Amnesty sees link between SUARAM shakedown, Scorpene scandal

By Clara Chooi

The Malaysian Insider

Sep 22, 2012

KUALA LUMPUR, Sept 22 ― Global rights watchdog Amnesty International raised suspicion today over the timing of Putrajaya’s sudden interest in SUARAM’s operations, noting that authorities began probing the group soon after it revealed that a close associate of Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak had sold Malaysian naval secrets to France.

The revelation was made by French lawyer Joseph Breham, who is acting for Suara Rakyat Malaysia (SUARAM) in the ongoing inquiry on the Scorpene submarine scandal in Paris, during a May 30 press conference in Bangkok.

“Amnesty is concerned that the recent government actions against SUARAM appear to be linked to the organisation’s legitimate work, in particular a corruption case which it has brought before the French courts.

“The government began these actions against SUARAM four weeks after the organisation disclosed new information from documents made available by the French public prosecutor’s office, which implicate Malaysian officials in the corruption allegations,” AI said in a statement here.

SUARAM recently came under close scrutiny of the Companies Commission of Malaysia (CCM) due to its foreign funding sources, and the government agency said earlier this week that it plans to charge the activist group for its “misleading accounts”.

The human rights NGO has been actively pursuing the Scorpene scandal in the French courts, determined to expose alleged government corruption in the multibillion purchase of the submarines in 2009 and possibly reopen the murder case of Mongolian model Altantuyaa Shaariibuu, which has been linked to the deal.

In April this year, the Tribunal de Grand Instance in Paris began its inquiry into SUARAM’s claim that the French naval firm DCNS had paid some RM452 million as a bribe to Malaysian officials to obtain a contract for two submarines. SUARAM had filed the complaint with the French courts in 2009.

In the May 30 press conference, Breham had revealed that a classified government document on the Malaysian navy’s evaluation of the Scorpene submarines it was then planning to buy had been sold by Terasasi (Hong Kong) Ltd to DCNS for RM142 million.

Abdul Razak Baginda, a former think-tank head who was at the centre of the 2006 investigation into Altantuya’s murder, is listed as a director of Terasasi with his father, Abdul Malim Baginda. Abdul Razak is said to be a close associate to Najib.

“It was a secret document by the Malaysian navy, an evaluation for the order of the submarines, which is a highly confidential report,” Breham had said at the conference.

Amnesty recalled that on July 3, a little past four weeks after the revelation by SUARAM’s lawyer was made, the NGO suddenly received a visit from the CCM with a notice of inspection.

A few months later, the group became the subject of much “harassment and intimidation” from the Malaysian authorities, it added.

Amnesty added that the harassment “appears to be a concerted, multi-departmental government campaign against SUARAM, one of Malaysia’s leading human rights groups”.

“The Malaysian government should respect SUARAM’s right as a human rights organisation to seek and receive funding, rather than abuse its power to intimidate human rights defenders,” the group said.

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 23 September 2012, 4:14 pm and is filed under
civil society/NGOs
,
Defence
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Anti-Islam film: Let’s exercise wisdom and humanity

By
Musa Mohd Nordin
 | 2:14PM Sep 21, 2012

Malaysiakini

The violent consequences of past artistic, literary and cultural aggressions against the sanctity of Islam and the prophet seem not to have taught us any lesson.

The abomination against theism continues unabated. Claiming to be works of literature or the arts, the perpetrators have guised behind the cloak of freedom of speech.

The notoriety against Islam has been littered with the likes of Salman Rushdie’s despicable Satanic Verses, through to the ugly Danish cartoons and the latest “film”, which has maliciously maligned Prophet Muhammad.

Caricatures of the prophet have today headlined the French press. The pristine beliefs of Christianity, Judaism and Hinduism have similarly not been spared this irreligious onslaught.

These vulgar and blasphemous provocations are intent on mocking the believers’ reverence of their religious texts, tenets and their prophets.

Specific individuals and interest groups are unashamedly abusing our noble values of freedom of speech and expression to tarnish the image of authentic religions, demonising them and demeaning their prophets with trails of untruths and unfounded claims.

In response to the film Innocence of Muslims, the Muslim in the street is reacting in the only way he knows, defending the honour of the one Muslims hold high.

Irrational, emotional reactions un-Islamic

However, the irrational and emotional reactions by some Muslims and the violence unleashed, with consequent deaths, injuries and damage to property, is most un-Islamic and distant from the Islamic teachings of peace, justice and fair play.

Producing cheap and vulgar “works of art” designed to offend Muslims is easy and is guaranteed to secure instant, even if fleeting, fame.

Therefore, our responses to sacrilegious acts that are likely to recur should be based on the wisdom and humanity that the Prophet of Islam has taught us.

This unrelenting siege on all religions and their prophets must cease. Governments, civil society, religious leaders and icons in the literary and film industry must be courageous to condemn these irresponsible few and prohibit the publication and showing of films and literary works of a similar nature.

More urgently, we must not allow Muslim zealots, from political platforms or religious groups, to seize the moment and inflame further this most fragile of situations.

Fellow Muslims need to understand that Islam doesn’t need us to defend it, it only needs us to represent it faithfully and authentically.

We call on all to exercise wisdom and humanity and to treat one another with respect and dignity.

____

MUSA MOHD NORDIN is a member of the board of directors of the Muslim Professionals Forum.

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 23 September 2012, 5:11 pm and is filed under
Islam
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Dr M mahukan orang Melayu berlindung di bawah Umno walaupun sudah busuk sampai ke ususnya

 — Aspan Alias

The Malaysian Insider

Sep 22, 2012

22 SEPT — Dr Mahathir Mohamad berkata di Johor Baru dua hari lepas yang pemimpin yang baik perlu menerima teguran yang membina. Ini pun Dr Mahathir benar dan betul tetapi jika kritikan itu di arahkan kepada beliau itu adalah satu kesalahan besar. Apabila beliau di tegur dan di tandingi secara demokratik beliau mengambilnya sebagai satu tindakan memalitkan tahi ke muka dan beliau tidak dapat menerimanya. Hasilnya beliau secara sistematik telah mengharamkan partinya sendiri.

Apabila sistem dan undang-undang yang masih baik semasa itu mampu untuk memulihkan parti yang beliau haramkan itu, maka sistem itu di bunuhnya dengan menceroboh Badan Kehakiman yang sepatutnya bebas dari pengaruh eksekutif. Empat orang hakim Mahkamah Agung telah di pecat termasuk Ketua Hakim Negara Tun Salleh Abas melalui penubuhan “tribunal” yang amat tercemar cara penubuhannya.

Apabila semua sistem berada di tangan beliau, Dr Mahathir bertindak mengikut kehendak hatinya sendiri. Tidak lagi sistem demokrasi yang betul kerana semuanya boleh dilakukan oleh Dr Mahathir dan itulah yang membolehkan beliau terus berkuasa dengan rakus selama 22 tahun itu. Jika sistem tidak tercemar Dr Mahathir tidak akan dapat kekal kerana populariti beliau telah jatuh hasil dari pemilihan 1987 itu.

Di Johor itu juga Dr Mahathir telah menasihatkan yang pemimpin tidak tunggu lama-lama dan memberikan peluang kepada pemimpin lain untuk naik. Seseorang pemimpin mesti memahami isyarat yang di dapati dari bawah supaya seseorang itu tahu bila untuk turun. Nasihat ini membuatkan kita lebih yakin yang Dr Mahathir adalah seorang yang benar-benar mudah lupa dan hanya pandai memberi nasihat kepada orang lain sahaja.

Isyarat yang beliau harus bersara telah di tunjukkan oleh ahli-ahli Umno apabila beliau hanya memenangi 43 undi di dalam pemilihan parti 1987 dahulu. Hampir separuh dari perwakilan memberikan isyarat supaya beliau berundur tetapi keengganan beliau untuk berbuat demikian itulah yang menyebabkan beliau membunuh Umno dan menyalahkan pihak lain di atas pengharaman Umno itu.

Dr Mahathir terus sahaja menubuhkan parti yang baru yang diberi nama yang sama seperti parti yang beliau bunuh itu semata-mata untuk membina sokongan ramai tanpa pemimpin-pemimpin yang tidak sebulu dengan beliau. Itulah penyebabnya kenapa Tunku Abdul Rahman dan Hussein Onn tidak berada di dalam Umno semasa mereka ini meninggal dunia.

Dr Mahathir ini seperti Kamal Attaturk yang mempunyai sikap, “you do what I ask you to do, don’t do what I do”.

Dr Mahathir tidak konsisten dengan pendirian beliau dan beliau tidak dapat lari dari mengharapkan politik kepartian yang sempit walaupun sudah berada dalam usia yang begitu lanjut. Umno katanya adalah parti yang lemah dan busuk hingga ke usus. Dia juga berkata Umno itu di anggotai oleh orang-orang yang bodoh. Umno juga katanya menggunakan cara membeli undi dengan pembayaran BR1M dan banyak lagi komen-komen buruk yang beliau lemparkan kepada partinya itu.

Tetapi beliau sekarang mundar mandir untuk meminta rakyat memberikan sokongan kepada Umno yang sudah lemah longlai itu. Saya tidak ingin menyebut kenapa beliau menjadi begini, tetapi rakyat faham yang beliau bermasalah jika PR mendapat mandat.

Itulah sebabnya rakyat berharap jika PR mendapat mandat kali ini, jangan sekali-kali melakukan perkara yang dilakukan oleh pemimpin-pemimpin Umno yang di dorong oleh kepimpinan Dr Mahathir selama 22 tahun itu.

Rakyat wajar mengambil keputusan sendiri. Kita telah mendengar nasihat dan galakkan pemimpin seperti Dr Mahathir ini dan telah terbukti membawa padah kepada parti dan negara.

