Muhyiddin is just being honest

By
Rama Ramanathan
 | June 11, 2012

The Malaysian Insider

JUNE 11 — Tomorrow my wife and I leave Malaysia so that I can take up a short-term assignment abroad. As I said in my last post, we struggle over whether, as citizens, we are doing the right thing. We are after all Malaysians. We don’t think of any other country as our home. Politicians in no other countries care about our votes.

After I paid a few hundred US dollars, India recognised me as a Person of Indian Origin (PIO) — this means I don’t need a visa to enter India. But this is only in order to encourage me to transfer funds to India, which I have not done. I don’t have voting rights in India. Why should I? I care more about Malaysia than I do about India!

I do have voting rights in Malaysia, and I am disappointed that the 13th general election in Malaysia will likely occur while I’m away. Fortunately, my member of Parliament is not Umno-BN, and it seems likely the seat will remain with the opposition even without the help of the votes of my wife and myself. But, with all the shenanigans the Election Commission and Umno-BN are practising, we can’t be too sure.

The Malaysian Insider reported that Muhyiddin Yassin, the deputy prime minister, said the opposition is “skilful at spinning” and at using social media tools.

I wonder if other Malaysians share my sense of dismay every time I hear people speaking of the opposition. If Umno-BN, the ruling party, cares so much about getting votes, why doesn’t it recognise that the opposition are also elected representatives? Why doesn’t Umno-BN recognise that we, the people, have voted so many of the opposition into government because what Umno-BN considers “spin” we consider “fact”.

The ruling coalition in Malaysia spins stories just as much as the opposition; it’s well known that Umno-BN employs media consultants; they find “angles” to make bad stories sound good. That’s understandable. What’s “emphasizing” a point to one is spin to another. That’s politics. You call it “spin” if you can’t counter the facts. If you can counter the facts, you win credibility. That’s politics. Politicians who resort to calling things “spin” are empty shells.

For instance, we are asked to believe that ex-Minister Shahrizat Abdul Jalil isn’t in any way tainted by her husband and children being recipients of taxpayers’ money as seed capital to start a business.

We might believe this if the National Feedlot Corporation (NFC) was a successful company. However, it’s not. Like PKFZ, it’s a disaster. Instead of investing the money in doing business involving cows, NFC invested the money in high-end apartments!

I have no trouble accepting that the spouses and children of ministers, etc. are just as entitled as others to get government awards, contracts, etc.

What I have trouble with is the lack of transparency in the award of contracts — which are often more like “gifts”. In the case of the NFC, my beef is not that it’s Shahrizat’s family who were the benefactors. My beef is that I don’t know why it was them. To get the cows off it’ back, all Umno-BN has to do is tell us why NFC was created, how potential leaders were selected and why Shahrizat’s kin (and not others) were granted the largesse.

Instead of doing that, the leaders of Umno-BN accuse the opposition of spin.

Curiously, we don’t hear of others who were in the running for the award and were denied. Are others quiet because they’ve received benefits they want to keep quiet?

Also, if a listed corporation had awarded the “loan” using a similar process, would it have been considered okay by the shareholders?

Our Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) seems to think that according to current regulations, it’s okay. What conclusions should we now draw about governance in our listed corporations? Let’s not forget that a huge number of our listed corporations are government-linked. What’s Umno-BN proposing to do to prevent similar abuses in the future? Nothing!

Muhyiddin speaks of spin. Why not speak of honesty. Why not speak of his own blunt honesty? Why not speak of the encouragement he gives people to vote for Umno-BN, when he says that if his candidate wins, those whose votes contributed to the win will be treated as anak emas, or “precious children”, who get special treatment?

Why should anyone get special treatment? Answer: it’s the Umno-BN culture. Thus NFC and PKFZ. That’s not spin. That’s honesty.

