Despicable, contemptible behaviour must be condemned

— P. Ramakrishnan

The Malaysian Insider

May 11, 2012

MAY 11 — Aliran is shocked and alarmed by the puerile and infantile behaviour of Perkasa, whose members numbering about 30 held an atrocious “funeral rite” in front of the Penang chief minister’s house in Pinhorn Road yesterday.

They also put up a garlanded framed photograph on the gate of the house “to signify his ‘death’ to the Malay community”.

These desperadoes resorted to hooliganism and rowdyism in their conduct by throwing posters of the CM in front of his gate and littering the road by strewing the same posters on the road while on motorcycles on their way to Komtar to continue their demonstration there.

This dastardly act surely cannot be condoned by Islam and other traditions and all right-thinking Malaysians from all walks of life.

What these people did — and had done in the past — is a threat to our communal harmony. They are trying to undermine our unity for their political agenda. They tend to evoke hatred and dissatisfaction among the various communities unnecessarily and without just cause. They are playing with fire without a care and their irresponsible conduct can undo the peace that is prevalent now.

Conducting funeral services and carrying coffins around and presenting faeces as chocolate cake are not the conduct of the brave and the sane. This is the behaviour of the irrational and the irresponsible.

These irresponsible people — believed to be members or supporters of Umno — cannot foolishly think that Umno will not be implicated by their conduct by wearing the garb of Perkasa.

One may wear many caps but the person is the same — he doesn’t assume a different personality nor does he shed his form and face by playing a different role.

A nasty person doesn’t become a saint by switching his role and associating with another group. He will always be nasty.

What is equally disturbing is the fact that they seem to have free reign to do what they please. Why haven’t the police acted against these people?

Is the chief minister’s residence guarded by the police? If so, why is it that we did not hear of them taking action? They don’t seem to be anywhere near when these people were conducting their ‘funeral rites’ in front of the CM’s residence.

The police, if they are to maintain the peace and order, have a duty to act immediately irrespective of those involved. People are wondering why this is not happening. — aliran.com

                This entry was posted on Friday, 11 May 2012, 10:45 pm and is filed under
Lim Guan Eng
,
Police
,
UMNO
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Durian runtuh or durian mengkal?

— Sakmongkol AK47

The Malaysian Insider

May 10, 2012

MAY 10 — FELDA settlers were described as “shedding tears of joy” by Bernama Online following the prime minister’s announcement that they were to expect a windfall of RM15,000 each following the listing of FELDA Global Venture Holding (FGVH).

Let me simplify the issue at hand. This is a bare knuckle fight between the bad guys (FGVH) and the good guys (the settlers). Let’s face it, if Najib sides with the settlers he would ask FGVH to issue 80 per cent of the shares to the settlers and settlers’ interests. Instead the settlers get the smaller portion while the bulk goes to his corporate buddies.

What did he agree to? This man who proclaims people first, performance this and that? Close to two billion shares are offered at RM4.65 per share which will see FGVH collecting some RM9 billion. How is the earnings distributed? Sixty per cent to the minister in charge of FELDA who is Najib. Forty per cent to FELDA? Out of the RM3.6 billion, FELDA uses RM1.69 billion to pay the durian runtuh? And the remainder has to be used to pay off debts owed by FELDA such as the RM3 billion to EPF? Then how much is left with FELDA to run the business that it owns?

Is RM400 million a year sufficient for FELDA to finance its operations and carry out its social responsibilities in FELDA schemes involving 220,000 people?

Only about 200 million shares were reserved for settlers and employees or an average of less than 2,000 shares each. That shows rakyat di dahulukan is just all rhetoric and just glorified slogans; 1.8 billion shares are offered to politicians, institutions, selected Bumis and so forth.

Let’s cut through the corporate and political BS. The battleground is FELDA Holdings which is jointly owned by KPF and FGVH. KPF is owned by the settlers while FGVH is really a company owned by FELDA the GLC. FGVH also has business interests overseas. It didn’t share the overseas businesses with KPF though. It thought it can make money without having to share with the smelly settlers. They didn’t. They plotted to buy out the peasant interests by a strategy of corporate bullshitting.

FGVH is really determined to kick out the settlers. They can’t do it outright. To offend settlers is unthinkable. FELDA settlements offer Umno and BN around 54 parliamentary seats. To offend FELDA people would hasten Najib’s journey to becoming the next opposition leader. Not that he won’t be there; his government’s ruinous public policies will ultimately install Najib as the opposition leader in the next Parliament. Meanwhile, we will let him utter “Autobots! Transform”.

So they do it the “honourable” and more refined manner. By proposing to list FGVH and inviting KPF to participate. Sell the idea that FGVH has the business smarts to make more money. Bribe the peasants to agree. Two surefire ingredients to entice innocent but gullible settlers.

It’s a fight between the bad guys, FGVH, and the good guys, innocent peasants. The oppressor and the oppressed. This government headed by Optimus Prime the chief transformer sides with the oppressors. And the oppressors say they are surprised why the peasants are revolting.

The prize? All the assets and revenue-generating businesses under FELDA Holdings. Meanwhile FGVH does some businesses overseas; that part of the FELDA business which to some numbskulls gives dignity to weather-torn settlers.

While FGVH yields paltry numbers, FELDA Holdings generates some RM3 billion a year. FGVH gets greedy. It wants to own FH all by itself. How to? Call in the con-sultans. Devise a plan. Do a listing, say the cons. The modern Hamman (adviser to Pharaoh) will kautim the Putrajaya Pharaoh.

What does FGVH do overseas besides providing the FELDA Mandarins the excuse to take long holidays with the family in tow? Window shopping for Hermes bags and some imitation Jacob jewellery? It invested in a slew of businesses — cattle rearing, technology, etc, etc. Did it make money? It borrowed money in the first place. It lost a lot of money on its investments and has only lately shown some indications of profitability. I said some indications because the numbers do not seem to add up. The costs of businesses are born by FELDA, the profit part is shown on FGVH’s books. — sakmongkol.blogspot.com

* Sakmongkol AK47 is the nom de plume of Datuk Mohd Ariff Sabri Abdul Aziz. He was Pulau Manis assemblyman (2004-2008).

                This entry was posted on Friday, 11 May 2012, 1:23 am and is filed under
Felda
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Hands raised against Hanif’s appointment

By
Aidila Razak
 | 11:34AM May 11, 2012

Malaysiakini

It was a sea of raised hands yesterday when DAP parliamentary leader Lim Kit Siang asked an audience of about 2,000 people at the Subang Jaya 3C complex “who opposed the appointment of Hanif Omar” as chairperson of the investigative panel on police brutality during Bersih 3.0.

Asked why, some of those present at the second stop of PKR’s post-Bersih nationwide tour Merdeka Rakyat, yelled out “because we cannot trust him”.

“Why can’t we trust him?… After what he has said he should in fact be the star witness of the inquiry and not the chairperson,” the Ipoh Timor MP said.

Most of the audience had also raised their hands when asked if they had participated in the April 28 Bersih 3.0 rally.

According to Lim, the former police chief should not be on the panel because he had made prejudicial statements against the rally, including agreeing with suggestions that it was a coup attempt.

“I have nothing personal against Hanif. I don’t want to cast aspersions against his integrity but he should spare himself.

“Never in Malaysian history has an appointment of a panel chairperson been automatically rejected (by the masses),” he said.

The communist joke

Like the coup d’etat statement, a mere mention by PAS’ Shah Alam MP Khalid Samad that Hanif said that he feared communist insurgents were behind Bersih 3.0 had the audience in giggles.

Winning more laughter was PKR de facto leader Anwar Ibrahim (left), who related how two Malaysians on board his flight back from Bahrain yesterday asked him about Hanif’s communist remark.

“One of them was 29, the other 32. This communist story is from the 1950s, 1960s. Hanif retired (as inspector-general of police) a long time ago.

“He forgot that he fought communists in the 1960s. Hey, Hanif, that fight is over. The communists are now your friends. Communist Party (of China) representatives were present during the Umno assembly,” he said.

He added that Hanif should not accept the post of panel chairperson as “he knows he is not independent” after making such a statement against Bersih 3.0.

“We also ask for the other panel members to step down voluntarily to so the panel  is not subject to mockery,” he said.

Assault at mosque steps

Besides speeches on Bersih 3.0 and electoral reform, the audience was also shown what appeared to be eyewitness videos of the April 28 rally.

They included videos depicting police brutality, including one which showed yellow-shirted men being dragged out of a mosque and assaulted at the mosque steps during the azan.

The video, which appeared to be shot from the second floor of Masjid India, near Jalan Tuanku Abdul Rahman, also recorded people yelling out “
Ingat Tuhan!
” (Remember God).

                This entry was posted on Friday, 11 May 2012, 11:59 am and is filed under
Bersih
,
Police
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Hanif – face reality that you have shot yourself in the foot disqualifying you from heading a credible and impartial probe into Bersih 3.0 violence

Let me tell former Inspector-General of Police Tun Hanif Omar frankly: “Tun, face reality that you have shot yourself in the foot disqualifying you from heading a credible and impartial probe into Bersih 3.0 violence.”

Hanif should stop being obstinate on the matter or he would only end up in severely embarrassing and dishonouring himself, the Bersih 3.0 probe, the Najib administration and most important of all, Malaysia’s international image and standing.

Haniff had asked his critics to check his track record in previous investigating committees before questioning his integrity to lead the independent panel to probe police brutality during the Bersih 3.0 rally, citing the case of the fatal shooting of 14-year-old Aminulrasyhid Amzah and his role in the Special Commission to Enhance the Operations and Management of the Royal Malaysian Police in 2004.

I had said publicly that I do not cast any aspersion on his integrity as a distinguished public servant and a Malaysian patriot, but on the question on the suitability of his heading a credible and impartial probe into Bersih 3.0 violence, regardless of whether the victim is police personnel, media representative or peaceful protestor, he had irremediably stained  and disqualified himself because of his highly biased and prejudicial statements about the Bersih 3.0 “sit-in” in Dataran Merdeka on April 28.

If Hanif stands by his prejudicial statements against Bersih 3.0, he should appear before the Bersih 3.0 probe as a “star witness” to substantiate his allegations  and definitely not as a Chairman to probe into the truth or otherwise of his allegations.

Or is Hanif clarifying that he had been misquoted by the mainstream mass media, for instance, Berita Minggu, which quoted him as supporting the wild and baseless claim of the Prime Minister that Bersih 3.0 was an attempted coup d’etat by the Opposition to topple the government; and that  Bernama had misquoted him as alleging that he identified pro-communist individuals at Bersih 3.0 from demonstrations in the 1970s and  on the use of provocateurs and children in the Bersih 3.0 rally as tactics of the communists?