Jika semua nasihat beliau selama itu betul, masakan beliau wariskan Umno yang sedemikian rupa. Beliau bolehlah menyalahkan Pak Lah tetapi kesalahan beliau memilih Pak Lah sebagai pengganti beliau sendiri itu adalah tindakan yang tidak bertanggungjawab. Kerana apa beliau memilih Pak Lah? Kerana beliau sangkakan yang Pak Lah boleh beliau kotak-katekkan seperti yang beliau lakukan terhadap Ghafar Baba dan Najib Razak sekarang ini.

Rakyat mendengar kata-kata beliau yang Umno itu parti yang sudah busuk sampai ke usus, tetapi kerana kepentingan politik peribadi beliau masih ingin Melayu ini berlindung dengan parti ini.

Begitulah nasib bangsa ku. Hanya di gunakan untuk kepentingan politik peribadi pemimpin-pemimpin mereka. Walau sebusuk mana pun parti itu Melayu di minta oleh Dr Mahathir untuk berlindung di bawahnya. — aspanaliasnet.blogspot.com

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 23 September 2012, 9:39 pm and is filed under
Mahathir
,
Najib Razak
,
UMNO
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Ignoring ‘Innocence’

 — A. Lin Neumann

The Malaysian Insider

Sep 23, 2012

SEPT 23 — The “Innocence of Muslims” film controversy, which resulted in riots in the Middle East and the death of the US ambassador to Libya, seemingly exposed the many fault lines between the West and Islam. But that story line has quickly unravelled.

In Indonesia, fortunately, the reaction has been pretty calm. Apart from about a thousand people throwing rocks and Molotov cocktails at the US Embassy in Jakarta and small mobs elsewhere looking to attack McDonald’s and KFC franchises — where no doubt the customers were fellow Muslims — the nation has absorbed “Innocence of Muslims” and wisely decided to let it go. In another week or so it should be forgotten.

In Libya, where Ambassador Chris Stevens died during a riot, a video surfaced showing Libyans entering the smouldering consulate building and trying to rescue Stevens, who was then barely alive. US security people had apparently evacuated the facility and lost track of their own ambassador. So much for us against them and the idea that all of Libya was on a rampage.

In the United States, one of the actresses who appeared in the film is suing the filmmaker for fraud, saying she signed up for something called “Desert Warrior” that had nothing to do with Islam, did not mention the Prophet Muhammad and was later redubbed into “Innocence of Muslims” by the producer, Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, a native Egyptian and Coptic Christian. There goes the vast conspiracy theory.

That the film is beyond trashy and has the production values one might expect from an underfunded high school drama department has been well established. Indeed, I watched parts of the film — here in Indonesia on YouTube, after it was supposedly blocked on the local Internet — and it does not take long to see what a mess it is. It is laughably awful and offensive on many levels, but it is not concerted propaganda from the West or a centralised attack on Islam. It is “hate speech,” not unlike similar efforts from idiotic neo-Nazis or the loony racist fringe in the United States. It is not worth getting worked up about.

I even found myself in the unusual position of nodding in agreement with the Indonesian Council of Ulema (MUI), which said that Muslims should calm down following the violent protests in Jakarta on Monday.

“Muslims should not respond to the movie emotionally. Even if it humiliates and assaults [Islam], we shouldn’t be provoked by other parties and should keep protecting the public interest,” MUI’s Muhyiddin Junaidi said. Which makes me wonder why President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono has put his name behind the idea of a UN protocol banning blasphemy and defamation of religion? Quite apart from the fact that such a protocol would be unenforceable, Indonesia has seen the damage that trying to ban blasphemy can do when it is used to bolster the arguments of extremists who want to impose their view of Islam on others.

No doubt the president has good intentions, but the notion that an international protocol could prevent insults against religion and keep passions in check is an illusion. Like that loony American preacher who wanted to burn the Quran last year, the efforts of this half-baked filmmaker should be roundly denounced as hate-filled and dangerous but protocols would only embolden such behaviour.

It is hard to legislate against stupidity and taking the actions of some renegade American idiots as a justification to impose greater orthodoxy here or anywhere else would be a “cure” that would be worse than the disease. Given the sheer number of competing and contradictory religious views in the world, the last thing we need is anyone trying to prevent hurt feelings through international treaties.

In a vast country like Indonesia, the reaction to the film was by and large muted. Life went on with few incidents, which is how it should be. We get up, we go to work or school, we live our lives — and people like Nakoula Basseley Nakoula should barely matter. By paying attention to a marginal fool like that, we risk putting the court jester on the throne. — Jakarta Globe

* A. Lin Neumann, founding editor of the Jakarta Globe, hosts the “Insight Indonesia” talk show on BeritaSatu TV.

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 23 September 2012, 9:17 pm and is filed under
Islam
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


PM’s blinkered views

— Jaleel Hameed

The Malaysian Insider

Sep 20, 2012

SEPT 20 —Mr Prime Minister sir, where have you been these past few weeks? Why are you still harping on whether your political foes want to change the Jalur Gemilang?

Where are you, sir, when Bernama insulted your popularity by photo-shopping a crowd at your event? Why didn’t you admonish them, sir?

Do you need this kind of magic to show how popular you are? Do you need to talk about the non-story of the opposition trying to replace the national flag?

Why don’t you respond to Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad, sir, who talks about how close you are to buying votes with your programmes like BR1M?

Is the flag issue more important? Or you have been losing the plot and have a delayed reaction to events that has happened in the past two weeks?

Bernama made you look bad, Dr M made you look bad but you want to talk about the flag?

“We see the flag as a symbol of purity and sovereignty of a country.

We harshly condemn anyone involved in such acts,” you said today.

But you don’t condemn those who make you look bad?

Take charge, sir. We need a good leader for Barisan Nasional to win the next elections. At the rate things are going, sir, it doesn’t look that way.

And despite saying Barisan Nasional will score big, there isn’t any sign of an election in the offing. Your Umno general meeting is in November and you are talking about a flag.

We need someone forthright, sir. We need someone on the ball. We don’t need someone who goes on about a flag. That’s an old story, sir.

We don’t need you to be an old story, sir, or with blinkered views. Come on, take charge, Mr Prime Minister.

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 23 September 2012, 11:02 pm and is filed under
Najib Razak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Suhakam should invoke its powers under the Suhakam Act 1999 to protect Suaram from continued government harassment and infringement of human rights in Malaysia

The Human Rights Commission (Suhakam) should invoke its functions and  powers under the Suhakam Act 1999 to protect Suaram from continued government harassment and infringement of human rights in Malaysia.

Two days ago, Suaram said that Suhakam should intervene in the government’s continued harassment of the NGO’s parent company, Suara Inisiatif Sdn. Bhd as they had been continually persecuted by the government and its agencies since July 2012.

Suaram asked, among other things, that Suhakam take a stand on the Minister of Domestic Trade, Co-operatives and Consumerism, Ismail Sabri Yaakob’s overreaching powers in interrupting and influencing investigations by the Companies Commission of Malaysia (CCM) and to acknowledge the normalcy of foreign funding to organisations in Malaysia.

“Suaram is gravely concerned on the overreaching powers displayed the Minister of Domestic Trade, Co-operatives and Consumerism, Ismail Sabri Yaakob in interfering and influencing the on-going CCM investigation on Suaram,” it said.

Global rights watchdog Amnesty International (AI) has rightly pointed out about suspicions over the timing of Putrajaya’s sudden interest in Suaram’s operations, noting that authorities began probing the NGO soon after it revealed that a close associate of Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak had sold Malaysian naval secrets to France.

 AI said in a statement yesterday: “Amnesty is concerned that the recent government actions against SUARAM appear to be linked to the organisation’s legitimate work, in particular a corruption case which it has brought before the French courts.

“The government began these actions against SUARAM four weeks after the organisation disclosed new information from documents made available by the French public prosecutor’s office, which implicate Malaysian officials in the corruption allegations.”

The human rights NGO has been actively pursuing the Scorpene scandal in the French courts, in its campaign to expose government corruption in the multibillion purchase of the submarines in 2009 and possibly reopen the murder case of Mongolian model Altantuyaa Shaariibuu, which has been linked to the deal.

Amnesty said the harassment “appears to be a concerted, multi-departmental government campaign against SUARAM, one of Malaysia’s leading human rights groups”.

“The Malaysian government should respect SUARAM’s right as a human rights organisation to seek and receive funding, rather than abuse its power to intimidate human rights defenders.”

Suhakam should act under Section 4(1) (4) of the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia Act 1999 which vested it with functions “to inquire into complaints regarding infringements of human rights” and Section 4(2)(3)  empowering it “to study and verify any infringement of human rights”.

I also call on the Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak to call off the UMNO/Barisan Nasional war on the civil society and end all harassment and persecution not only on Suaram but other independent-minded human rights NGOs and news portals, like Bersih and Malaysiakini as this is totally inimical to word and spirit of  his “Political Transformation” and pledge to make Malaysia’s the “world’s best democracy”, but also totally alien to the “new politics” recently advocated by Deputy Higher Education Minister Datuk Saifuddin Abdullah which envisaged a positive partnership of government with business and civil society to create a new governance framework.

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 23 September 2012, 5:18 pm and is filed under
civil society/NGOs
,
Human Rights
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


A call for a more constructive media

 ― Bridget Welsh

The Malaysian Insider

Sep 24, 2012

SEPT 24 ― Too much of the reporting on political events within Malaysia is based on fabrications, rather than analysis anchored in research and responsible journalism. There has been noticeable decay in the professionalism of journalists, either from selling out their principles to engage in partisanship, or through the lack of proper mentorship or training.

