFZ project.

Can Ong explain why he had deliberately omitted this important fact in his “chronology of events”, which need not have to depend on the outcome of the Pricewaterhouse Cooper audit report? Or is he denying that Cabinet had given such retrospective approval?

I am still waiting for Ong to answer the five questions about the RM4.6 billion PKFZ scandal which I had posed to him nine months ago,  particularly about the history of impropriety in land transactions, illegal issue of Letters of Support, Cabinet bailouts and retrospective ratification of illegal decisions by the two previous  MCA Transport Ministers, Tun Liong Liong Sik and Datuk Seri Chong Kong Choy.

Let Ong publicly furnish the answers to the
five questions
 about the RM4.6 billion PKFZ scandal or there is no need for MCA to help in the Barisan Nasional campaign for the Kuala Terengganu by-election next month.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 23 December 2008, 12:44 pm and is filed under
MCA
,
PKFZ
,
Transport
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Happy Christmas

Happy Christmas.

Presenting
TV Smith’s HD Christmas video
 greeting.

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 24 December 2008, 10:16 pm and is filed under
Personal
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                Both comments and pings are currently closed.


Najib “No freehold” bombshell –  who are the “spanner throwers”?

Deputy Prime Minister  and UMNO Deputy President Datuk Seri Najib Razak  dropped a
bombshell
at the National Land Council meeting yesterday – that it is unconstitutional for state governments to  issue freehold titles to new villages, kampong tersusun and other purposes, impacting directly on the plans of  Pakatan Rakyat state governments of Perak and Penang.

The Perak Pakatan Rakyat  State government had announced within a month of being in power after the March 8 “political tsunami” that freehold titles would be issued to new villages and kampong tersusun, affecting some 149,000 people living in 349 planned and 134 new villages in the state.

The Penang Pakatan Rakyat State Government had also announced that residential leasehold landowners in the state could apply for their property to be converted to freehold status and  earlier this month, that some 20,000 owners of low and medium-cost flats developed on state land need not pay a premium to convert their leasehold titles to freehold status.

There is controversy as to whether Najib is right that Article 91(5) of the Constitution and the National Land Code constitute a bar on the state governments from issuing freehold titles without the approval of the National Land Council.

However two  questions come to mind from Najib’s “no freehold” bombshell:

Firstly, why has the Federal Government taken eight months to respond to the publicly-announced intentions of the Perak state government to issue freehold titles to new villages and  kampong tersusun and  the Penang state government with regard to residential leasehold landowners?

Secondly, who are the real parties who played the role of “throwing spanners” in the works by the Perak and Penang state government to issue freehold titles – are they Umno, MCA, Gerakan, MIC  and other BN component parties?

What is the stand of the BN component parties on the issue of freehold titles to new villages and  kampong tersusun in Perak  and residential leasehold owners in Penang?  Let Umno, MCA,  Gerakan, MIC and all the other BN component parties declare publicly their stand on this issue.

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 24 December 2008, 12:04 pm and is filed under
Constitution
,
Pakatan Rakyat
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Gobala banned from Sarawak entry – omen of relapse to Malaysia’s dark ages?

When I saw the Malaysiakini headline
“MP denied entry into Sarawak”
, it was déjà vu going back three decades.

Malaysiakini reported that Pakatan Keadilan Rakyat (PKR) Member of Parliament N. Gobalakrishnan (Padang Serai) was denied entry into Sarawak by immigration officers at the Kuching international airport at about 5.30 pm yesterday.

Malaysiakini quoted Gobalakrishnan:

“The moment I reached the airport, immigration officers told me that I am not allowed to enter due to instructions from the state government.

“The immigration officer gave me a notice which reads ‘Tuan bukan rakyat Sarawak, tidak berhak untuk masuk ke Sarawak tanpa permit atau pas Akta Imigresen 1959-1963’ (You are not a citizen of Sarawak and are not eligible to enter Sarawak without a permit or immigration pass).”