Even if Hanif were to make amends by claiming that Berita Minggu and Bernama had completely misquoted him, and that he  had  never said what was attributed to him by the mainstream mass media, the damage had been done as the next question would be why he had allowed so many days to pass before making such corrections?

Nor can the damage, destroying all credibility in him as head of the probe into Bersih 3.0 violence, be repaired or undone with him retracting these statements and allegations reported by Berita Minggu and Bernama.

In any event, is Hanif prepared to retract all these statement and allegations about Bersih 3.0 attributed to him by the mainstream mass media?

This is why for the first time in the nation’s 54-year history, a government announcement on the head of a public inquiry has met with instant and all-round rejection and even condemnation – why National Union of Journalists (NUJ), Suaram,  Bersih 2.0 and even the Deputy Higher Education Minister Saifuddin Abdullah for instance have declared their objection to Hanif’s appointment.

The only persons who would be happy with Hanif’s appointment would be the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak, the Home Minister Datuk Seri Hishammudin Hussein and the Inspector-General Tan Sri Ismail Omar – ranged against the entire justice-conscious civil society and Malaysian citizenry.

Is this what Hanif want?

Hanif’s declining his appointment is in fact an opportunity for the Prime Minister to re-think the question of a proper, credible and legitimate inquiry into the Bersih 3.0 violence, as “independent advisory panel” announced by Hishammuddin on Wednesday raises many disturbing questions about its powers, role,  terms of reference and relevance.

I fully agree with the human rights watchdog Proham that  the Home Ministry had chosen the “weakest” of options available to investigate the violence which occurred during the Bersih 3.0 rally.

Proham said the first choice should have been a royal commission of inquiry, as under the Commissions of Enquiry Act 1950, it  would ensure that the investigative body would be perceived as truly neutral, effective and independent.

A royal commission of inquiry  would have the powers to compel witnesses to appear before the hearing which will be deemed to be judicial proceedings.

In addition the commission would have the legal protection from any liable suits and the witnesses who give evidence will be protected from any liable suits or other civil proceedings in respect of such evidence.

Another option is invoking powers of the Human Rights Commission (Suhakam) to undertake an independent inquiry.

Proham is right that these are better options than the so-called “independent advisory panel” established by the home ministry to be led by former inspector-general of police Hanif Omar as it would not have the necessary legal powers to conduct a proper investigation and also lacked balance in professional, ethnic and gender representation.

                This entry was posted on Friday, 11 May 2012, 3:47 pm and is filed under
Bersih
,
Elections
,
Hishammuddin
,
Najib Razak
,
Police
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Hari ini dalam sejarah Umno

— Aspan Alias

The Malaysian Insider

May 11, 2012

11 MEI — Hari ini, pada tahun 1946, Umno ditubuhkan dengan presiden pertamanya Datuk Onn Jaafar untuk menyatukan semua persatuan-persatuan dan pertubuhan yang mempunyai matlamat yang satu, iaitu untuk mencapai matlamat yang satu, iaitu untuk menyambung usaha-usaha pejuang kemerdekaan sebelumnya. Parti Umno wujud diatas penyatuan pertubuhan-pertubuhan yang bercambah semasa itu dan penubuhan Umno ini merupakan lonjakkan kepada kekuatan rakyat Malaya khususnya orang Melayu untuk membuat persediaan bagi mencapai kemerdekaan negara dari pentadbiran penjajahan Inggeris.

Di rengkaskan sejarah, Umno wujud diatas kesedaran yang negara tidak lagi dapat menahan keinginan untuk menerima  penjajahan Inggeris dan kesedaran untuk bersatu ini dirasakan lebih mendesak apabila Inggeris cuba untuk mewujudkan negara “unitary” di Semenanjung Malaya ini dan di tadbir oleh Malayan Union (MU) dengan pusat pentadbirannya di Kuala Lumpur.

Dengan penubuhan Umno itu, maka cita-cita Inggeris untuk menjadikan negara ini sebagai negara “unitary” telah dapat dipatahkan dan digantikan dengan sebuah negara Persekutuan dengan Perjanjian Persekutuan pada 2hb Februari 1948 yang lalu. Maka penubuhan negara Persekutuan ini adalah hasil dari kerja keras dan perjuangan Umno bersama dengan Raja-Raja Melayu yang telah berunding tidak berhenti-henti dengan pihak British sehingga wujudnya sebuah negara Persekutuan.

Maka negeri-negeri yang masing-masing mempunyai pentadbiran mereka sendiri dibawah naungan Raja-Raja mereka telah bersatu dibawah satu negara Persekutuan yang dinamakan Persekutuan Tanah Melayu. Kesemua negeri-negeri Bersekutu dan tidak Bersekutu telah bersatu dibawah satu Persekutuan dan negeri-negri ini di sertai sekali oleh dua buah negeri Straits Settlement, Melaka dan P. Pinang, untuk bersama dalam negara Persekutuan yang baru diwujudkan itu.

Sejak itulah Umno menyambung perjuangan kemerdekaan yang telah dimulakan oleh ramai pejuang-pejuang sebelum itu dan Umno sebagai sebuah parti yang boleh berbincang dan berfikir bersama Inggeris, telah berjaya mencapai kemerdekaan pada Ogos 1957. Dalam masa proses mencapai kemerdekaan banyak perkara telah berlaku dalam parti itu.

Diantaranya ialah keluarnya Datuk Onn Jaafar dari Umno kerana cadangannya untuk membawa masuk rakyat berbilang kaum telah ditolak oleh persidangan Umno dan Umno di ambil alih kepimpinannya oleh YTM Tunku Abd Rahman Putra sehinggalah negara mencapai kemerdekaan. Kumpulan agama yang berada dalam Umno telah keluar dari parti itu pada tahun 1951 dan telah menubuhkan Parti Islam Tanah Melayu (PAS) dan berbagai bagai lagi insiden yang berlaku dalam proses perjuangan Umno itu.

MCA dan MIC juga ditubuhkan dalam waktu ini dengan tujuan untuk menyatukan orang-orang Cina dibawah MCA dan kaum India dibawah MIC untuk bersama-sama menuju pencapaian kemerdekaan pada Ogos 1957 itu. Ketiga-tiga parti ini bergabung dibawah Perikatan dan menjadi Barisan Nasional (BN) pada tahun 1974 dengan bilangan keahlian dalam gabungan itu bertambah dengan kemasukkan Sabah dan Sarawak ke dalam Persekutuan ini pada tahun 1963 dan diberi nama baru bernama Persekutuan Malaysia.

Umno yang kita ingati sekarang telah berjaya menyempurna usaha pencapaian kemerdekaan dan mengisi kemerdekaan dengan baik dan telah memberikan munafaat kepada negara dan rakyat berbilang kaum.

Tetapi keadaan berubah mengikut masa dan waktunya. Manusia dan sikapnya pun berubah termasuk kepimpinan dalam Umno itu sendiri. Setelah tiga dekad mencapai kemerdekaan negara dengan jayanya Umno secara tidak sedar telah menjadi parti dan pemerintah yang tidak lagi pandai menguruskan kejayaan itu.

Umno telah berubah dengan wujudnya kepimpinan yang begitu rakus mengambil alih parti yang sudah kuat itu dan bermulalah zaman pimpinan parti yang sudah luntur atau pun tidak mempunyai semangat untuk membangunkan negara dan rakyat secara betul dan berhemah.

Umno mula diresapi oleh individu-individu pemimpin yang tidak jujur kerana mendahului kepentingan peribadi dan seronok dengan kuasa dan mabuk kepada membina kepentingan sendiri dan keluarga mereka sahaja. Mereka-mereka dengan tidak disedari telah menguasai parti dan akhirnya mereka telah berjaya mengambil alih kepimpinan dengan sistematik dan tidak boleh di anjak dan di alih lagi.

Akhirnya Umno itu dengan begitu sistematik telah dibunuh kerana parti itu tidak lagi mampu untuk menjamin untuk terus memberikan mereka kuasa yang berterusan. Dengan terbunuhnya Umno pada 1988 yang lalu maka yang bertanggungjawab melakukan pembunuhan terhadap parti itu telah membawa hampir kesemua ahli-ahli yang telah kehilangan Umno itu menyertai parti baru yang juga dinamakan Umno juga.

“Repercussions” terhadap pembunuhan Umno ini amat besar tetapi sempena hari mengingati ulang tahun parti yang telah mati ini, saya hanya hendak mengingatkan siapa yang berminat untuk mengetahuinya; iaitu ramai pemimpin-pemimpin besar Umno telah meninggal semasa tidak menjadi ahli Umno lagi.

Antaranya ialah YTM Tunku Abd Rahman. Beliau mangkat semasa tidak menjadi ahli Umno lagi. Begitu jugalah Tun Hussein Onn dan setiap pemimpin dan ahli selepas kematian Umno itu tidak mati sebagai ahli Umno.

Yang pasti akan mati bukan sebagai ahli Umno ialah Dr Mahathir yang membunuh parti itu, Tun Musa Hitam, Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah, Najib Razak, Muhyiddin Yassin dan semua pemimpin-pemimpin yang lain akan mati bukan sebagai ahli Umno. Mereka akan mati dalam sebuah parti baru yang menggunakan nama yang sama dengan Umno itu.

Hari ini adalah hari dalam sejarah untuk mengingati perjuangan Umno bukannya untuk merayakan usia Umno yang ke 66 kerana Umno itu sudah tiada. Yang ada hanyalah Umno palsu yang ditubuhkan oleh orang yang membunuhnya pada bulan Februari 1988 yang lalu.

Sebagaimana yang saya selalu ingatkan Umno yang ada pada hari ini tidak pernah memperjuangkan kemerdekaannya kerana ianya lahir 31 tahun selepas kita mencapai kemerdekaan.

Semuanya terkeliru kerana nama keramat Umno itu. Telapak perjuangan orang Melayu sudah tiada lagi. Yang ada sekarang ini adalah telapak kepada perjuangan kebendaan dan peribadi dan ianya wujud diatas perpecahan orang Melayu, bukannya diatas perpaduan orang Melayu seperti asas kewujudan Umno yang telah lama meninggalkan kita itu.

Kita telah kehilangan telapak perjuangan dan tidak pula kita tahu apakah yang mereka (Umno baru) rayakan pada hari ini. — aspanaliasnet.blogspot.com

                This entry was posted on Friday, 11 May 2012, 11:00 pm and is filed under
General
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Perkasa holds ‘funeral rite’ in front of Guan Eng’s house

By Susan Loone and Low Chia Ming | May 10, 2012

Malaysiakini

A group of 30 members from Malay rights pressure group Perkasa held a “funeral rite” in front of Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng’s house in Pinhorn Road today, to show their dissatisfaction at the latter’s rule in Penang since 2008.