Some of this is a product of the growing competitive political environment, where formerly more reliable mainstream papers have compromised their integrity for their political masters, while in other cases, the drive to publish the story first and make it the most sensational has comprised the due diligence of proper reporting.

Simple things, such as checking facts and quotes, have gone by the wayside. Worse yet, it has become acceptable for some to publish shoddy work, and rather than be chided for this practice, it is openly encouraged and financially rewarded.

Readers sometimes take what is published at face value, rather than adopting a more discerning approach to what they are reading. Too much of the discussion of politics is tied to misrepresentation and misunderstanding.

It is a time of political transition in Malaysia. The incumbent party that has held onto power since 1957 ― 55 years ― is facing the most competitive polls in history. At a public forum on Monday September 17th in Kuala Lumpur, I explained why based on polling trajectories and fieldwork, the Barisan Nasional (BN) has not regained significant ground since March 2008.

I suggested, however, that voters alone will not decide the electoral outcome. Concerns involve the fairness of the elections. The impact of a widening unlevel electoral playing field is not yet known. We have also seen over the last three years since the March 2008 polls that the situation is very fluid, as Najib Razak’s administration reached a high in support last November and has been declining in popularity since the April Bersih rally, although at varied levels among different communities.

While most Malaysians have decided how they will vote, the middle ground is in flux and has the potential to move again as the campaign evolves.

As such, the election is difficult to call. My own analysis indicates that a third of the seats are extremely close. I pointed to the states of Sabah, Pahang, Perak, Johor and Selangor as the states with highly competitive seats, but argued that every seat will matter in the upcoming General Elections.

The campaign, candidate selection and use of state resources will also shape the final outcome. The majority of my other remarks focused on new trends in voting behaviour, issues that will be presented in future articles.

The quality of the media coverage of the forum raises concerns and provokes a call for greater constructive and responsible dialogue as Malaysia enters new uncertain political terrain. When the forum began, we asked the media to check quotes with speakers and to operate with professionalism.

Instead, a reporter from The Malaysian Insider (TMI) and subsequent media reports by journalists who were not at the event, have distorted the discussion, misquoted remarks and acted irresponsibly. None of the reports on the event have followed the request to check their facts and most of the reports of the event are second- and third-hand reports made from the original flawed report TMI report.

Initially, there were two areas of concern. First of all, the TMI media report of the event focused on the response to the last question of the night in the two-and-a-half hours of discussions, rather than covering the discussion in the meeting as a whole.

The mischaracterization of the forum as a discussion of “casting doubts about Pakatan” was from the onset a distortion. The article’s headline was misleading and not reflective of the proceedings. This is a troubling trend in Malaysian reporting ― a focus on sensationalism rather than substance.

The issues that were discussed covered a range from human rights concerns and Sabah politics to the rising environmental movement and the role of morality in voting.

Second, the TMI report had a number of factual errors. For example, my position to the question whether “Can Pakatan Rule?” was not reported. I clearly stated that “Malaysians voters should decide.” Subsequent interpretations of this inaccurate reporting of my response have been misconstrued to imply that I support one side or another.

My remarks in the forum highlighted the challenges both sides will face in governing. I noted that whoever won the election would face a trust deficit among a share of voters, as Malaysian voters are polarized.

In another example of error, the TMI reporting completely misconstrued the discussion of Dr Mahathir’s legacy on Malaysian politics. My remarks discussed the challenges Umno as a party faced to reform, pointing out that it has not reformed since 2008, and arguing that this had to do in part with the legacy Mahathir left on the party.

I argued that both Tun Abdullah Badawi and Datuk Seri Najib Razak faced difficulties in carrying out reforms due to pressures from this legacy of constraint. The overall context of the discussion was left out of the report and mistakenly interpreted as praise for either Mahathir or Najib. The irony of the errors in the report by TMI is that they completely missed the key points of analysis.

To compound the original problems in the reporting of the forum, other journalists who were not at the event and also did not check their facts used it for their stories. In one column for The Star newspaper by columnist Baradan Kuppusamy, elements in the original article were embellished with such partisan gusto and mischief that it had evolved away from misconstrued reality to fantasy.

To suggest, for example, that the speakers buttressed “Najib’s reformist credentials” is factually incorrect. This is a complete fabrication. My own remarks centred on public concerns with corruption and public perceptions of the lack of substantive reforms. I never used the word “reformist” or “reformer”.

The focus of my remarks was on factors affecting voting behaviour and their possible impact on the next polls. The column is embarrassingly riddled with multiple factual errors, as the columnist was not present at the forum nor did he follow due diligence in checking the facts. It is a sad day when this sort of reporting is paid for.

In the initial TMI report, the reporter was inexperienced, and my original tack was to have a quiet word to encourage better practice. Also some of the original report did accurately account some of the issues that were raised, even if the context was not provided and the headline misleading.

The situation became even more egregious when reporters who did not bother to do any homework opted to use a flawed report as the basis of a story or in at least one case a fable. I understand that in the Malaysian context misreporting is common. It is unfortunately clear that fabrications are also becoming more common as well.

This does not take away from the reality that these practices are wrong and destructive. Media integrity and low standards of professionalism are serious problems and those that are hurt by them are ordinary readers. They are undermining the constructive discussion that is needed to strengthen Malaysia as it moves toward a better future. Malaysians deserve better.

* Editor’s Note: The Malaysian Insider apologises for misrepresentation and errors made in its report of the forum after checking with the reporter’s notes and recording. The news report has been corrected with the full quotes made by Dr Bridget Welsh in the forum to the question that was asked. Once again, our apologies to the speakers in the forum. Thank you
.

* Dr Welsh asked that this comment be appended following the publication of her piece. “Thank you, TMI, for your professionalism, graciousness and constructive response.”

                This entry was posted on Monday, 24 September 2012, 10:55 pm and is filed under
Elections
,
Media
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Scopene Submarines Purchase and Murder Scandal

A brief summary

by Koon Yew Yin

September 24, 2012

Pakatan Rakyat has invited Suaram to talk about the Scopene Submarines Purchase and the Murder scandal at 8PM at Hotel Excelsior , Ipoh on Sunday, 30th Sept 2012. My purpose of writing this summary is to help the attendees understand the talk better. As you know Suaram needs money to do the work for us in exposing the corruption and murder involved. We are expected to donate whatever we like at the admission.

In November of 2009, Suaram, the Kuala Lumpur-based human rights NGO, asked a French investigative law firm to look into what appeared to be huge bribes and kickbacks paid to Malaysian politicians by the French state-owned defence company DCN and its subsidiaries for the 2002 purchase of two submarines and the lease of a third.

The story was complicated by the sensational 2006 death of a Mongolian translator and party girl, Altantuya Shaariibuu, who was shot by two of then-Defense Minister Najib Tun Razak’s bodyguards and her body was blown up with military explosives. While the bodyguards were convicted of her killing, the court appeared to have actively suppressed any mention of who allegedly paid the two to kill her, raising Suaram’s concerns that there would be no justice delivered.

In the intervening three years, Suaram’s request to the law firm, headed by the Paris-based William Bourdon, resulted in a probe that exposed the bribe of about US$200 million paid to Abdul Razak Baginda, a close friend of Najib Tun Razak for the purchase of two submarines costing about US$ 800 million.

Eventually, when a Paris-based investigating magistrate began to examine the evidence, the court turned up voluminous memos, emails and other documents from a raid on DCN’s offices indicating that massive bribes had been paid with the full knowledge of Alain Juppe, the French foreign minister, Dr Mahathir, then the prime minister of Malaysia, and Najib, then the Defence Minister who had negotiated the purchase. The evidence detailed a host of other sleazy dealings.

The bulk of 133 documents came from DCN’s files and they dealt with the Malaysian contacts. They were presented to the court on April 7,2010 by investigators from the anti-organized crime unit of the French Directorate of Judicial Police, not Suaram and not Suaram’s lawyers.

These documents tie Altantuya Shaariibuu to the case despite numerous statements by the critics that she had never visited France or had anything to do with the submarine transaction.

The documents indicate that DCN and its subsidiaries steered the money to two companies controlled by Prime Minister Najib’s best friend, Abdul Razak Baginda, in contravention of the OECD convention on bribery by routing the money through companies controlled by Jean-Marie Boivin, the former DCN finance director, who stepped out of the defence contractor to become the thin wall of insulation between DCN and the Malaysian officials who got the money.

As much as UMNO want to discredit Suaram, they cannot discredit the 133 documents submitted to the French Court . As the next general election is coming soon, UMNO want to stop the spread of this corruption and murder scandal at all cost.

                This entry was posted on Monday, 24 September 2012, 11:48 pm and is filed under
Crime
,
Defence
,
Financial Scandals
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Speaker Pandikar Amin should overrule Nazri’s interference with parliamentary affairs  and order that the Auditor-General’s 2011 Reports should be tabled in Parliament immediately without any delay

The Speaker, Tan Sri Pandikar Amin Mulia, should overrule the blatant interference in  in-house parliamentary matters by the Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department in charge of parliamentary affairs, Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz and order that the Auditor-General’s national audit reports for 2011 be tabled in Parliament immediately without any delay.

The reason given by Nazri that the government will only table the Auditor-General’s 2011 audit reports about a week or two after the 2013 budget is presented  by the Prime Minister-cum-Finance Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak  on Friday is utterly ridiculous, unacceptable and an outrageous affront to the concept and principle of parliamentary independence and autonomy, even in its most attenuated and diluted form after 55 years of encroachments by the UMNO/Barisan Nasional government!