Gobalakrishnan returned to Kuala Lumpur by an AirAsia flight later the same night.

This is a most deplorable and ominous development, portending to the bad old days when fundamental liberties and human rights of Malaysians were given short shrift!

This is what I said in Parliament 34 years ago on 9th November 1974:

“Mankind have dismantled the ‘Iron Curtain’, the ‘Bamboo Curtain’, but we in Malaysia are erecting the ‘Batik Curtain’ to separate Malaysians from Malaysians. We are coming to a stage where it will be easier for Opposition political leaders to visit Peking or Moscow than to visit Kota Kinabalu or Kuching!”

In that dark era of Malaysia, I was declared a “persona non grata” and prohibited from entering both Sarawak and Sabah to exercise my constitutional rights of legitimate politic al activities.

Is the end of the Abdullah era and the beginning of the Najib administration to see a sharp relapse in democratic and human rights of Malaysians?

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 25 December 2008, 2:09 pm and is filed under
Human Rights
,
Sarawak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Unscheduled medical graduates say “No”

Letters

YB Datuk Liow Tiong Lai,

Minister Of Health,

Putrajaya,

Malaysia

24 December 2008

Dear Respected YB Datuk Liow Tiong Lai,

Re :  Oppose to 18 months Credit Transfer Programme into Local Government Universities For Unscheduled Medical Graduates

With reference to the above mentioned subject, we would like to bring to your kind attention that we the majority unscheduled medical graduates opposed to the idea of 18 months Credit Transfer programme.

2.	We came to know that a meeting on 16 December 2008 with yourself to discuss about the problems faced by our students to do a credit transfer (such as unable to get a university admission, too expensive to transfer etc).So after we organized an urgent meeting with many of our fellow friends, we have decided not to attend this meeting as from the first we had said we are unable to accept a credit transfer and opposed it. We had spent many years with our own money for our studies and still ending up jobless and our parents are still paying for our loans to study before.

3.	We can tell you for sure that only a handful of this (250 or more) graduates are able to do such transfer as maybe they are financially stable or its on their own will (which we will not stop them as its their own rights) but we ( the remaining 220 graduates and more ) who are poor, oppressed and frustrated are not prepared for such transfer that is unacceptable.We also found that such credit transfer is welcomed by some people/agents for their own personal interest.We still stick to our proposal for all the Unrecognised Graduates (almost the same proposal made by former Health Minister Datuk Chua Jui Meng in 2002) that is to absorb immediately all the unrecognised Graduates into the government service as housemanship without the qualifying examination under the supervision of Consultants, Specialists or Senior Doctors and till such proposal is accepted, the problem of Unrecognised Graduates will still remain and the problem will not been solved.

4.	We also regret that even this proposal was put to youself by many of our friends before, you still choose to ignore it.The Prime Minister had been so hardworking to overcome the unemployment issue in Malaysia and we hope he would see on our plight and we feel if our proposal is not met, the case of Unrecognised Professionals unemployed will be a main issue soon. So we humbly request to yourself to reconsider our proposal and please we can’t accept the idea of Credit Transfer to a local Government universities at this moment even if the dateline for such transfer is prolonged, PTPTN loans arranged or the duration of 1 1/2years reduced as its unacceptable for us as we had already went through  many years as jobless, many years in medical schools.many frustrations and it will be more time and energy wasted doing this transfer. Why can’t the Government take us and train us during the government service please?

5.	We apologise if we had said anything wrong here and hope yourself will sincerely try to help and solve this matter as this is a National issue which need an immediate action,Thank You Datuk.

Yours Truly,

Dr.Kartik and Dr.Chia,

(Unscheduled Medical Graduates)

ccYAB Perdana Menteri Malaysia

YAB Timbalan Perdana Menteri Malaysia

Malaysian Medical Council

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 25 December 2008, 2:43 pm and is filed under
Education
,
Health
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.