The group led by state Perkasa Youth chief Risuan Asuddin showed up at about 10.20am and threw posters of Lim at his front gate and placed a framed photo of him with a garland of flowers to signify his “death” to the Malay community.

The group stayed around Lim’s house for about 15 minutes to express how Lim had neglected the community before convoying to Komtar, the state’s administrative centre, where Lim’s office is situated.

Along their journey on their motorcycles, the group threw posters of Lim onto the road, before continuing their demonstration for another 15 minutes around Komtar.

Risuan, who had been very vocal against Lim and had participated in most rallies against the CM, said he was considered “dead” to the community as he had never responded to any of their queries.

He denied that the group was acting like Bersih 3.0 protesters in Kuala Lumpur on April 28 as “we are not here to create chaos”.

The most recent query by the group had been about the issue of mosque land being “made to disappear” by the state government when it sold Bayan Mutiara to a private developer, Ivory Properties Sdn Bhd.

The group had then also organised a small rally at level three, Komtar, and gave Lim a one-week ultimatum to respond to their query.

Lim, who is also DAP secretary-general, had during a press conference and in his speech at the Penang legislative assembly, denied that any mosque land had been made to disappear by the state government.

He added that the developer will be providing a new plan of the area and would have to comply with the local council’s guidelines on land for places of worship.

Meanwhile, Lim expressed deep disappointment and regret that Perkasa had chosen to rally in front of his home.

Lim said they were the same “gangsters” who tried to disrupt an anti-Lynas rally at the Esplanade on Feb 26, where two journalists were injured.

An act of uncivilised people

Lim, who was then at a state executive councillors meeting in Komtar, feared the “disturbances” outside his house would pose a threat to his five-year old son.

He urged the protesters to rally at Komtar if they wished to send him a message, saying they were “used to rallying” at the venue.

Lim however said wishing him death is an “act of uncivilised people”.

“Just because we have different views, it does not mean we wish people death. We have to respect their views,” he told reporters in Komtar.

“Wishing me dead is a threat to me. I am sure no religion allows this kind of behaviour,” he added.

Lim also criticised the protesters for messing up the road with their 4,000 odd posters of him with the label ‘Guan Eng anti-Melayu’.

He added that during the recent Bersih 3.0 at the Speakers Square, protesters collected the garbage and kept the field clean, unlike the Perkasa members.

He stressed that the police should know what to do, asking “if this happened at Seri Perdana (the Prime Minister’s official residence) would it be allowed?”

                This entry was posted on Friday, 11 May 2012, 10:24 am and is filed under
Lim Guan Eng
,
Perkasa
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Plain meaning of ‘independent’

by Clive Kessler

Malaysiakini

May 10, 2012

Excuse me, but as a puzzled outside observer I just do not understand.

Or perhaps it is the case that others do not understand the “plain meaning” of everyday words?

Yesterday Hanif Omar was named to head an “independent” commission of investigation into the events of April 28.

Yet several days ago he joined forces, and combined his voice, with two other former inspectors-general of police to call for action against the leaders of the Bersih movement for mounting a “coup attempt”.

“Independent”?

My amazement here is not directed against Hanif who has always sought to project and prove himself a dutiful, and ever available, servant of the national interest as he sees it.

But I am flabbergasted at the obtuseness of those who have bestowed this serious responsibility upon him, of those who might think that making such an appointment is in any way “seemly” or appropriate.

Governments that behave unwisely, inappropriately, arbitrarily and that show a complete absence of good sense and clear-headedness, even an inability to see and think “straight” and honestly, destroy their own credibility.

And, often, themselves with it.

Where this kind of disingenuous obtuseness meets cunning and outright, brazen shamelessness the insistent will of the powerful is often, and often quite dubiously, at work.

It is not simply a question here of “doing the right thing”, of acting justly and being seen to be doing so.

Even in their own best interests, surely the authorities can do better than this.

                This entry was posted on Friday, 11 May 2012, 1:58 am and is filed under
Bersih
,
Elections
,
Police
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


UMNO has reduced politics in Malaysia to its lowest depths as illustrated by two disgraceful events yesterday – Perkasa “funeral rite” in front of Lim Guan Eng’s house and invasion of Bersih 2.0 co-chairperson Ambiga’s privacy

UMNO Baru is celebrating its 66th anniversary although it is only 24 years old as it was legally registered in 1988 after the officially-engineered deregistration of the original UMNO and which was why the first and third Prime Ministers, Tunku Abdul Rahman and Tun Hussein Onn refused to be members of UMNO Baru.

Be that as it may, it is indisputable that UMNO today has reduced politics in Malaysia to its lowest depths as illustrated by two disgraceful events yesterday – the Perkasa “funeral rite” in front of Penang Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng’s house in Penang and the invasion of Bersih 2.0 co-chairperson Datuk Ambiga Sreenevasan’s privacy.

In the former case, a group of 30 Perkasa  members showed up at about 10.20 am and in a 15-minute demonstration in front of Guan Eng’s house in Pinhorn Road, Penang, threw posters of Guan Eng at his front gate and placed a framed photo of him with a garland of flowers to signify his “death” to the Malay community.

What is most deplorable is the total failure of action by the police authorities.

The Perkasa “funeral rite” is nothing less than a “death threat” to Guan Eng.

Is it conceivable that if such a “funeral rite” or “death threat”  demonstration had been staged by protestors outside the residence of the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak, Deputy Prime Minister, Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin, Cabinet Ministers or those of UMNO/Barisan Nasional Mentris Besar/Chief Ministers, the police would have been equally passive and indifferent?

What is equally shocking is not only the tacit support for such disgraceful misconduct by the other Barisan Nasional component parties, but there is even a MCA national operative who could openly endorse on the Internet such “funeral rite” or “death threat”  protest outside Guan Eng’s house!

Would the MCA national operative agree if such “funeral rite” or “death threat” protests are staged by protestors outside the residence of MCA Ministers, Deputy Ministers and leaders?

In the latter case, the petty traders group Ikhlas set up a burgher stall outside Ambiga’s house at Bukit Damansara, Kuala Lumpur to protest against loss of income caused by Bersih 3.0 “sit-in” on April 28.

Both these disgraceful incidents, marking a new low in Malaysian politics, would not have happened under the premiership of the first three Prime Ministers Tunku Abdul Rahman, Tun Razak, Tun Hussein or even under the fourth and fifth Prime Ministers, Tun Mahathir and Tun Abdullah.

Why then are they happening under the premiership of the sixth Prime Minister of Malaysia Datuk Seri Najib Razak?

Is this what Najib meant when he said he want Malaysia to become the “best democracy in the world”?

Is Najib and the UMNO/Barisan Nasional  leaders aware of the sense of outrage by decent Malaysians, regardless of race, religion, political affiliation, class, gender or age at the  degeneration of Malaysian politics to such depths as illustrated by these two disgraceful episodes against Guan Eng and Ambiga yesterday?

                This entry was posted on Friday, 11 May 2012, 1:08 pm and is filed under
Bersih
,
Lim Guan Eng
,
Najib Razak
,
Police
,
UMNO
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


We should say yes to La Rue’s offer

 — Khoo Ying Hooi

The Malaysian Insider

May 10, 2012

MAY 10 — Malaysia is one of the 47 members sitting in the United Nations Human Rights Council (HRC) for the second term covering 2010-2013. When our Foreign Affairs Minister, Dato’ Sri Anifah Aman opined that there is no necessity for outsiders, in this context, the Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of the Right to Freedom of Opinion and Expression, Frank William La Rue to investigate the Bersih 3.0 rally that took place on April 28. He is stretching the truth way a little because, I quote, “We are a sovereign nation. We are capable of doing our own impartial investigation and we have faith in the authorities and the police. For responsible Malaysians, I don’t think this is an issue. We don’t need someone to investigate what transpired in our country. We have seen it on television and there are people who were actually on the spot who witnessed what happened.”

He also added that “The government is going to appoint a panel to investigate; therefore I do not see the necessity. I mean, maybe it’s possible, but I do not see the necessity for any outside organisation to determine whether we are free or fair.”

In declaring its intention for its candidature, the Malaysian government circulated a memorandum dated March 9, 2010, outlining its human rights record and its pledges and voluntary commitments. As the member of the HRC, Malaysia’s voluntary commitments and pledges include “deepening and widening our cooperation with and support for the work of various UN actors and mechanisms involved in the promotion and protection of human rights such as the … Special Procedures of the HRC,” which includes Special Rapporteurs, Working Groups, and Independent Experts.

If we take a peek to the UN General Assembly resolution A/RES/60/251, it states clearly that members of the HRC shall uphold the highest standards in the promotion and protection of human rights; fully cooperate with the HRC; and be reviewed under the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) mechanism during their term.

However, the way Anifah Aman described the Special Rapporteur and the HRC which we are a member, as the “outsider” and the “outside organisation” is detrimental to the country. It doesn’t reflect the commitments that the government has promised to the HRC and it is obviously just another diplomatic exercise.

In order to understand further about the Special Rapporteurs mechanism, we should understand that Special Procedures is the general name given to the mechanisms established by the HRC to address either specific country situations or thematic issues in all parts of the world. Special Procedures are either an individual (called “Special Rapporteur”, “Special Representative” or “Independent Expert”) or a Working Group usually composed of five members (one from each region).

Before issuing his defensive statement, the Foreign Affairs Minister was either not aware or simply ignorance of the fact that Malaysia has made its commitments to the HRC on providing cooperation to the mechanisms introduced by the HRC.

In 1998, Malaysia has in fact received the country visit by the former Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of the Right to Freedom of Opinion and Expression, Abid Hussain. In its Resolution 1998/42, Abid Hussain, during his visit to Malaysia from October 20-24, 1998 has made the below recommendations to Malaysia followed his observations, I quote from the said report:

1. The government is strongly encouraged to consider taking further steps to fully guarantee the protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression. These steps should include the repeal of the ISA and the consideration of other means, in accordance with international standards, to protect its national security. It should furthermore include amendments to some of the current national legislation, in particular the Printing Presses and Publication Act, the Sedition Act and the Official Secrets Act, to facilitate the exercise of the right to freedom of opinion and expression in a more transparent and judicious manner.

2. It is recommended that the government review cases of persons who are being held for having exercised their right to freedom of opinion and expression with a view to releasing them. The cases of all persons who have been tried in court and convicted in application of laws or regulations incompatible with the protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, as affirmed in the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, should also be reviewed.

3. The Special Rapporteur urges the government of Malaysia to repeal the regulations on annual licensing of newspapers in order to ensure that any registration requirements serve an administrative purpose only and are not used to impose restrictions on the media outside the scope of article 19 of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights.