Nazri said the tabling of the Auditor-General’s Reports are being held up so that “it won’t steal the limelight from (debate on) the budget” is totally misconceived, misguided and a blatant abuse of executive power, especially as the annual audit reports by the Auditor-General are an integral and essential part of the annual budget debate by MPs.

Has Najib given Nazri the “green light” or the directive to hold back the Auditor-General’s 2011 Reports a week or two after his Budget 2013 presentation on Friday?

Are  Najib and Nazri afraid that the Auditor-General’s 2011 audit in the Federal Accounts would contain explosive exposes like last year’s RM250 million “cow and condominium” scandal relating to the National Feedlot Corporation which has led to the resignation of one Cabinet Minister and the   postponement at least once of the 13th General Election date?

Whether there are hidden time-bombs in the Auditor-General’s 2011 Report which would not only be most embarrassing but even be most  detrimental to the Najib premiership is a completely extraneous factor which cannot justify the delay in the immediate tabling of the Auditor-General’s annual reports to Parliament when they are ready and available and been handed into the possession and jurisdiction of Parliament.

The Speaker should not allow anyone, be he the Prime Minister or the Minister in the PM’s Department in charge of parliamentary affairs, from interfering with the rights and privileges of MPs to have the Auditor-General’s Reports to be immediately tabled in the House.

                This entry was posted on Monday, 24 September 2012, 4:44 pm and is filed under
Auditor-General Report
,
Good Governance
,
Najib Razak
,
Parliament
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


The Havoc Education Reform Inflicts: Education Blueprint 2013-2025 (Part 2)

by M. Bakri Musa

Second of Five Parts: Quality Schools Begin With Quality Teachers

[In Part One, I discussed the Blueprint’s failure to recognize the diversity within our school system and the need to have different solutions for different constituents. In this Part Two, I discuss the particular challenge of having competent teachers especially in science, English, and mathematics that is not adequately addressed in the report.]

In the 1950s, the headmaster of my Tuanku Muhammad School, Kuala Pilah, lived in a palatial bungalow up on the hill, next to the residence of the District Officer. Two decades later, his successor was renting a modest house from my father, a retired Malay primary school teacher. As for that hilltop house, it is now occupied by a civil servant.

In the 1960s when the Minister of Education visited Malay College he was noticeably deferential to its headmaster. Today, the threat of a visit by a lowly ministry functionary would throw the headmaster and his senior staff into a tizzy.

Those are the realities of the teaching profession in Malaysia today. The folks that produced Education Blueprint 2013-2025 see the world of Malaysian teachers differently. They brag about having 38 applicants for every teaching slot, way over the eight in Finland, acknowledged as having the best schools and teachers.

What gives? Just a few lines away and easily missed by careless readers, the Blueprint reveals that over a third of those applicants lacked even the minimal (and very low) current qualifications. Imagine! The perception students have of the teaching profession is this: If you are not qualified for anything else, apply to be a teacher.

The panel wants to tighten the qualifications so only those in the top third could apply. Great, but how? As a mental exercise, I wonder how many of the current applicants would qualify if the proposed higher standards were to be applied. If the panel had done so, it would realize the magnitude of the problem. They would then be dissuaded from resorting to simplistic solutions as merely raising the entry requirements. The challenge is not with imposing tighter criteria (that could be done simply with a directive) but enticing those top students.

The panel’s approach to the teacher issue is reflective of its collective muddled thinking. Its members are unable to look at data critically or know the limitations even when those figures defy reality and common sense. They are easily mesmerized and be taken in by such silly statistics as over 38 applicants per teaching slot.

Yes, there is a glut of applicants, but only from those in Malay and Islamic Studies. They are unemployable elsewhere. The critical shortage is in science, English, and mathematics (SEM). The focus should thus be on this critical and difficult challenge instead of searching for an overarching solution to all problems, or ones that do not even exist, as with Islamic Studies teachers. And some problems could be solved simply through less meddling from the ministry.

Consider another set of figures cited in the Blueprint: Malaysian teachers have comparable pay to and are treated like their peers outside the profession. Again, reality is far different, as attested to by that headmaster renting a house. Salary figures alone do not tell the whole story, as with that bureaucrat’s house on the hill.

As the Blueprint does not provide actionable recommendations to address this critical shortage of SEM teachers, I put forth mine.

First, I would double their stipends during training. To help defray the costs I would simultaneously reduce the stipends for the others, especially those in Malay and Islamic Studies. We already have a glut of them. If that does not attract enough top candidates, I would sweeten the deal. Guarantee them scholarships to pursue a degree upon graduation from teachers’ college. That would also encourage them to enhance their qualifications to enable them to enter university.

If that still does not attract enough top applicants, then try another tack. I would select from the next tier – those just below the top third – but put them through six months to a year of rigorous “prep” where they would undertake intensive classes in the three subjects. Those who do well would then continue on. Again I would pay them during this “prep” year.

While those thus chosen may not initially be in the top third as per ministry’s criteria, but then as noted earlier, our national examinations do not correlate well with international tests. It may well be that those not currently in the top third by local criteria may be the truly smart ones.

Another factor to attracting top candidates would be to have superior teachers’ colleges. It is a sad commentary that despite the demonstrated critical shortage, only one of the 27 teachers’ colleges is devoted to training science teachers and one for international languages but not English exclusively. It is no better at the universities; not one has a dedicated Department of English. That is the gulf between intent and action, between talk and walk.

The ministry’s perennial training mode is “crash” or short-term culup courses of a few weeks or even days. It proudly proclaimed to have “trained” thousands of such teachers. Ever wonder why our students have abysmal results or why the talented are not attracted to teaching?

Convert a dozen existing colleges into exclusively English-medium for training SEM teachers. This should have been done earlier in preparation for the switch in teaching science and mathematics in English. Had that been done, the initiative would have been more likely to succeed, and we would have spared our children yet another disruptive switch a few years later when we reverted to teaching those two subjects in Malay.

Making those colleges all-English would also help attract top students. Those smart students know that furthering their education in English would expand their career, intellectual, and other horizons. Look at the earlier experiences with Kirby and Brinsford Lodge graduates.

To attract top candidates you also need a first class physical campus and facilities, meaning among other things, not only air-conditioned lecture theaters but also residence halls. I would also give trainees free I-pads or laptops. I would pamper them beyond their college years, as with extra allowances. If they were to serve in rural areas they would get additional allowances that could effectively double their pay. Beyond that I would ensure that they would get first priority for those coveted on-campus quarters and government houses generally.

These tangible recognitions would be far more effective than such things are Tokoh Guru (Champion Teachers) awards and other public ceremonies. Of course it would help if the government were to also recognize outstanding teachers and educators in its civil award lists.

The measures proposed here would produce not only competent SEM teachers but also truly be bilingual ones. And bilingual teachers would produce bilingual students, another stated goal of the Blueprint.

I applaud the Blueprint for advocating greater autonomy and authority for headmasters. However, it would be difficult for them to exercise both when those bureaucrats at the ministry are paid and treated so much better. The Minister of Education in the 1960s was deferential to Malay College’s Ryan not because he was the headmaster rather that as an expatriate he was paid so much more than the minister! That was also the reason why Ryan did not kow tow to those politicians and bureaucrats.

While issues of pay, autonomy and respect are important, those are not the main considerations in opting for teaching. As a former teacher, and as my parents who were longtime teachers demonstrated, the greatest satisfaction is to see the sparkle in your students’ eyes when they learn or discover something new, and the reflected glory you quietly savor on seeing your former students achieve great heights. Consider that as a physician, the best that I could do for my patients is to restore them to their pre-illness state. For a teacher however, there is no limit to the potential achievement of her students.

It is this professional satisfaction that drives teachers. Before they can get to savor that, they first must be treated as true professionals.

Training competent teachers takes time; meanwhile we have an immediate problem in the classrooms with respect to SEM teachers. Specifically for English teachers, Malaysia used to have a big pool of them but we have squandered that precious resource. Attempts at enticing them out of retirement have been marked by incompetence and outward antagonism by those in charge. The reason is obvious. Those retired teachers would put their present colleagues to shame. Thus instead of encouraging them, current headmasters are intent on imposing obstacles.

There is another large pool, native English-speaking spouses of expatriates and Malaysians. They can be trained “on the job” in the manner of the old “Normal” teachers. We need to be flexible and innovative.

One of the Blueprint’s consultants is the former South Korean Minister of Education. I am surprised that he did not recommend for Malaysia to import SEM teachers as South Korea and other (especially Asian) countries are doing. Thailand demonstrates that you do not have to pay exorbitant expatriate pay to recruit them. Malaysia has a small program undertaken jointly with the Fulbright Foundation. I see no reason why we cannot do it independent of American agencies.

Teachers do not operate in a vacuum; good teachers need good schools. My greatest disappointment with this report is its lack of ideas on revamping what is obviously a failing system – our national schools (more on this later). Non-Malays have already abandoned the system; now Malays too are joining them. This failure mocks the Blueprint’s claim to be transformational.

The only innovative idea was liberalizing local enrollment in international schools, but that was done long before this report. Besides, that measure is only the “letting out of steam” to satisfy the elite.

In an earlier book, An Education System Worthy of Malaysia (2003), I proposed charter schools and the decoupling of the identification of vernacular schools with race. Charter schools would get the same financial and other governmental support as national schools but would be free of ministry’s control, especially with respect to the curriculum and medium of instruction. The only stipulation is that their enrollment must reflect the general society and their graduates must be fluent in Malay and English. How that is achieved is left to the genius of the school’s management.

The other is to make Sekolah Jenis Kebangsaan China for example, less of a school for Chinese, more one using Mandarin as its medium of instruction and catering to all Malaysians who desire such an education. Meaning, these schools must make serious efforts at attracting non-Chinese especially Malays, as with having halal canteens and teaching Islamic Studies in Mandarin, as they do in China. Along the same vein, I see no reason why there cannot be Sekolah Jenis Kebangsaan Arab, Inggeris, or even Swahili, supported by the government as long as they attract a broad spectrum of Malaysians.

Having students of all races study and play together would advance the Blueprint’s unity agenda far more effectively than all the other measures combined. As a bonus, diversity in the classrooms enhances the learning environment.

For Malaysia, there is another and very special reason for actively encouraging diversity in the classroom. If we continue with the present trend of self-segregation, we would end up like Northern Ireland. That wretched country has a well-educated populace; alas it is deeply and viciously divided. Malaysia had a taste of its own Northern Ireland not too long ago; we have no wish to repeat that bitter, bloody experience.

Next: Part 3: Quality, Efficiency. Efficacy, And Trimming The Fat

                This entry was posted on Monday, 24 September 2012, 7:31 am and is filed under
Bakri Musa
,
Education
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


To free is to save

― May Chee Chook Ying

The Malaysian Insider

Sep 24, 2012

SEPT 24 ― Civil society is under siege in Malaysia. That does not augur well for a nation, touted by the powers-that-be, to be the best democracy in the world. How on earth can anyone even begin to espouse a democratic way of life if he doesn’t even recognise the role civil society plays? Is this so-called democratic government effective or legitimate, at all?

According to a mainstream newspaper, some RM20 million was poured into 11 organisations in a plot to destabilise the government. RM20 million from genuine benefactors can destabilise the government when hundreds of billions plundered by present and past leaders have gone unchecked?

If at all the present government can be destabilised, it can only come from its own undoing! Don’t go pointing fingers at others. “Sila tepuk dada, tanya selera!”

A large part of humanity lives in darkness, even now in the 21st century. We have seen how, in Tunisia, fruit-seller Mohamed Bouazizi immolated himself to draw attention to police corruption and ill treatment. Will history show that this selfless act of sacrifice as an exercise in vain? I’m no soothsayer but I think history will show, in time, how a solitary act of selflessness and sacrifice will liberate a huge chunk of humanity. It always begins with that solitary act. Always.

When I first started working almost three decades ago, I saw a copy of Aliran on a table in the staff room. What I read both shocked and mesmerised me. The founder himself wrote with such courage and tenacity. I was instantly converted and started to subscribe to Aliran soon after.

From his writings, I learnt about inequality in society. I learnt about how each of us can play our role in bringing about a more equitable Malaysia. I read about how we should demand good governance and how we should hold the government of the day to account.

Now, when I read what “he” has to say, I die a little inside. He was one of those in civil society who could have resurrected our ailing nation to a new life. He could have taught us how to rise up to a tyranny.

Instead now, with what he has to say, he justifies their very existence; to continue to oppress the people he once loved and cared for, so much so that he fought with his every being. I feel as if we have lost a comrade and the world is a little darker now because he has gone to the “other side”.

But I have to thank him for the seed he sowed in me years ago. Thank you for teaching me how to love my neighbour and to stand up to injustice, inequality and untruths. For me, once upon a time, you were the one who could “awaken, animate and impel”. I miss the old you. I really do.

Media funded by political parties can never, ever, play the role of true journalism. So, it’s only proper not to rely on such parties. Malaysiakini and CIJ are right to seek funds from elsewhere to remain independent and to be able to aid projects that promote press freedom in the country and elsewhere.

Their efforts to remain independent and with unbiased reporting, allow the people to make their own informed decisions regarding issues close to their hearts should be lauded. Theirs should be a public forum where conversation, debate and dialogue must be encouraged to bring about a lively democracy. Not one “yang sudah mati pucuk”!

The oppression of rural and urban masses is perpetuated by preventing people from grouping together to discuss and understand their situation, including their rights. This “hidden violence” opposes unity. In my humble opinion, that is the aim and hopeful end result of this present selective persecution by our cowardly powers-that-be.

Yet, I thought I read somewhere that they have delivered and asked to be given one more term to do more. More damage? Are you out of your mind or you do you think I’m out of mine?

Did someone say we need not have a human rights watchdog? You mean you can guarantee that there won’t be any more custodial deaths? Did Kugan, Teoh Beng Hock, and more than a hundred of others die because their lives were worth a lot less than yours?

You know now why we have to continue to support the LFL? Some people are numbskulls, alright!

No one on planet Earth can doubt for a moment, the good works of SUARAM. Only morons, thieves and buyers of submarines that don’t dive! To harass and intimidate those who campaign against corruption and abuses is as good as digging your own grave. Morons, alright!

As for the young movers and shakers in LoyarBurok, to whom the future of Malaysia rightfully belongs to, like I’ve said before, no one can take away the good you do no matter how they spin! Keep up the good work, guys, and do not be intimidated by those who refuse to free their minds, bodies or souls. Those who are held captive by their office and ambitions. Those little people.

I would have left out many others who have done a lot and are still doing a lot for society, at large. Please forgive me this transgression of mine but know that there are many of us out there who can’t do without you people. We are eternally grateful to all of you who are in civil society and other organizations who do your bit to watch over us and give us hope for a better tomorrow.

Those of you who through your good work, help us to understand and advance ourselves; to grow . Those of you who deny yourself time and privilege to educate our conscience. Those of you who through your own example, guide, influence and give us a direction in life.

Be comforted in the fact that those who love the truth will recognize the truth. I’ve faith that most Malaysians do and to them, you are our towering Malaysians. Syabas to all of you!

This is an exceptional moment. We, fellow Malaysians, share the same history and like it or not, we must accept a common destiny.

For Malaysia’s true destiny to be given the chance to be played out, we must overcome our very own insecurities and not to be divided by our inherent differences.

We must not be afraid. We must, be like those above, stand our ground and remain steadfast. Demand that we be a free people, the way we are supposed to be. To give the present government another term is to delay our very own resurrection; to rise to a new life, living with integrity, dignity and in truth.

We must know our goal, walk towards it, achieve our truth and arrive at life. We will orient our own history, not stooges who repeatedly fail us.

To free is to save. Let’s free Malaysia. Let’s save our motherland. Have faith and God bless.

                This entry was posted on Monday, 24 September 2012, 11:16 pm and is filed under
civil society/NGOs
,
Elections
,
Teoh Beng Hock
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Umno provoking state conflict to destroy opposition

 ― Koon Yew Yin

The Malaysian Insider

September 24, 2012

SEPT 24 ― The latest dirty trick in Umno’s attempt to destroy the present Pakatan Rakyat government in Selangor has just been unveiled by the Pahang Mentri Besar Adnan Yaakob, after he opened the mini Maha programme at Dataran Bentong recently. This comes in the form of the threat to review its planned sale of raw water to Selangor if the Pakatan Rakyat continues to rule that state.

“We want a review and may even opt to cancel the agreement as the Selangor government appears not to be interested in proceeding with the deal,” said Adnan.

“Initially, we agreed to sell raw water to Selangor at 10 sen per cubic metre but if Pakatan retains the state in the next elections, we would need to review the price. The agreed price with Selangor earlier was at the time it was under the Barisan Nasional.”

According to the Pahang MB, “if Pakatan is taking charge, we may increase it to RM1 per cubic metre.”

To most Malaysians and me, this is the worst type of blatant political blackmail. How can a political leader with any integrity engage in such threats? How dare the mentri besar use the basic necessity of water as a political football?

It is very apparent that Umno with its Barisan Nasional cronies are scraping the bottom of the barrel in their dirty tricks to retain power in the coming elections.

It is not a surprise that present on the occasion of the Pahang Mentri Besar’s threat were Agriculture and Agro-based Industry Minister Noh Omar and Health Minister Liow Tiong Lai. The latter incidentally is also Deputy MCA president and Bentong MP. The Barisan Nasional objective is clear and it is to intimidate the rakyat of Selangor – the crown jewel among state governments – into voting against the Pakatan Rakyat.

Unfortunately for Adnan Yaakob, he has underestimated the quality and good sense of our voting public in Selangor and also all over the country. If he thinks that such fear mongering and scare tactics will work, he is living on another planet. I am confident that not only will our Selangor rakyat not be intimidated by this despicable political manoeuvre but also that it will backfire badly on the BN. The days when our voters can be bullied and hoodwinked are over as the coming elections will surely demonstrate once and for all.

To the MCA, the message that it is disgusting and unacceptable that they permit themselves to be part of this political hooliganism must be sent out loud and clear. I predict that this will be the final nail in the MCA’s coffin as they go round the country during election campaigning and are asked the question: why are you supporting the Pahang Mentri Besar when he threatens to raise the water agreement price ten times more from 10 sen to one ringgit per cubic metre just because there is a different state government in power?

Besides this unprecedented act of political blackmail aimed at the electorate, the public should also be alert to the way in which the Barisan Nasional is pitting one state against another. This strategy of fostering animosity and conflict among states has never before happened. Yes, there has been rivalry and disagreement between states. But these differences in the past have been carefully negotiated, and ethical standards of political conduct have been maintained.

Ours is a constitutional system of federalism in which state rights and autonomy are paramount and should be respected. This irresponsible and destabilizing threat by Adnan Yaakob introduces a new element of political instability. This is because federal dominance is not only pursued through the arbitrary concentration of power at the federal level but also sought through the use of state governments acting as proxies to undermine and destroy opposition held states. I hope the legal and constitutional experts in this country can take this issue up and address it without fear.