4. The Special Rapporteur strongly encourages the government to take all necessary steps to ensure the independence of the media, including safeguards against any interference by political interests. The establishment of an independent media council could be a first step. Initiatives on the part of media professionals to establish independent and voluntary professional associations should also be encouraged, in particular with regard to developing methods and systems of voluntary self-regulation such as codes of ethics for the profession, training programmes which address the rights and responsibilities of the media and the Government, as well as monitoring the implementation of the right to freedom of expression and freedom of the media in accordance with international standards.

5. The Special Rapporteur urges the government to respect the right of Malaysians to hold peaceful demonstrations and assemblies and to adhere to international standards on the use of force against demonstrators.

6. The government is encouraged to align its national law with the provisions of international law relating to freedom of opinion and expression, in particular by introducing more explicit national legislation to facilitate the attainment of a proper balance in the judiciary’s efforts to protect human rights in general and the right to freedom of opinion and expression in particular.

7. The Special Rapporteur strongly encourages the government of Malaysia to take all necessary steps to sign and ratify the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, as well as its Optional Protocols.

8. Finally, the Special Rapporteur recommends that the government give serious consideration to the establishment of an ombudsman’s office and of a special commission for human rights or a separate ministry for human rights.

The government has thus far made some improvements on some of the recommendations made by Abid Hussain, i.e. the repeal of the annual licensing for newspapers. However, many of the recommendations are still being ignored; particularly point 5 where the government is urged to respect the right of Malaysians to hold peaceful demonstrations and assemblies and to adhere to international standards on the use of force against demonstrators. Until today, demonstrations despite of what form it takes are still deemed as illegal.

In addition to the Special Procedures mechanism, Malaysia has also made its human rights commitment at the international level through the UPR mechanism. The UPR is a review of countries’ human rights records and Malaysia was being reviewed for the first time on February 11, 2009 during its fourth session. So basically the UPR is an inter-governmental process, whereby the states are judging states.

At the UPR back in 2009, Malaysia’s national report was presented by Tan Sri Rastam Mohd Isa, whom at that time, the Secretary General of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. During the UPR process, Malaysia received numerous recommendations from other member states. These recommendations are the final results of the UPR process, and are included in the final report. Although the recommendations are not binding, they act as a set of commitments by the state to improve the protection and promotion of human rights in their country. These recommendations will serve as benchmarks to the state, on what it must achieve until the next UPR cycle.

At that time, Tan Sri Rastam clarified that the government had received acknowledgment in the reports of the relevant Special Rapporteur of the HRC. He added that the Malaysian delegation was ready to share further information with the HRC and members. He also said that Malaysia would remain open to further discussions with the various Special Procedures on the proposed visits and was willing to consider such requests positively on the merit of each proposal.

Nevertheless, the government doesn’t seem to walk the talk. Apart from the current offer by La Rue, there are several other outstanding requests from Special Rapporteurs whose mandates cover critical areas for human rights protection in Malaysia. These would include for examples, visits by the Special Rapporteurs on human rights defenders, indigenous people, freedom of religion, migrants, and independence of judges and lawyers.

Despite the obligation on government to protect and promote the human rights, Malaysia continues to brush these concerns aside. It is indeed contradictory for Anifah Aman to come up with such a response on the offer made by La Rue. The Foreign Affairs Minister should have been more sensitive and aware of the promises made by the government in the international level particularly in view of the next UPR review in 2013.

* Khoo Ying Hooi is an academic member of staff at University Malaya. She is also a PhD candidate in the Department of Government and Civilisation Studies at the University Putra Malaysia. Her current research focuses on the civil society movement in Malaysia. She can be contacted at
[email protected]
.

                This entry was posted on Friday, 11 May 2012, 1:43 am and is filed under
Bersih
,
Human Rights
,
Police
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Hishammuddin – stop spreading lies and falsehoods about Bersih 3.0 as his allegation that “some parties wanted serious injuries and deaths” most wild, irresponsible and deplorable

Malaysians, including the hundreds of thousands regardless of race, religion, class, region, age or gender,  who had come out peacefully for the Bersih 3.0 “sit-in” at Dataran Merdeka on April 28, armed at most with salt and water bottles,  are shocked and outraged at Home Minister, Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Hussein’s allegation today that “some parties wanted serious injuries and deaths” at Bersih 3.0 – 24 days after the event!
(The Malaysian Insider)

I believe I could speak on their behalf, as well as all decent and rational Malaysians, to urge Hishammuddin to stop spreading lies and falsehoods about Bersih 3.0  as his allegation that “some parties wanted serious injuries and deaths” is most wild, irresponsible and deplorable.

There is no iota of evidence whatsoever to back this latest but  totally wild and contemptible allegation emanating from government quarters.

Malaysians can still vividly remember Hishammuddin’s declaration a week before April 28 that the Bersih 3.0  rally was not a security threat and  his dismissive statement that “April 28 is not an issue” as it had gained “little traction” with the public.

Clearly, Hishammuddin had not expected Bersih 3.0 to garner much crowd, probably a few thousands but definitely not more than the Bersih 1.0 and 2.0 crowds. The hundreds of thousands of Malaysians who gathered in peace must have totally caught him and the Barisan Nasional leadership by surprise.

When did Hishammuddin get the “intelligence” that there were “some parties at the April 28 Bersih rally who wanted serious injuries and deaths to occur”? Was it before or after Bersih 3.0 on April 28?

If Hishamuddin received “intelligence” that there were “some parties” who wanted serious injuries and deaths to occur at Bersih 3.0, he was then  seriously remiss and negligent in his duties as Home Minister when he publicly declared that Bersih 3.0 rally posed no “security threat”!

Similarly, the question must also be posed whether the Prime Minister’s  allegation that Bersih 3.0 was an attempted coup d’etat to topple the government was from police “intelligence” and given to him before April 28, and if so, why no pre-emptive action had been taken, whether this was proof that there was no basis or substance in such an allegation?

Or was the “intelligence” about an attempted coup to topple the government, like Hishammudin’s latest allegation that “some parties wanted serious injuries and deaths” at Bersih 3.0, purely political in nature, concocted after April 28 to enable the Barisan Nasional to demonise the Bersih 3.0 organisers and protestors?

Hishammuddin as Home Minister should not pile lies and falsehoods about the Bersih 3.0 rally.

He is in fact reinforcing the conviction of skeptical Malaysians who do not believe that the  government is prepared for a truly independent, impartial, comprehensive and authoritative inquiry into the Bersih 3.0 rally on April 28 and the deplorable  violence and brutality that ensued.

Is Hishammuddin expecting the government probe into Bersih 3.0 to come out with a finding that “some parties wanted serious injuries and deaths” at Bersih 3.0, or be exposed as an irresponsible Home Minister spreading lies and falsehoods?

As illustrated by the hundreds of thousands of  Malaysians who came out peacefully in support of Bersih 3.0 rally for free and fair elections on April 28, Malaysians are fully committed to peaceful change in Malaysia and they will have no truck with any elements who want to foment violence and unrest such as causing serious injuries and deaths at Bersih 3.0.

But this can be no justification for Hishammuddin or Najib to concoct wild, irresponsible and deplorable lies about Bersih 3.0, whether alleging that it is a coup to topple the government or that there were “some parties who wanted serious injuries and deaths”.

This is why Malaysians must have confidence in the public inquiry into the Bersih 3.0 violence, why former Inspector-General of Police Tun Haniff Omar must be replaced with another reputable, credible and impartial nominee as he had disqualified himself from the post by going  public on his prejudicial views about Bersih 3.0 rally and why the inquiry must be fully in the form of a Royal Commission of Inquiry.

The public inquiry into Bersih 3.0 must result in the healing rather than the further division of Malaysians with regard to a clean election system for a clean Malaysia.

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 12 May 2012, 5:36 pm and is filed under
Bersih
,
Elections
,
Hishammuddin
,
Police
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Benarkah penentang Najib/Umno itu ‘haram jadah’?

— Aspan Alias

The Malaysian Insider

May 12, 2012

12 MEI — Saya begitu terpanggil untuk memberikan komen tentang “conduct” PM Najib sebagai pemimpin utama negara sehari dua ini yang ramai menganggap sebagai tidak semenggah itu. Najib nampaknya sudah hilang kesabaran untuk menerima cabaran demokrasi yang belum pernah beliau alami selama ini.

Sejak mula berpolitik dan memegang jawatan besar-besar dalam parti dan kerajaan Najib belum lagi berhadapan dengan krisis sebesar ini. Apabila krisis seperti yang berlaku hari ini menghadapi beliau, Najib mula melatah dan menari tanpa megikut rentak yang sangat susah untuk beliau ikuti. Langkah beliau sumbang dan beliau seolah-olah menari di atas tanah yang tidak rata.

“Najib has never gone through the mill,” kata seorang sahabat saya yang selalu menghubungi saya setiap hari. Najib tidak lagi dapat meletakkan diri beliau sebagai seorang pemimpin nombor satu negara. Tingkah dan laku beliau menampakkan yang beliau belum lagi dapat mengendalikan krisis kepimpinan yang beliau sedang hadapi dengan baik dan matang.

Semasa mengumumkan “durian runtuh” di Jengka dua tiga hari yang lepas, beliau bercakap dengan penuh emosi dan bercakap dengan sombong dan bongkak sambil mengatakan yang pihak yang menentang IPO FELDA Global Ventures itu sebagai “Haram Jadah”. Tidak disangka-sangka yang Najib sanggup mengeluarkan kata-kata yang menghina itu kepada pihak yang tidak sekata dengan beliau. Kata-katanya itu hanya melambangkan nilai peribadi beliau yang sebenar yang mudah difahami oleh rakyat yang rata-rata sudah cerdik dan pandai membuat penilaian kepada seseorang itu.

“Haram Jadah” ini bermakna anak haram yang disumpah. Najib telah menghina pihak yang tidak seiring dengan beliau dengan kata-kata yang tidak ada tolok banding hinanya apatah lagi ia datang dari seorang Perdana Menteri. Malahan rakyat amat terkejut dengan kata-kata kesat itu datangnya dari keluarga Tun Abdul Razak, keluarga yang disangka baik oleh rakyat jelata. Saya tidak dapat memahami apakah perasaan beliau semasa berucap itu dan berani beliau memutuskan yang penentang beliau itu semua anak haram yang dilaknat.

Beberapa orang yang saya temui tidak berhenti-henti beristighfar apabila mendengar Najib menggunakan perkataan “haram jadah” itu dalam ucapan beliau. Kenapa Najib bersifat angkuh dan sombong yang keterlaluan? Kalaulah beliau tidak sanggup menerima demokrasi, beliau ada dua pilihan; satu bersara sahaja dari politik dan yang keduanya kalau beliau mempunyai kudrat yang mencukupi bunuh sahaja demokrasi negara ini. Lagipun demokrasi pun bukannya ada sangat di negara ini.