There is one other issue in relation to the water war being waged by the Barisan which needs to be put out in the public sphere for scrutiny. Adnan disclosed that in earlier negotiations with former Selangor mentri besar Khir Toyo, Pahang had agreed to lower the price from 15 sen to 10 sen per cubic metre in exchange for a share in the water treatment plant. Even at the price of 10 sen per cu m. Selangor is expected to pay Pahang RM70 million a year. If the price is increased to one ringgit per cu m. Selangor is expected to pay Pahang RM700 million a year. Imagine the consumers have to pay this amount! That is why Mentri Besar Khalid Ibraham is doing whatever he can to protect the Selangor consumers.

The proposed Langat water treatment plant has billions of ringgit of associated contracts to be given out – the project itself is estimated to cost RM8.5 billion. Who are these contracts being given out to? Who will benefit from the Pahang state government’s share? Is the Pahang share and concern with the contracts the real reason for the extraordinary action of the Pahang mentri besar in twisting the arm of the Selangor state government?

Selangor consumers should not worry: Finally Selangor consumers need to be reassured that there are other cheaper sources of water as pointed out in my earlier article.

There is no urgency to develop a new source of water supply.

Mentri Besar Khalid Ibrahim is right in resisting the Langat white elephant which the Federal Government and its cronies are seeking to impose on the state.

                This entry was posted on Monday, 24 September 2012, 10:40 pm and is filed under
Elections
,
Selangor
,
UMNO
,
Water
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Apologise NST

By Martin Jalleh

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 25 September 2012, 6:08 pm and is filed under
Martin Jalleh
,
Media
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Bruno Manser Fund asking for global bank freeze on Taib assets

 — CPI

The Malaysian Insider

Sep 25, 2012

SEPT 25 — The Bruno Manser Fund (BMF) is a well-connected international organisation “committed to maintaining the threatened tropical rainforests with their rich plant and animal life, and to campaigning, in particular, for the rights of the peoples who inhabit the rainforests” with an especial focus on Sarawak.

One of the BMF principals — its eponymous founder Bruno Manser — was a Swiss activist who lived in Sarawak with the Penan between 1984 and 1990. He famously disappeared without trace in May 2000 after his last journey to the state.

The rich and infamous

BMF recently conducted an investigation into the wealth of Sarawak Chief Minister Taib Mahmud and his family. These family members include:

•    Taib’s brother, Onn Mahmud, who is rated the clan’s second richest after the Sarawak CM himself;

•    Taib’s elder son, Mahmud Abu Bekir Taib, who is being sued his pants off in the divorce court by his ex-wife (the sister of singer Sheila Majid);

•    His Canada-based socialite daughter, Jamilah Taib Murray;

•    Another brother Tufail Mahmud;

•    Sister Raziah Mahmud;

•    Daughter Hanifah, and;

•    Son Sulaiman

Hamed Sepawi, founder of the Ta Ann timber conglomerate and Sarawak Energy chairman, is a first cousin of the Sarawak Chief Minister.

Malaysians incensed and agog

The BMF findings, which describe in detail the business activities and personal wealth of 20 members of the Taib family, have been given attentive coverage by our local internet media, though the mainstream and official media have responded with a deafening silence.

Malaysiakini is a paid subscription news site but due to the huge public interest has made its story headlined ‘Groundbreaking study details Taib’s US$21bil empire’ (http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/209353) freely accessible.

Its reporting of the BMF “groundbreaking study” on the Taib family empire has been the most viewed story for three consecutive days and sparked a large number of (almost exclusively favourable) comments by Malaysiakini readers.

Malaysiakini further added that the revelation on Sarawak Chief Minister Taib Mahmud as the richest man in Malaysia “does not surprise the majority of Sarawakians”.

Another news portal Free Malaysia Today ran two stories (here (http://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/nation/2012/09/19/taib-is-worth-rm45b-believe-it-or-not/) and here (http://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/nation/2012/09/19/freeze-taibs-accounts-govts-told/) ) on the issue last week, prompting more than 1,000 of its readers to express their outrage against Taib’s obscene wealth by marking ‘Angry’ in the website’s interactive feedback column.

Rainforest devastated by political and timber mafia

The extraordinary Taib wealth is a subject of much interest — not only to those who have long called for an independent inquiry into its source — but also to the global environmental movement which has been monitoring the rape and pillage of the ancient Sarawak rainforest.

Borneo’s rainforest at 130 million years old is the oldest in the world. However, in the mere blink of an eye (a timespan equivalent to Taib’s chief ministership), human greed and heavy logging has caused a most devastating deforestation.

It is the widespread international interest in this irreparable loss to the planet’s bio-diversity that will cause increasing pressure to mount on Sarawak and Malaysia.

At the same time, the accumulation of the Taib clan’s fabulous wealth has raised many allegations of corruption and abuse of power.

It is a speculation that resurfaced and intensified again recently when on September 20, BMF released its report on the occasion of a visit by Minister of Plantation Industries and Commodities, Bernard Dompok, to the European Commission in Brussels.

While the report ‘The Taib timber mafia: Facts and figures on politically exposed persons from Sarawak, Malaysia’ became major stories in the alternative media, “the government-controlled print and electronic media have remained absolutely silent on the issue”, said BMF in an e-mail communication to its NGOs network.

On the back of the “tidal waves” created by its painstakingly researched ‘timber godfather’ report, BMF is asking governments and banks around the world
to freeze the Taib family assets
.

“The Taibs are being compared to the Suharto and Marcos clans who have also stolen billions from their countries,” said BMF in their
website
.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 25 September 2012, 7:50 pm and is filed under
Corruption
,
environment
,
Sarawak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Koon Yew Yin scholarships

By Koon Yew Yin

Updated : 27 Feb 2014

All students, irrespective of race and religion who have secured a place to study for the foundation course in any of the public Universities in Malaysia, including UTAR, are eligible to apply for scholarships from Koon Yew Yin.

The scholarship provided will be sufficient to cover tuition fees and cost of living expenses for the one-year foundation course.

On successful completion of the foundation course, the students will be required to apply for the government PTPTN loan to complete the degree courses chosen by them.

Conditions:

Scholarships will only be given to needy students whose parents are earning less than RM3,000 per month. Applicants must have passed SPM with at least 5A.

Scholarship recipients after completion of their degree courses are not required to compensate in any way for the financial support received. The only condition is that they will have to promise to help other poor students when they themselves are financially secure and in a position to help the unfortunate and needy.

 All applications should be sent to the address below with appropriate parents’ salary or pay vouchers or other evidence of income as well as offer letters from the universities. For students with parents engaged in self employment, a letter of reference from a school teacher or official on the financial status of the parents will be sufficient.

The selection criteria is based on applicant’s financial need and not on academic achievement.

Contact by post to

Mrs Koon Yew Yin

65, Lingkaran Meru Valley,

Meru Valley Golf Resort,

30020 Ipoh

Perak

Or contact by email:
[email protected]

Note:  I have given more than 250 scholarships to help poor students to complete their tertiary education. The attached photos taken during the recent Chinese New Year celebration, shows some of the graduates who benefitted from my scholarships.

This is how I want to spend my money effectively to create happiness. Just see how happy they all are. When they are happy, I am happy.

Remember, after you have made more money than you really require, you must not forget that you cannot take it away when you die. You must do charity and create happiness which is our ultimate aim in life.

Among these graduates, standing 3rd from the right is Wan Pui Yee with 9A1 and 2A2 in SPM and sitting 3rd from right is Andrew Tan with 10A1 in SPM. Both of them could not get scholarships from the Government. They would have gone to Singapore if I did not offer them my helping hand.

If you know of poor students who need financial help, please tell them to apply.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 25 September 2012, 11:15 am and is filed under
Education
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Leadership lessons in Jakarta pave way for 2014 election

 — Pitan Daslani

The Malaysian Insider

Sep 24, 2012

SEPT 24 — Joko Widodo’s victory in the Jakarta gubernatorial election has caused many politicians to re-examine their approach in representing the people’s wishes.

The victory of the governor-elect, known as Jokowi, has vindicated a new theory that many of Indonesia’s major political parties actually do not connect with their constituencies.

Although they claim to represent millions of voters, the biggest irony in Indonesia today is that when it comes to electing a new leader, political parties’ aspirations contradict the wants of the people they represent.

This extreme conclusion emerged during the Jakarta gubernatorial election. When the ruling Democratic Party joined forces with the Islam-based United Development Party (PPP), National Mandate Party (PAN), Prosperous Justice Party (PKS) and Golkar Party to support Fauzi Bowo, the challenger’s camp reacted humbly.

Megawati Sukarnoputri, chairwoman of the Indonesian Democracy Party of Struggle (PDI-P) said that she was “being mobbed by the big players.”

Her candidate, Jokowi, reacted to the establishment of the big coalition by saying that he would “set up a coalition with the people” because he believed that “people power would be enough” to confront the power of the big coalition.

People power

Based on the result of the first round of voting on July 11, it looked like Fauzi would win the runoff because PKS, PPP and Golkar had joined the ruling party’s coalition and, theoretically, their followers would vote for Fauzi in the runoff.

The coalition did not understand that those who voted for Fauzi during the first round could easily change their minds and go against him in the second round. The politicians did not understand that voters made their choices, not because they believed in the dictates of the political parties, but because they were smart and politically mature enough to use sound rationale and good political logic.

The politicians thought that Jakarta voters were the kind of people who could easily be misled and persuaded to buy into their ethnic and religious slurs.

They were wrong. Most of the voters refused to cast their votes based on religious and ethnic considerations. Even at the polling stations near the homes of Fauzi and his running mate, Nachrowi Ramli, most of the native Betawi voters opted for Jokowi and his running mate, Basuki “Ahok” Tjahaja Purnama. Ahok is a Christian of Chinese ethnicity, but his background did not matter to Muslim voters who constitute the majority of Jakarta’s population.