Najib sebenarnya begitu panik dengan penolakan rakyat yang kian hari kian jelas terhadap BN dan kerajaan pimpinannya. Di mana-mana Umno dan BN sudah diletakkan oleh rakyat di tempat yang sepatutnya. Umno ibarat “telor di hujung tanduk”. Najib mesti belajar untuk menerima keputusan rakyat. Itu sebabnya kita ada parti yang memerintah dan parti yang menjadi alternatif kepada pemerintah itu tadi.

Kejatuhan BN atau Umno sepatutnya menjadi perkara biasa dalam demokrasi. Hampir setahun dahulu parti Buruh England telah tewas dan kerajaan diambil alih oleh parti Conservative dan Liberal Demokrat yang telah mewujudkan kerajaan campuran di England. Apabila keputusan pilihanraya diumumkan, Gordon Brown telah meninggalkan 10 Downing Street dalam tempoh 6 jam sahaja dan 10 Downing Street diambil alih oleh David Cammeron dalam tempoh masa yang sama. Gordon Brown tahu yang partinya akan jatuh tetapi dalam kempen beliau, Gordon Brown tidak pernah memanggil pemimpin dan parti yang menentang beliau sebagai “the cursed bastards” atau haram jadah.

Kalau pihak yang membangkang hendak berdendam bukan tidak ada alasan untuk memanggil beliau dengan nama dan “superlatives” yang buruk dan hina. Hanya pembangkang tidak mahu menggunakan istilah dan perkataan buruk itu kerana ia tidak beretika dan akan hanya melambangkan kebodohan dan kebobrokan peribadi mereka.

Budaya menggunakan bahasa kesat ini nampaknya bukan sahaja menjadi pakaian kepada penyokong yang membuta tuli Umno dan BN, tetapi ianya juga sudah menjadi pakaian harian kepada pemimpin-pemimpin mereka (Umno). Kita ingatkan kata-kata kotor ini hanya menjadi pakaian kepada manusia yang berdarjat rendah dan yang “poorly bred”, rupa-rupanya penyakit itu sudah merebak kepada pemimpin-pemimpin utama kerajaan hari ini.

Tidak pernah kita sangka yang ia akan keluar dari mulut seorang Perdana Menteri yang mengaku sebagai pembawa transformasi dalam segala-galanya termasuk dalam bidang politik. Kata-kata Najib itu membawa maksud bahawa 50 peratus rakyat yang tidak menyokong BN pada tahun 2008 dahulu semuanya adalah anak-anak haram yang disumpah dan dilaknat. Itulah anggapan Najib kepada rakyat yang tidak bersama beliau.

Bagi mereka yang berpihak kepada pembangkang saya hanya meminta mereka bersabar dengan kata-kata penghinaan PM itu. Kita hanya perlu beristighfar banyak-banyak dan memohon petunjuk dari Tuhan yang Maha Esa. Kita jangan sekali-kali mengikut contoh buruk yang ditunjukkan oleh PM Najib itu kerana ia akan merendahkan peribadi dan nilai kemanusiaan kita.

Kita hanya lihat kelakuan serta rentak tari seorang PM yang dalam keadaan panik itu. Seboleh-bolehnya kita doakan beliau akan kembali menjadi seorang yang sabar dan menerima dengan hati yang terbuka jika rakyat mengambil keputusan untuk memberikan mandat kepada “haram jadah-haram jadah” yang Najib maksudkan itu semasa pilihanraya nanti.

Walaupun kita dihina dan dimaki hamun sedemikian rupa kewajipan kita ialah untuk bersabar dan memohon yang terbaik dari Tuhan Maha Esa. Kita tahu inilah kata-kata yang telah membayangkan kegelapan politik negara. Tetapi kita hanya perlu ingat kepada satu perbilangan Inggeris, “the darkest part of the night is just before dawn”.

Maksud perbilangan ini ialah saat yang paling gelap itu ialah waktu sinaran cahaya akan menjelma. Itu sebabnya kita mengalami keadaan gelap yang amat sangat beberapa ketika sebelum subuh. — aspanaliasnet.blogspot.com

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 12 May 2012, 6:44 pm and is filed under
Felda
,
Najib Razak
,
UMNO
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Bersih 3.0: The first test for the police under the Peaceful Assembly Act?

— Maha Balakrishnan

The Malaysian Insider

May 12, 2012

MAY 12 — At a press conference on April 29 and in reference to the Bersih 3.0 rally the day before, the prime minister was reported to have stated that “the rally was the first test for the police in translating the action stipulated under the new legislation following the political transformation implemented by the government, including….. introducing the Peaceful Assembly Act 2012”.

The Peaceful Assembly Act (PAA) came into force on April 23. The prime minister therefore had basis for saying that Bersih 3.0 was the first test for the police in translating the action stipulated under the PAA.

The question is: did the police pass or fail that test?

In my view, they failed. Here’s why:

What powers do the police have under the PAA?

During the second reading of the Peaceful Assembly Bill 2012 in the Dewan Rakyat, the prime minister was reported to have said that in comparison to the situation existing at the time, under the PAA “the role of the police would change from granting permission to safeguarding the law and being facilitators with a clearer framework for accountability”.

True enough, under sub-section 14(1) and section 15 of the PAA, all the police can now do when they receive a notification of an assembly is to impose restrictions and conditions on matters such as the date, time, duration, place and manner of the assembly. In other words, the police have no power under the PAA to approve or reject the holding of an assembly.

What did the police do with regard to Bersih 3.0?

Around April 5, Bersih 2.0’s steering committee made a public announcement that they would be holding a sit-in rally (Duduk Bantah) between 2pm and 4pm on April 28 at Dataran Merdeka. The announcement was carried in most mainstream and online media at about the same time.

On April 16, the organisers of Bersih 3.0 wrote a letter to the Dang Wangi district police headquarters informing them of their intention to hold the rally at Dataran Merdeka on April 28 between 2pm and 4pm.

On April 23, the police responded in a letter stating that they did not approve the “application” apparently on “security” grounds. The exact words in their letter were “…Dukacita dimaklumkan setelah membuat penelitian, saya selaku Ketua Polis Daerah Dang Wangi tidak meluluskan di atas keselamatan permohonan puan untuk menganjurkan acara sepertimana yang dipohon.”

In a nutshell, on receiving a notification of the Bersih 3.0 rally at Dataran Merdeka, the police rejected or refused permission for the rally, when they in fact did not have the power to do so under the PAA. All the police can do under sub-section 14(1) of the PAA is to impose any restrictions or conditions on the rally. No such restrictions or conditions were included in the letter dated April 23.

What then was the status of the Bersih 3.0 rally?

Here’s the irony — because the police did not do the only thing that they were allowed to do under sub-section 14(1) of the PAA, which was to impose restrictions or conditions, then arguably under sub-section 14(2) of the PAA, Bersih 3.0 was entitled to proceed as the organisers intended, i.e. as a sit-in rally in Dataran Merdeka on April 28.

What of the court order that the police obtained on April 26?

The PAA does not give the police powers to apply for court orders to restrain the conduct of assemblies. The court order that the police obtained on April 26 was not under the PAA, but under the Criminal Procedure Code.

A mockery of the PAA and of the PM’s promise to Malaysians

So there you have it, faced with their “first test” under the PAA, the police resoundingly failed. They not only acted in a manner they were not allowed to under the PAA, they also resorted to other laws to try to prevent the rally from proceeding.

The conduct of the police begs the following questions — the PAA is supposed to form the rules of engagement between the police on the one hand, and organisers and participants of assemblies on the other. Why then are the police still using other laws to stop or control the conduct of public assemblies? If the PAA no longer gives the police power to reject a rally, surely the police cannot be allowed to circumvent the limits on their powers by resorting to other laws? Doesn’t the conduct of the police make a mockery of the PAA and of the prime minister’s promise to Malaysians?

The PAA was hailed by the prime minister as revolutionary. While there are many critics of the Act, there are many who praised it and saw it as a step towards taking our constitutional democracy to a higher and more mature plane. However, this first test under the PAA shows that the accolades the Act drew were premature at best. Far more worrying is the impression that the PAA is merely window-dressing, enacted by the administration to tout as evidence of its transformist credentials. When faced with a real situation however, both the police and the administration seemed to have reverted to type, and refused to abide by their own self-imposed limits.

On that note, I’ll leave you with one other example of how police action in Bersih 3.0 breached the PAA. Section 24 of the Act says this: “Any media representative may have reasonable access to a place of assembly and use any equipment to report on the assembly.”

So much for seizure of camera equipment by police being standard operating procedure, Home Minister.

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 12 May 2012, 11:39 pm and is filed under
Bersih
,
Human Rights
,
Najib Razak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Malaysia’s sad media

– Sam Peh

The Malaysian Insider

May 12, 2012

MAY 12 – Even during the most dictatorial days of Mahathir Mohamad, the mainstream media has not been this inept, corrupt, dishonest and even clumsy.

But during the Najib reign, the New Straits Times, the Star and the Malay language papers have crawled to depths never before experienced. Take today’s NST.

Yesterday more than 1,200 lawyers voted at a Bar Council EGM to condemn police brutality at Bersih 3.0 but the Umno owned paper focussed on 16 little known lawyers who dissented. And to make matters worse, the report focussed on whether the quorum was reached (which it was) and whether all those who turned up were lawyers. What rubbish reporting.

I am making public this dishonest reporting because this is the stock in trade of the NST . Remember how the paper tried to stitch up Lim Guan Eng as unpatriotic and Senator Xenophon as anti-Islam.

In Malaysia, the health of newspaper follow that of who occupies Putrajaya and it is no coincidence that the NST and Star have stopped being newspapers and have become ragsheets for wrapping fish.

Najib Razak wants his papers supine. The Star will try and sound balanced but make no mistake, the editors and journalists at the MCA-owned paper are just as guilty of selling innuendo and vile stuff as news.

So my advice to the Bar Council is this. Start a boycott of the mainstream media. Team up with Bersih and other NGOs and get people to stop buying the paper. I have stopped buying papers and only read it online when someone draws attention to some ridiculous report.

The Bar Council has the moral standing to lead a campaign against the media. You have nothing to lose because you are already being demonised.

There is no downside because any newspaper which presents Perkasa, Zahrin as worthy of coverage does not deserve any support. Only contempt.

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 12 May 2012, 10:28 pm and is filed under
Bersih
,
Media
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Politik fascism Umno lawan politik demokrasi rakyat (Bahagian 1)

— Sakmongkol AK47

The Malaysian Insider

May 11, 2012

11 MEI — Apa pasal kita menibai Umno? Jawapannya sama seperti mengapa Umno menibai parti lawannya. Kita membantai Umno sebab Umno jadi penghadang kepada pencapaian demokrasi untuk rakyat. Umno pula menibai parti lawan, kerana meraka menghalang jalan untuknya mendapat kuasa mutlak atau fascism.

Umno mewakili system demokrasi totalitarian. Rakyat mahukan demokrasi penyertaan dimana mereka menjadi equal stakeholders dalam menentukan masa depan negara. Jadi “demokrasi” yang disokong dan didukung oleh Umno bertentangan dengan demokrasi yang rakyat mahukan.

Umno bercakap mengenai demokrasi yang maksudnya, tidak sama dengan demokrasi yang di fahami oleh rakyat. Cara mencapai demokrasi kita berbeza- Umno menggunakan cara fascis , rakyat mahukan cara penyertaan bersama.

Kita semua tahu akan bahaya jika kuasa di monopoli oleh satu orang atau oleh kumpulan yang kecil. Hari ini peneroka Felda di haramjadahkan. Esok semua rakyat akan di perlakukan serupa. Sebutan dan pengucapan itu datang dari orang yang gila- gila kuasa. Hanya orang yang gila kuasa sahaja yang megeluarkan kata2 kesat sedemikian rupa. Kita yang mewakili rakyat bukan gila kuasa, tapi kita mahu ambil kuasa dari orang gila.

Orang yang tahu Najib Razak yang sebenar tidak akan hairan dengan pengucapan istilah-istilah dari usus-usus busuk perbendaharaan katanya. Kalau di Pekan, istilah bangsat dan papa kedana sering di ucapkan. Nak jaga diri sendiri tak boleh, nak melawan saya pernah di halakan kepada lawan politiknya. Jadi istilah haramjadah bukan suatu yang luar biasa yang datang dari seorang haramjadah politik.

Setahun yang lalu saya seringkali bertemu dan bertukar fikiran mengenai isu-isu politik dengan seorang ahli politik veteran. Beliau yang berasal dari Malaysia Timur mempunyai pandangan politik yang telah terbentuk oleh pengalaman pratikal dalam gelanggang politik. Sebagai veteran politik yang bergerak bersama Umno , saya merasakan pengalamannya amat berharga untuk di gunakan supaya kita faham realpolitik negara ini.

Apa yang paling menarik ialah prognosisnya keatas politik Malaysia dan kedudukan Umno. Konklusi yang dia sampai ialah oleh kerana Umno itu pendukong kepada nilai-nilai politik TOTALITARIAN, maka Umno sebetulnya bertentangan dengan nilai politik rakyat.

Rakyat mahukan demokrasi penyertaan atau participative democracy manakala Umno mahukan hegemonic democracy. Bila Umno bercakap mengenai perpaduan misalnya, apa yang sebenarnya yang ia maksudkan ialah perpaduan dibawah KETUANANnya. Sedangkan rakyat mahukan dan lebih memuliakan perpaduan matlamat( unity in purpose).

Dan bila berlaku pertembungan antara pertubuhan politik seperti Umno dengan rakyat, rakyat akan menang. Seperti juga mana mana pemerintahan di dunia ini, Umno juga tertakluk kepada regime change yang di bawa oleh rakyat.

Sebab itu, seringkali saya cakap, kuasa pemerintahan bersifat TOL atau LPS- Lesen Pendudukan Sementara. Kamu berada di sana, sementara rakyat haramjadah ini menyokong kamu. Apakala rakyat menolak kamu, maka kamu lah yang jadi haramjadah.

Saya suka pandangannya, kerana kami sama sama mempercayai bahawa dasar-dasar yang di bawa oleh Umno hari ini, terutama sejak tahun 1988 adalah dasar yang meruntuhkan negara.

PRU-13 nanti akan menyaksikan pertembungan antara pendukong dan penyokong demokrasi( rakyat) dengan penyokong dan pendukong system politik totalitarian atau fascism. Rakyat bertembung dengan system politik yang di pertahankan oleh Umno.

Apa yang di wakili oleh Umno sebetulnya? Ia mewakili kepentingan golongan elit dan kroni. Ia mewakili konsentrasi kuasa dalam tangan segelintir mereka yang terpilih. Ia mewakili system pemerintahan dari atas ke bawah.

Slogan Najib bahawa zaman dimana kerajaan tahu yang terbaik sudah berakhir, adalah omongan kosong seorang kaki kelentongan. Golongan terpilih menentukan apa yang baik atau tidak baik untuk rakyat. Umno mewakili system yang mendahulukan faedah untuk golongan elit, selebihnya barulah untuk rakyat.

Siapa yang menyokong Umno hari ini? yang menyokong Umno ialah yang suka kepada Totalitarian regime. Ketuanan itu dan ini dan perhambaan itu dan ini. penyokong system totalitarian yang suka autokrasi, mereka yang cenderung kepada kediktatoran, pemerintah kuku besi, komunis. Jadi Umno yang sukakan konsentrasi atau pemusatan kuasa dalam tangannya sahaja, hampir sama dengan komunis.

Kenapa mereka suka jadi kuku besi dan konsentrasi kuasa dalam tangan mereka? Bukan hanya boleh mengharam-jadahkan rakyat tapi kerana kuasa untuk kaut nikmat untuk diri , keluarga dan kroni. Ini yang Umno telah jadi hari ini.

Itulah sebabnya, Umno mahu meramaikan ahli dan anggota parti. Sebab ia mahu kekal terus berkuasa sebagai rejim totalitarian. Jika anggota parti ramai, walaupun anggota tidak tahu apa-apa dan jahil, mereka akan terus menyokong Umno.

Umno yang ada hari ini bukan lagi Umno yang di bentuk oleh pemimpin negarawan sebelum Umno asal di haramkan dalam tahun 1987. — sakmongkol.blogspot.com

* Sakmongkol AK47 adalah nama pena Datuk Mohd Ariff Sabri Abdul Aziz. Beliau merupakan bekas Adun Pulau Manis (2004-2008).

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 12 May 2012, 6:07 pm and is filed under
Felda
,
Najib Razak
,
UMNO
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Putrajaya’s Bersih panel must be impartial, says Suhakam

By Shannon Teoh

The Malaysian Insider

May 12, 2012

KUALA LUMPUR, May 12 — The Human Rights Commission (Suhakam) called today for Putrajaya’s panel probing violence in the April 28 Bersih rally to be impartial after growing criticism over the selection of Tun Hanif Omar as the team’s chief.

The opposition and civil society have called on the former police chief to be disqualified due to anti-Bersih statements that came immediately after the rally for free and fair elections, which had spiralled into chaos when protestors tried to enter Dataran Merdeka.

“The Commission awaits the determination of the terms of reference of the Panel in the hope and expectation that they are consistent with the requirements of an inquiry that will conduct its work in a manner that is independent, impartial, transparent, and with integrity and without fear or favour.

“It is extremely important that any such inquiry… be conducted expeditiously, but also with great care so as to ensure that its process and outcome will… restore public confidence in the authorities, which is an essential attribute of a fully functional democracy which the people aspire for,” Suhakam chief Tan Sri Hasmy Agam said today.

He added in a press statement that Suhakam “remains seized of the matter and will continue to study the complaints and submissions from various groups, as well as media reports, pertaining to various incidences that transpired on that day.”

The so-called “Hanif panel” has already been criticised for having no legal basis by Bersih and the Bar Council and both bodies have also criticised the choice of the former police chief to head the committee. The electoral reforms movement added that the former Inspector General of Police “has already made two public comments… that communist sympathisers who were active demonstrators in the 1970s were involved.

“He has also agreed with Najib’s allegation that Bersih 3.0 was an attempted coup d’état against the government. By so doing, he has shown that he is biased and has already pre-judged the outcome of the investigation,” Bersih said.

Bar Council president Lim Chee Wee said yesterday the panel lacked the legal framework to offer immunity against defamation or self-incrimination and power to subpoena witnesses and requisition evidence.

However, Hanif, who led the police for two decades since 1974, has insisted he will be impartial, saying that he has always acted fairly in previous enquiries and police investigations.

The opposition and NGOs have called on the government to back a Suhakam probe into Bersih’s third rally for free and fair elections, as the commission had also done so for a previous Bersih gathering held last July.

Suhakam’s 39-page report on the July rally released earlier this month said several mainstream media organisations failed to fairly report Datuk Ambiga Sreenevasan’s views and even jeopardised the Bersih chief’s safety by publishing her personal details.

The April 28 rally, which saw tens of thousands gather at six different locations before heading to Dataran Merdeka, was peaceful until about 2.30pm when Ambiga asked the crown to disperse.

But her call was not heard by most of the crowd who persisted around the historic square which the court had already barred to the public over the weekend.

Just before 3pm, some protestors breached the barricade surrounding the landmark, leading police to disperse the crowd with tear gas and water cannons.

Police then continued to pursue the rally-goers down several streets amid chaotic scenes which saw violence from both sides over the next four hours.

Several dozen demonstrators have claimed that they were assaulted by groups of over 10 policemen at a time and visual evidence appears to back their claim but police also point to violence from rally-goers who also attacked a police car.

The police car then crashed into a building before some protestors flipped it on its side.

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 12 May 2012, 5:27 pm and is filed under
Bersih
,
Elections
,
Police
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Stubborn insistence to have Hanif to head probe into Bersih 3.0 violence raises larger question – whether time has come for a new PM and Home Minister as incumbents are so cut off from reasonable expectations of ordinary Malaysians

It is a sad commentary on the quality and judgment of the Najib premiership when both the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak and the Home Minister, Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Hussein could not see anything wrong in  appointing Tun Hanif Omar as head to probe the Bersih 3.0 violence when the former Inspector-General of Police had clearly disqualified himself with preconceived and prejudicial views about the Bersih 3.0 rally.

It is most shocking that what seems crystal clear to ordinary citizens, even to school children, that the issue at stake is about impartiality and not Hanif’s track record, is totally beyond the grasp of the most important decision-makers in government, including the Prime Minister and Home Minister.

This  is most ironic as it was only two days ago that Najib said that he could not even afford a single mistake as Prime Minister, declaring:

“When you are PM, if we have to make 10 major decisions, we need to get 10 out of 10 right. If we only get nine right and one inaccurate, that is the one that people would fault us for.”

And here we have the Najib premiership refusing to correct what could probably be Najib’s worst decision in his three years as Prime Minister, appointing Hanif as head to probe the Bersih 3.0 violence – an appointment which had elicited the unprecedented reaction of instant and all-round rejection and even condemnation by thinking and decent Malaysians, which is why the National Union of Journalists (NUJ), Suaram,  Bersih 2.0, the Malaysian Bar and even the Deputy Higher Education Minister Saifuddin Abdullah have declared their objection to Hanif’s appointment.