Learning their lesson

The first lesson that political parties need to learn is that voters are too smart to be fooled. They will abandon political parties that fail to understand what they want.

The most important characteristic of an increasingly prosperous society is that people want change and they want it to happen quickly to ensure justice, transparency, social solidarity and a better life.

The fast expansion of the middle class means that politicians need to redefine their approach to this economically powerful and welleducated segment of society lest they be abandoned. Outdated postures as well as ethnic and religious slurs come as an insult to such a level of society.

The second lesson that needs to be learned is that society wants a new generation of leaders. Old public figures will not “sell” well now because the Jakarta election, as the barometer for Indonesia, has produced young leaders with whom most of the voters, especially young people, associate themselves. Young voters look at Jokowi and Ahok as “one of us.” Jokowi was born in 1961 and Ahok in 1966.

The third lesson politicians must now learn is that today’s Indonesian voters hate bossy, bureaucratic-looking, aristocrat-like public figures running for office.

Such candidates will not be seen as “one of us” by the majority of voters whose new belief in democracy and human rights has torn down the walls that separated the haves from the have-nots. Jokowi’s humble lifestyle was more powerful than anything money could create as a magnet to attract public sympathy.

Instead of giving the people money to support him, it was the people who voluntarily supported Jokowi in many ways. Even in his speech immediately after the announcement of his quick-count victory, Jokowi told supporters that he had nothing to give them right away but would work for the sake of Jakarta’s citizens and make sure that “nobody would be left behind.”

The fourth and most notable lesson from Jokowi’s victory is that money politics did not work here. Voters did not expect money from Jokowi, they only wanted a leader who could introduce change and live among them. So, it is political parties and transactional politicians who are spoiling society with money in order to satisfy their short-term selfish ambitions.

The fifth lesson for political parties comes from the televised gubernatorial candidate debates. Voters don’t like to see officials exhibiting a defensive — as if flawless — posture. At one point during the first debate on JakTV, Jokowi used the phrase, “according to a stupid person like me … ” when he criticised Fauzi’s transportation policy.

Only a humble leader like Jokowi can do that. Public figures who hail from upper segments of society and who do no mingle with the lower walks of life would avoid using such a phrase because they think it would downgrade their image. That is wrong. Jokowi proved that by expressing such a humble remark, he drew millions of people to his camp with his humility.

A new lesson now is that in politics, arrogance is your biggest enemy and being defensive the quickest way to reveal your dishonesty and lack of self-awareness. Fauzi is actually a great leader, a smart architect who received a doctorate in Germany, specialising in city planning. But in terms of political communication, he failed to impress voters.

So, the sixth lesson politicians need to learn is that the power of a true campaign lies not in your appearance in front of the people’s eyes but in communicating with their hearts.

Ours is a society fraught with hypocrisy. Appearing defensively flawless — the ultimate goal of all the image-building campaigns — is a confirmation of the opposite. People don’t believe in appearances today. They believe in being one’s self, transparent and humble.

A brand new day

A new awareness is now growing in society that a true leader is one who serves rather than one who seeks to be served. Jokowi knows this very well and puts it into practice.

But we must also acknowledge Fauzi’s political maturity. He called Jokowi right after learning of his defeat and congratulated his challenger. This is the right attitude that must be socialised among political leaders. Objectivity and patriotism in politics as such must be perpetuated in our culture.

The Jakarta election represents a huge political mirror for all the big parties to examine themselves. If they don’t make adjustments, voters will abandon them.

This is a prelude to the presidential election in 2014. — The Jakarta Globe

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 25 September 2012, 12:17 am and is filed under
Politics
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Suaram, Scorpene, Altantuya dan dana asing

— Aspan Alias

The Malaysian Insider

Sep 24, 2012

24 SEPT — Isu Suaram dengan tuduhan terhadapnya mendapat bantuan dana asing hebat dimainkan oleh pihak BN. Selepas ini tidak tahu apa pula yang akan dihadapi oleh Suaram dan NGO-NGO yang lain yang tidak sebulu dengan pihak yang berkuasa. Najib berkata biarkan pihak yang berkuasa melakukan penyiasatan. Katanya, lagi kurang kita bercakap lagi baik.

Tindakan berkuasa terhadap Suaram bukanlah satu isu mengejutkan kerana Suaram membuatkan ada pihak yang “mandi tak basah dan tidur tidak lena” dibuatnya. Suaram ada isu yang besar yang diketengahkannya dan ia melibatkan pemimpin-pemimpin dan kroninya dalam isu komisyen pembelian Scorpene yang besar itu. Isu komisyen itu menghasilkan pembunuhan Altantuya Shaariibuu, seorang wanita jelita yang dikatakan berkaitan dengan pemimpin besar negara kita.

Isu Altantuya tidak dapat tidak terpaksa dibongkar. Isu pembayaran komisyen Scorpene dan Altantuya itu kait mengait dan kedua-dua isu itu tidak dapat dipisahkan jika kita mahu menyiasat salah satu darinya. Siasat satu akan melibatkan lagi satu isu dan kedua-dua isu itu merupakan isu yang akan membabitkan tindakan jenayah pihak-pihak tertentu yang berada di atas persada kuasa negara kita.

Jika isu penyaluran dana asing itu benar-benar salah ia mestilah ada peruntukan yang menunjukkan yang penerimaan itu salah mengikut undang-undang kita. Saya bukan seorang peguam dan saya tidak tahu untuk membuat komen terhadap isu penyaluran dana asing itu.

Tetapi Suaram mesti teruskan meneliti tentang penyaluran wang rakyat terhadap penerima rasuah dan kroni kepimpinan yang terlibat seperti yang disebut-sebut bukan sahaja oleh kita tetapi juga oleh masyarakat antarabangsa. Isu Scorpene dan Altantuya ini juga satu penyaluran dana dari kantung rakyat kepada kumpulan yang tamak haloba yang sanggup menjahanamkan wang rakyat yang bersusah-payah membayar cukai kepada perbendaharaan negara.

Jika Suaram menghadapi isu ini, ia adalah disebabkan tindakannya untuk membongkar penyelewengan dan jenayah negara. Malahan isu yang dibawa oleh Suaram sehingga ke negara Perancis, negara yang membekalkan kapal selam Scorpene itu adalah lebih penting, apatah lagi jika ia membabitkan isu kehilangan nyawa seorang wanita yang berkait dengan pembelian kapal selam yang suatu ketika dahulu tidak dapat menyelam itu.

Orang ramai merasakan oleh kerana ketelusan pentadbiran kerajaan Perancis itu maka tidak ada apa-apa yang akan dilindungi dan ia akan membolehkan kita menyelami segala isu-isu yang berbangkit tentang jenayah yang berlaku dalam skandal besar ini.

Rakyat jangan terbawa-bawa dengan tindakan pihak berkuasa di sini kerana tindakan terhadap Suaram itu tidak lain dari isu hendak memalingkan pandangan dan tumpuan rakyat terhadap isu yang sangat sensitif ini.

Kita dapati Suaram mendapat sokongan moral dari banyak NGO-NGO tanahair kerana Suaram begitu berani untuk membongkar isu Scorpene ini hingga ke akar umbinya. Rakyat mahu tahu apa sebenarnya yang menyebabkan isu ini timbul dan kenapa sampai ada nyawa yang melayang kerananya.

Pembunuh kepada Altantuya telah pun mendapat keputusannya ia itu, mereka dijatuhkan hukuman mati, tetapi apa yang tidak langsung disebut dalam perbicaraan itu ialah “motive” pembunuhan itu.

Kita mahu tahu apa sebenarnya yang berlaku. — aspanaliasnet.blogspot.com

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 25 September 2012, 7:45 am and is filed under
civil society/NGOs
,
Corruption
,
Defence
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


10 big questions to ask about Pengerang

— Thomas Fann

The Malaysian Insider

Sep 25, 2012

SEPT 25 — On May 13, 2011, PM Najib announced that Petronas will invest RM60 billion in a major integrated refinery and petrochemical complex in Pengerang, Johor. The Refinery and Petrochemicals Integrated Development (RAPID) project by Petronas, as it is known, is expected to be commissioned by the end of 2016, as part of the national oil company’s efforts to expand its downstream production.

Exactly a year later on May 13, 2012, when the RAPID project was officially launched, the total value is now RM120 billion, with expected investments from Taiwanese and German petrochemical companies, easily making this Pengerang project the biggest-ever in the history of this nation.

In the midst of all the excitement and promises of economic benefits to the state of Johor and the nation, there has been some disquiet amongst the Pengerang community. Local NGOs were formed and had submitted memorandums to various authorities and several protests were organised this year.

It would be wrong to say that these NGOs and the people they represent are against any form of development in Pengerang but what many are concerned about is that it has to be sustainable. These local NGOs have adopted a unifying theme — Kekalkan Pengerang Lestari, or Maintain the Sustainability of Pengerang. Development of such scale must be embarked upon with regards for the people affected by it and be done responsibly to minimise its impact on the environment.

We have to ask honest questions and hear honest answers to these questions so that the concerns of not just the Pengerangites but also Malaysians are allayed.

There are many issues and questions to ask but I want to list down 10 big questions to ask the government about this massive project.

Question 1: The RAPID Project requires 6,424 acres of land but why is the Johor government using the Land Acquisition Act 1960 to acquire 22,500 acres of land? We hope a plausible and detailed explanation for its justification is forthcoming so that the government would not be accused of using Rapid as an excuse to grab land from the ordinary people of Pengerang.

Question 2: What is going to happen to the fishermen and smallholders who would have lost their means of livelihood? There are about 3,100 residents within the seven villages affected, who earned a living as fishermen and smallholders. Though some argued that 40,000 jobs would be created during the construction phase and 4,000 by the time the projects are completed in 2016, the reality are for many of these affected fishermen and farmers, it would be difficult for them to work in these new jobs because their skills are different.