Malaysians and the world must wonder why important personages like the Prime Minister and the Home Minister could not understand the very clear, simple and irrefutable reason for objecting to Hanif’s appointment to head the probe into the Bersih 3.0 violence – that it has nothing to do with his track record as the longest-serving IGP in the country, Deputy Chairman of the Special Commission to Enhance the Operations and Management of the Royal Malaysian Police in 2004 or as member of the  panel investigating the fatal shooting of 14-year-old Aminulrasyhid Amzah.

The objection to Hanif’s appointment lies solely and squarely in the incontrovertible fact that the former IGP had stained and disqualified himself as a member of any inquiry, let alone chairman, into the Bersih 3.0 violence because of his preconceived and very prejudicial statements about the Bersih 3.0 rally – when these are subject-matters which should be within the terms of reference of the inquiry.

In fact, if Hanif stands by his prejudicial statements against Bersih 3.0 that it is an attempted coup to topple the government and involved pro-communist sympathizers and tactics, the former IGP should appear before the Bersih 3.0 probe as a “star witness” to substantiate his allegations  – definitely not as a Chairman to probe into the truth or otherwise into these allegations.

The refusal of Najib and Hishammuddin to accede to the most proper and reasonable demand by thinking and decent Malaysians and their stubborn insistence that  Hanif should head the probe into the  Bersih 3.0 violence has only raised  a larger question:

Whether it is not time for Malaysia to have a new Prime Minister and new Home Minister  – in fact a new government – as the present incumbents are so cut off from  the very reasonable expectations and legitimate aspirations of ordinary Malaysians transcending race, religion, class, region, age or gender.

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 12 May 2012, 3:26 pm and is filed under
Bersih
,
Hishammuddin
,
Najib Razak
,
Police
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Time is running out

— Khairie Hisyam Aliman

The Malaysian Insider

May 12, 2012

MAY 12 — The next general election looms large, yet the ruling coalition is fumbling with the wrong issues. Could that be Barisan Nasional’s undoing this time around?

Parliament is due to be dissolved next April, but with 11 months to go there is seemingly no sign of that happening soon. Some even think it will be pushed as far as September. Many believe that the ruling coalition, the prime minister especially, was unnerved enough by Bersih 3.0’s turnout to delay calling for polls.

Indeed, what a turnout it was. Bersih organisers estimate that 250,000-300,000 people were there; independent estimates put it between 80,000 and 100,000. While we may never know the actual figure, the figures we are contemplating are large enough to worry those in power. Not everyone wearing yellow that day supports the opposition, but they sent out the same, unmistakeable message.

The people are acutely aware that the electoral process is suspect. And the people want the problem fixed.

Despite the presence of opposition figures during the rally, the purpose of many who decided to come was not to show their support to any particular politician, or to any political party. All they wanted was for their vote to be fairly accounted for come the election. All they wanted was a system of integrity that they could trust.

Yet despite that message, the aftermath is unpromising.

More focus is accorded the ensuing violence than the loud, unspoken statement, with most commentators more interested in placing the blame for the regrettable negatives. The mainstream media face widespread allegations of selective reporting following longstanding claims of bias.

Astro runs into trouble when the BBC, outraged over the censoring of its Bersih 3.0 coverage, demands answers, to which Astro claims that “local regulations” forced its hand; further exposure by an independent news source reveals that said “regulations” feature heavily biased guidelines, apparently designed to maintain the government’s good image.

The police are fast losing credibility in the public’s eyes amid accusations of excessive, uncalled for violence after the rally. The police’s claim that the irritants containing CS gas used to contain the rally were “UN approved” as a “riot-control agent” was disclaimed by the United Nations itself.

Some figures are even labelling Bersih as an attempted coup, to the incredulous gasps of many impartial parties.

These developments paint a picture of dishonesty around the nation’s authorities and, by extension, the ruling coalition.

Day by day the irrepressible alternative media are filling in the gaps, telling untold stories and reporting buried facts. Day by day the public opinion on the ruling coalition is chipped away. The people are beginning to lose faith in the ruling coalition’s integrity and accountability.

And therein lies the prime minister’s biggest battle: restoring voters’ faith.

However, we are still seeing political sparring that smacks of character assassination. Many previously raised issues that bring to light questionable conducts of the ruling coalition’s members in seats of power are perceived as not properly dealt with. We are still seeing a political scene that focuses on discrediting the opponent rather than expounding on one’s own merit.

The most telling of all is how talk abounds on why the people should show their gratitude to the ruling coalition for the past 52 years. On why the people should re-elect the current government come the election as a thank you.

Is the main premise of the campaign gratitude then?

I don’t think there is much room for sentiment, especially gratitude, in politics. We are choosing people who would govern us, manage our resources and generally on whom we entrust the responsibility to make our lives better.

And that choice needs to be correct, regardless of gratitude, regardless of history. The ruling coalition cannot point to exceedingly distant memories as proof of past performance; that amounts to taking credit for the good done by leaders of a different time.

To restore voters’ faith, the ruling coalition — and the prime minister — needs to prove that the people can count on them for yet another term. They need to prove that the people will not be deceived, manipulated or misinformed.

Most importantly, the people need to be assured that they can make their choice in a fair, honest electoral process. The burden of proof is on Barisan Nasional.

Your clock is ticking, Prime Minister.

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 12 May 2012, 10:01 am and is filed under
Bersih
,
Elections
,
Najib Razak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


How to get rid of Malaysian talent

— Cass Shan

(loyarburok.com)

The Malaysian Insider

May 11, 2012

MAY 11 — It’s no secret that our graduates who study overseas don’t come back.

Many skilled workers have emigrated citing social injustice (60 per cent) and compensation (54 per cent) as reasons for leaving this beautiful country.

Can you blame them though?

We here in Malaysia are stuck with outdated meritocracy benefits and no minimum wage, not to mention low starting pay for fresh graduates.

About 57 per cent head off to Singapore while the rest move to the US, the UK, Australia and other countries. It has to be mentioned that non-Bumiputeras make up the majority of those who have emigrated.

In place of the talents we’re losing, unskilled workers who have primary school education or less are being taken in.

It doesn’t take a brain surgeon to realise that we are headed towards becoming a nation of low skills.

What can we do about this devastating scenario? For one, we must acknowledge the reasons why people are leaving.

There is a lack of opportunities for locals unless they go abroad. This alone is the main factor. To address this issue, we must effect a change in our social fabric. We must recognise our talents for what they can do and not what skin colour they are born with. People who work hard for their talents and skills must be recognised for the talents and skills in themselves — not whether they carry Bumiputera status on their MyKad or otherwise.

Government bodies are most prone to this trap. More often than not, they hire Bumiputeras — often neglecting more qualified non-Bumis. This is a fact that I’ve witnessed myself: a friend of mine was the only one with experience among a group of fresh graduates applying for a job at a government body and she was not selected. It also goes to show how far backwards we are as she was castigated for wearing a cross to work.

The entire episode unfortunately displays the low mentality of government bodies when it comes to selecting staff. “Skills” do not seem to actually come into their consideration.

I also personally know of a highly talented Malaysian who was denied the top post of a government agency simply because of his skin colour. He earns a top-tier salary and pulls his weight but was denied the post simply because a certain quota had to be fulfilled.

How do we expect smart graduates who have left to return when we flatly deny them their right to fair employment?

Opportunity must present itself based on merit and not race. For too long the race card has been played on to us. The time to dismantle race-based policies is long overdue.

And then there is the issue of salaries.

Take a quick glance at Jobstreet’s salary report and you’ll see how low the average salary is. A fresh graduate is only able to earn about RM2,000 per month while a manager in a small company will only make RM4,000 per month on average (though this increases with the size of the company).

With living costs having risen exponentially in recent years, how are we expected to eke out a decent living with these figures? Those who want to pursue their master’s must either take up the PTPTN loan or earn a scholarship (or work in Singapore for a while — which is what one of my friends did).

Larger companies fork out RM2,000-3,000 for a simple customer service position and RM6,000 for assistant manager roles. Since most middle-class Malaysians earn within this average, it’s easy to see how one would be hard-pressed to afford a house, especially since property prices continue to skyrocket.

For example, a condominium today costs roughly about RM450,000 — translating to a RM45,000 downpayment. With an average salary of RM4,000, one may perhaps save RM500 per month (after deducting expenses) and take up to 90 months to save up for a condominium. That’s 7.5 years! How would young married couples cope with such costs?

Corporations and businesses must increase wages in tandem with the cost of living. This ensures quality staff and better productivity. It’s the norm that employees hate their jobs and simply do them as a means to an end. Where are the days where employees were passionate about their work? How does a company rise without its people?

It should be in the company’s vision to ensure that staff are paid well enough to house and feed themselves. This is not even scratching the surface of the problem as there are many other Malaysians who earn less than RM3,000 or even RM1,500 for that matter. If we were to broach that part of the subject we’d be able to understand why Malaysians would opt to leave the country at the first opportunity.

In summary, the diaspora exists and will most likely grow due to the factors that have been discussed. To reverse the outflow of talent, we desperately need to look at the key issues involved. Then drive home changes that will bring our best and brightest home to serve and develop this nation. — loyarburok.com

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 13 May 2012, 4:25 pm and is filed under
Brain drain
,
nation building
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Our fate: Sub-par ministers

— Justice Seeker

The Malaysian Insider

May 13, 2012

MAY 13 — It is telling that Nazri Aziz is considered among the more capable ministers. But on the evidence of what he has said and done, that is a backhanded compliment. A bit like saying that the one-eyed man is the king in the kingdom of the blind.

Even that is being charitable to Nazri. He is as incompetent and dense as the rest of his Cabinet colleagues. He was quoted as saying that the Bar Council’s stand on alleged police brutality was not representative of the legal fraternity because only some 1,200 lawyers out of 20,000 attended.

So should we say that the UN Security Council’s rulings are not binding on Malaysia because Malaysia is not a member? Should we say that Umno’s choice of its president and therefore prime minister of Malaysia is not valid because only 2,000 of its members out of three million members voted?
Obviously this minister does not understand the concept of representation. The Bar Council leadership were voted by members of the legal fraternity and therefore have the mandate to call for any meeting to discuss matters of public interest.

Lawyers getting beaten up by thuggish cops is a matter of interest. The quorum for Friday’s meeting was easily met. Two thousand of 20,000 lawyers is 10 per cent while 2,000 of 3,000,000 Umno members is 0.07 per cent.

So going by Nazri’s logic, Umno’s process of picking its president and by extension the PM is not representative and therefore should be disregarded.