Question 3: It has been reported that licensed fishermen are being offered RM30,000 compensation whilst unlicensed ones are offered half that amount. Smallholders with 1-2 acres land are offered between RM65,000 and RM105,000 for their land. As a “sweetener”, the Johor government is offering “subsidised” alternative housing on 6,000 sq ft of land with built-up area between 750 and 1,600 sq ft. The discounted prices the villagers would have to pay for these houses range from RM35,000 to RM105,000. In short, they would have given up their 1-2 acres of land and houses in exchange for 6,000 sq ft of land with a house on it, some 15-20km away, with little or no money in their pocket and no land to earn a living. I am told many of these lands are shared between several siblings in the first place, thus, after dividing the compensation they won’t even be able to afford the “subsidised” housing. Is this a fair deal?

Question 4: Why is our government so keen to welcome KuoKuang Petrochemical of Taiwan when they have been rejected by their own country? Again, like the Lynas case, is our government telling us that Malaysian lives are worth not only less than the Australian but also now, less than the Taiwanese? We have to understand why the Taiwanese people were so against KuoKuang before we welcome them into our land.

Question 5: Is it true that a petrochemical plant the scale of Rapid would need massive amount of processed water a day to operate, almost 75 per cent of Johor’s current daily consumption? If this is true, wouldn’t it cause acute water shortages in Johor? Have the government foresaw this and made plans to increase the supply of processed water for the state?

Question 6: Apart from consuming large quantity of water, it would also need large quantity of electrical energy? If not, has the government made plans to increase the energy output in Johor? Has this got anything to do with the rumoured nuclear power plants to be setup in Pengerang? What would our neighbour across the straits have to say about this, especially in the light of the recent Fukushima nuclear disaster?

Question 7: In May 2009, during a visit to Singapore, PM Najib proposed to his counterpart PM Lee that a third link be built linking Pengerang to Singapore. When would this proposal be followed-up with another announcement? Would it be after all the land near this third link has been acquired and parceled to third party companies so that they can make a killing?

Question 8: Currently, the Department of Environment (DOE) requires developers to submit the EIA report. This report is paid for by the developers, in this case Petronas. Can we trust the glowing DEIA (Detailed Environmental Impact Assessment) report by Integrated Envirotect Sdn Bhd? Isn’t it a case of “he who pays the piper calls the tune”? Shouldn’t an independent panel of local and international experts be appointed to do the DEIA so that the integrity of the report would not be compromised and the truth of potential environmental impact can be known?

Question 9: It is oppression to the local communities when you unilaterally announce a major development without consultation. That was what happened in Pengerang. When PM Najib made the announcement in May 2011, it was said that even the local state assemblyman was clueless, let alone the villagers. Free, prior and informed consent (FPIC) is an approach outlined in international human rights law and declarations. It recognises the right of local affected people to be consulted, and to negotiate with, project developers on the impact of a project on their community. Have the voices of the Pengerang people being heard?

Question 10: For all the claims of huge economic benefits these petrochemical projects would bring to this country, we hear that the Taiwanese company, KuoKuang Petrochemical will be given a tax holiday of 10 years! Their government rejected them and ours give them this incentive to move here. While we, the taxpayer pay our government to look after us, hazardous foreign companies are invited into our country to pollute us tax-free, denying us probably billions in taxes which could have bee used to clean up the environment and improve health care here. What is going on here?

In Conclusion…

What do we value in our society? Have we come to a point where everything is valued by ringgit and sen? If a project is valued at RM120 billion, then it is more valuable than the rights of people, our heritage, creatures under our care, our floral and fauna, and the environment? If so, how are we different from the prostitute who offers herself to the highest bidder?

As Malaysians, we are concern with what is happening in Pengerang not because it could directly impact us but because it could be our homes and livelihood that would be taken next. What we are confronting is not an isolated situation but a systemic problem of lack of transparency, disregards for the people’s rights and the environment.

These are honest questions that are in need of answers from the only people who can answer them — the government. We hope that honest answers will be forthcoming in the days to come. We hope that the declaration “Rakyat didahulukan, Pencapaian diutamakan” (People first, Performance now) is more than an empty slogan when it comes to Pengerang.

But for now, myself and thousand others will be attending Himpunan Hijau Lestari Pengerang on September 30 because we are seeking answers and standing in solidarity with our fellow Malaysians in Pengerang. For more information, you can visit www.hijau.info.

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 26 September 2012, 12:20 am and is filed under
environment
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Budget 2013: What do we want and what can we afford?

— Ramon Navaratnam

The Malaysian Insider

Sep 25, 2012

SEPT 25 — Budget 2013, I am sure, will be one of the most difficult to design and to present to the people and Parliament come Budget  Day this Friday Sept 28. I’ve done this many times before, so I think I would know!

This Budget is crucial for many reasons. Firstly, we are facing global economic decline and considerable uncertainty that can adversely affect our socioeconomic outlook. Secondly, the 13th General Elections are looming and voters want and think they can get more from this Budget. Thirdly, more so now, there is a major conflict between two perennial Budget issues — what people want and what can we afford.

Government is now faced with the exacting challenge of wanting to please the voters in an Election Budget and protecting the integrity of the Budget and indeed the sustainability of the economy itself. The Budget will thus have to strike a clever balance that will not easily please everyone — the people and the foreign financiers.

On the Macro front, we must take into account the rising concerns of the international Rating Agencies, the World Bank and the IMF which will be closely watching to see how we manage these conflicting demands on the Budget.

We can all merrily ask for more perks, tax concessions, subsidies and even more spending to make us all feel good and happy. But we have to think of the impact of more “giveaways” on the overall health of the economy. We have to remember our overriding need to control the widening Budget Deficit and the Debt Burden which have been rising rapidly and weighing down on the confidence in the economy in the longer term.

For instance the longer term implications of an unduly populous Budget that can lead to down grading of our financial rating by Fitch and/or Standard & Poor’s or even the IMF can be serious. Just as importantly foreign Investors would want to be assured that the economy is being well managed with greater prudence and fiscal discipline.

Hence, we have to aim to reduce the Budget Deficit and the Federal Budget Debt and the National Debt as well in this Budget 2013.

So, then how would Government also meet the rising expectations of the Rakyat especially in an Election Budget?

An important strategy of the Budget should seek to give greater priority to fight Inflation. Prices are rising for several reasons. When the supply of goods and services decreases, prices increase. So the Budget should break more bottlenecks in the supply chain of these goods and services. The Budget should remove more taxes and administrative constraints on small businesses. The economy should be further liberalised without imposing too many controls on land for cultivation of food and in granting licenses and approvals and quotas for small and medium businesses that are the backbone of our economy.

Budget expenditure should also be more stringently managed to get more real value for taxpayers’ money and the borrowings which have to be paid back with interest. Unemployment and unemployable graduates are becoming major problems. This is largely due to the poor and unsuitable kind of education we provide. Instead of churning many unemployable graduates from our public supported schools and universities, more Budget allocations for academic education should be diverted, to technical education to produce productive technicians who are more employable and who can even run their own business!

The Budget Strategy should adopt a Basic Human Needs approach. It should provide more funds for Housing, Transport, School expenses, reduced Utility Rates. The Budget could allocate more funds for 1 Malaysia Health Clinics, shops for low-priced clothing and a whole range of Basic Needs that are consumed by the poor and low-income groups from the lowest 40 per cent of our population.

The Budget could lessen the Subsidies that are now also enjoyed by the high-income groups. Surely the higher income groups like professionals and managers and big businessmen do not need petrol and other subsidies as well as scholarships for their children. Let the Budget look after the poor and encourage the rich to look after themselves. After all big business particularly foreign Investors and multinationals enjoy much more in terms of incentives and tax concessions.

But how do we finance these basic needs for the poor? The Budget has to ensure that we get more bang for the taxpayers’ buck! The taxpayers’ money has to be more efficiently spent through more genuine tendering of contracts, the drastic cut down in corruption, and the removal of inefficient contractors and developers. They short-change the Budget and worse still, the public. For example, houses can be less expensive if there are fewer “abandoned housing schemes”, caused by unscrupulous and unqualified contractors.

Tax evasion and avoidance can be reduced to increase Budget Savings, to narrow the deficit and debt. The General Sales Tax (GST) can be introduced so as to apply mainly to goods and services consumed by the rich and not the poor and low-income groups. The tax base can thus be widened to get more to pay taxes. Approved Permits should be scrapped and auctioned instead, to free the market, raise revenues and increase confidence in fighting wasteful protectionism.

Tax relief for the lower-income groups can be increased without too much adverse effects on the Budget Revenue. In any case, this is also the role of the Budget, to help promote better income distribution by raising the disposable income of the low-income groups. The Income Gaps are widening and the Government has to address this yawning problem more carefully, before it causes social problems as in many other restless societies.

The Development Expenditure could be reduced or slowed down, to reduce the Budget deficits and debt burden. This can be done as we did before, through a managed go slow on some low priority, non urgent and even “Prestige Projects” that can be phased out over a longer period, to protect the Budget’s integrity.

Finally, Budget 2013 can meet the challenges and conflicts that we face, if we give greater priority to meet the basic needs of the poor and low-income groups, raise our standards of discipline in revenue and expenditure management and thus go all out to obtain lower a Budget deficit and a reduced debt burden.

The Budget will then make us all feel good and at the same time enable our continued socioeconomic stability, and prosperity on a more sustainable basis in the longer term.

Happy Budget Day!

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 26 September 2012, 8:14 am and is filed under
Budget Debate
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.