So is this our fate? To suffer fools and accept incompetence at the highest level of government?

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 13 May 2012, 3:50 pm and is filed under
Bersih
,
Elections
,
Police
,
UMNO
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


The Significance of Bersih (poem)

by Allan CF Goh

Bersih is the people’s movement:

There is no subscribed membership,

Nor a registered society.

It is a spontaneous grouping

Of free, like-minded citizens,

Who believe in democracy,

Transparent and impeccable.

Bersih does not ask for the sky;

It only wants clean elections.

It is helmed by a committee

Of people with integrity,

Deeply concerned with the faulty,

Fraudulent electoral roll.

These brave civic individuals,

Voluntarily give their time,

Resource, effort and energy.

Bersih does not ask for the sun;

It only want fair elections.

Voting in a democracy

Is the most basic human right.

It is an open avenue

For the expression of free will,

For the choice of good governance.

This means the careful selection

Of moral principled people.

Bersih does not ask for the moon;

It wants only just elections.

Only a clean, fair election

Can ensure the installation

Of a responsible government,

Of, by and for all the people,

Based on the best human values,

For a true, progressive nation,

Steeped in democratic values.

Bersih does not ask for the earth;

It wants only free elections.

If Bersih deserves the label

Of anti- anything at all,

It is anti-lies and scandals,

Anti-vile manipulations,

Duplicities and corruptions,

And obstacles against justice.

Fair minded people will align

Themselves with  justice and fairness.

Bersih does not ask for the world;

It wants only true elections.

Bersih does not coerce nor threaten.

Its principle is non-violence,

To convey its message to all.

When its clarion call to action

Of peaceful protest comes around,

Citizens response with true grit.

It finds a resonance with folks.

Bersih does not ask for the gold;

It wants only real elections.

The ray of hope for real freedom,

Lives on in people’s mind and soul,

That empowers them as Malaysians

To seek a better tomorrow.

The vast silent majority

Will not be silenced any more,

Making them scorn the gun barrels.

Bersih does not ask for fame;

It wants only right elections.

Solutions and resolutions

Are the aims of Bersih rally:

Not confrontations, not rabble

Rousing, not any form of violence.

Demonstrations are just folks’ tools

To focus on the glaring wrongs

(So blind to the authorities).

Bersih does not ask for blames;

It does not want vile elections.

Bersih is an idealism,

That draws the mass of citizens,

For the struggle of human rights,

Through a clean electoral college.

Bersih started as a groundswell,

That sweeps across the whole nation,

Building up into a tsunami.

Bersih does not ask for troubles;

It does not want dirty elections.

The Bersih tide will get bigger,

Suffused with real democracy.

It’s the life blood of true freedom.

Bersih embraces all races,

All religious groups, both genders,

All age groups, and all professions.

Righteousness is the common glue.

Bersih does not want any strife;

It wants a clean, fair election!

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 13 May 2012, 11:42 am and is filed under
Bersih
,
Elections
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Malaysia after regime change

 — Hal Hill

The Malaysian Insider

May 14, 2012

MAY 14 — There is much to admire about Malaysia, in addition to it being arguably the world’s best place to eat. Its development record is admirable. Since independence in 1957, its per capita income has risen eight-fold. It has long since left behind its two earlier comparators, Ghana and Sri Lanka. It features prominently and positively in all major international economic comparisons, from the World Bank’s 1993 East Asian Miracle to the 2008 Growth Commission report. The 2.5 million to three million migrant workers are there for a good reason — even if they are sometimes subject to abuse, life is a lot better than in their homelands.

As a result of the country’s adept macroeconomic management, it has suffered just one serious economic setback, in 1997-98. That event had its origins at least partly in external factors, and it was promptly overcome, without the “assistance” of the IMF. The country has managed to avoid the “resource curse”, which has bedevilled the majority of resource-rich developing countries. It features well on most comparative rankings, such as the Bank’s Doing Business, and the Global Competitiveness Report.

Along with Singapore, it has enjoyed an early mover advantage from its adoption in the early 1970s of export-oriented industrialisation through foreign direct investment, before it was fashionable to do so. As a consequence, it is a major player in the global electronics industry. And although inequality remains high, there is no doubt that the bottom 40 per cent of Malaysian citizens have benefitted materially from the country’s economic growth.

What’s the economic problem, then? Principally, that the economy has yet to regain the dynamism evident before the 1997-98 Asian financial crisis. Even before the more recent global financial crisis, which Malaysia navigated quite successfully, economic growth in the new millennium was at least two percentage points below that of the decade 1986-96.

Particularly worrisome is the slump in investment, which has been stuck at little more than 20 per cent of GDP. This is 10-15 percentage points of GDP lower than the country’s historic ratio. With savings remaining buoyant, the country’s external position has been transformed dramatically. In 2002, the country had net liabilities equivalent to 35 per cent of GDP. By 2008, this had been transformed to net assets of 20 per cent of GDP. Put simply, Malaysians have been finding overseas investment increasingly attractive, while foreigners have been less attracted to Malaysia.

The nub of the problem is that, from a position of early leadership, the country has failed to keep up with fast reforming economies, including the Asian NIEs, China, and even the politically messy states of India and Thailand. That is, insufficient attention has been paid to developing high-quality institutions to underpin a vibrant, modern, internationally competitive market economy.

For example, the country’s industrial policies have backfired. Malaysia might have been expected to be the leading Southeast Asian automotive producer, but Thailand has become the “Detroit of Asia” owing to Malaysia’s disastrous national car programme. This is a puzzling outcome when one considers the country’s early successes as the world’s most efficient producer of tropical cash crops, based on its effective R&D, infrastructure and agricultural extension.

In addition, the “spillover” benefits from the country’s large multinational presence in manufacturing have been limited by the fact that Malaysia’s SMEs, that are predominantly owned by the ethnic Chinese community, prefer to stay small, mainly outside the export zones, and below the threshold above which Bumiputera employment quotas become mandatory.

The country’s public universities, once among the region’s best, and still well-funded, have also slipped in East Asian rankings owing to these ethnic quotas, as well as heavy bureaucratic control. The country is now well established to be a regional higher education hub, with the establishment of several major international campuses. However, while welcome, these institutions cannot be expected to lead the country’s transition into a research and knowledge-based economy.

One striking feature of Malaysia’s policy settings is that, although the country is generally very open, it has been slow to liberalise several major service sectors, such as telecommunications and various business services. In turn, this reflects the continuing large presence of state-owned enterprises, termed “government-linked corporations”. These GLC’s constitute an unusually large proportion of the economy, and their operations constitute something of a “black box”. The slow pace of GLC reform, and in particular the government’s reluctance to expose them to competition and public scrutiny, is testimony to the widespread suspicion that they operate as sinecures for the politically well-connected, in addition to the role they play in the ubiquitous NEP-style contracting and preference schemes.

Although Malaysia has always has always had an impressive commitment to education, the country’s human resource performance is indifferent. The public universities as noted are in need of reform. The country continues to experience a substantial brain drain as a result of the exodus of skilled professionals, mainly those disaffected in the Chinese and Indian communities. The civil service is bloated and in need of major reform. Its growth in recent years reflects in part the pressure the government is under to employ the many (mainly Bumiputera) graduates who are the products of a university system insufficiently attuned to the needs of the market place.

Moreover, paradoxically for a country so concerned about equity, there are major distributional concerns. For all the attention, inequality remains very high, little changed since the 1970s. Malaysia has one of the longest-running affirmative action programmes in the developing world. Designed to redistribute employment and wealth to the dominant Bumiputera community after the nasty communal conflict of May 1969, the NEP and its successors played an important role in promoting racial harmony in a country with very large differences in living standards across racial groups. But the programmes have created a culture of entitlement, and they have resulted in institutionalised leakages that permeate practically every aspect of Malaysian commercial, social, political and educational life. The NEP needs to be reformulated as a genuine pro-poor policy instrument, based on need not ethnicity.

The case for reform is also highlighted by the drift in fiscal policy. Fiscal deficits have become institutionally embedded since the Asian financial crisis, regardless of the state of the economy. The budget is riddled with large, poorly directed subsidies, which are unsustainable for three reasons: they are reliant on declining petroleum revenue; they are maintained in part owing to a large pool of compulsory savings (the EPF) that has a sub-par return to its contributors; and the demographic clock will start ticking in about a decade, as the currently youthful Malaysian population begins to age.

It is fashionable in Malaysia to attribute its current malaise to China, a country that is able to out-compete Malaysia in low-end and increasingly a sophisticated range of manufactures. While the “export similarity index” (that is the composition of their exports) for the two countries is quite high, and thus there has some been some loss of market share to China from Malaysia in third-country export markets, the notion that the rise of China explains Malaysia’s current difficulties is untenable. That view overlooks the positive sum game for Malaysia from China’s rise. As a resource-rich economy, Malaysia has benefited from the general China-fuelled rise in commodity prices, for example its exports of palm oil and oil and gas. Similarly, commercial opportunities in tourism and education have been rising rapidly, with two-way investments rising very quickly. And Malaysia is a central player in the increasingly China-centred East Asian production networks that export to the world.

There is also currently a muddled narrative in Malaysia and elsewhere that the country is in some sense “stuck in the middle”. It is true that growth has slowed, that the country has been in the ranks of middle-income developing countries for some decades, and that export-oriented economies may not be able to rely on strong global trade growth for the next few years. But the notion of being “stuck in the middle” is devoid of analytical content. It is one thing to observe that, at very high levels of per capita income, as countries approach the frontiers of wealth, growth slows down. But Malaysia is way off such a point. The country’s slowdown is self-inflicted, and there is nothing mysterious about the way out. What is needed is determined, reform-oriented government.

I leave it to better informed analysts to explain the deeper political obstacles. The overwhelming impression is of a party in continuous power for 55 years, one of the world’s longest-serving governing parties currently in power among all “quasi democracies”. Not surprisingly, elements of Umno exhibit the problems of complacence and arrogance that one expects from such entrenched dominance.

One thing is for sure: the solutions to the current malaise are well known, and Malaysia is blessed with many able people who understand the problems and know what to do. For this optimist, it is just a matter of time before these two irresistible forces are aligned. — New Mandala

* Hal Hill is the H.W. Arndt Professor of Southeast Asian Economies at the Australian National University. This note draws on his February 2012 Boustead Lecture delivered at the Nottingham University Malaysia Campus, which in turn draws on the 2012 volume he co-edited with Tham Siew Yean and Ragayah Haji Mat Zin, “Malaysia’s Development Challenges: Graduating from the Middle”, Routledge, London.

                This entry was posted on Monday, 14 May 2012, 3:40 pm and is filed under
Economics
,
Elections
,
UMNO
,
university
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.