                This entry was posted on Monday, 11 June 2012, 5:40 pm and is filed under
Muhyiddin Yassin
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


AG robs police of authority with CPC amendments

Hafiz Yatim

Malaysiakini

Jun 12, 2012

EXCLUSIVE
 Several high-profile criminal cases could well have been swept under the carpet on the instruction of the Attorney-General’s Chambers.

 This follows claims that amendments to the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) five years ago have strengthened the attorney-general’s position in police investigations as his office can, at any time, demand the investigation papers of a case even if it has not been completed.

 As a result, the AG’s Chambers can at times be seen as influencing the direction of police investigations, something that has never before happened in the force.

 Former Kuala Lumpur Criminal Investigation Department (CID) chief Mat Zain Ibrahim, who raised this controversial matter, said the amendments to the CPC passed by Parliament in 2006 and enacted since 2007, have resulted in the police force losing some of its independent investigation powers.

 Before the amendments, Mat Zain said there was a clear demarcation of powers separating the duties of the AG’s Chambers and the police.

 “This is as far as the prosecution and investigation powers are concerned. Both parties have been comfortable with the separation of powers for decades, and there was no problem to this prior to the amendments.”

The amendments, he lamented, have hammered yet another nail in the police force’s coffin as a professional and independent institution.

Musa ‘sold’ police force to AG

 Previously, he said, the public prosecutor would not be able to ask for police investigation papers (IPs) if a matter had yet to be completed and this was provided for in the law.

 “Now, with the amendments to the CPC, the AG or his officers can summon for the investigation papers as quickly as after a (police) report has been lodged,” Mat Zain told Malaysiakini.

 More troubling, he said there had been instances when the IPs are not returned to the police, effectively holding up, or worse still, ending their investigation.

 “I have made my stand on this issue known to the current inspector-general of police, Ismail Omar (right), and I asked him to ensure that the police get their powers back,” said Mat Zain, who retired from the force a decade ago.

 “I have also informed the home minister, the solicitor-general and the prime minister about my concerns as the police should be given a free hand to investigate, without any interference,” he said.

Mat Zain, who investigated a number of high-profile cases before his retirement including the ‘black-eye’ involving former deputy prime minister Anwar Ibrahim as well as former IGP Abdul Rahim Noor, said the amendments were to Sections 107 and 120 of the CPC.

 The current Section 120 (2) of the CPC allows the AG or his officers to instruct the police investigating officer or the officer-in-charge of a police district to submit the IP without the need for approval from senior police officers, such as the state police chief or the CID director.

 “This has never happened before prior to this amendment. At the time these amendments were drafted, former IGP Musa Hassan was deputy CID director, then promoted to CID director, then deputy IGP (DIGP) and these amendments was approved in 2006, when he was the DIGP. The amended CPC came to force in 2007, when Musa was the IGP.

 “I maintain my position that the CPC amendments were made possible with Musa’s total agreement. It is Musa who sold the police force to the AG, Abdul Gani Patail.”

 ‘I experienced such an episode’

 Mat Zain said he himself had experienced this episode when he was the investigating officer in the black-eye case.

The AG’s Chambers wrote him a letter on Feb 13, 1999, requesting the IPs on the case before the royal commission of inquiry (RCI) commenced as it (the AG’s Chambers) received a letter on this matter from former IGP Abdul Rahim Noor’s lawyers.

 The letter was written by the chambers’ head of prosecution Azahar Mohamed, who is now a Court of Appeal judge, who cited Section 120 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The RCI took place from Feb 22 to March 4, 1999.

 “The AG had no power then to instruct any police officer to hand over IPs as and when he liked, as is practised today (after the CPC amendments), or to keep the papers as long as he wished after these are handed over to the chambers,” Mat Zain said.

 “I discussed the matter with then IGP Norian Mai, who supported me on the issue as there was no provision in the law for the police to hand over IPs to the AG’s Chambers,” he said, adding that he called Azahar to inform him of the decision.

 The former top cop said the police force was very professional then, including its investigation on ex-boss Rahim (left), as at that time there was a internal battle between the police and the AG’s Chambers to set the record straight. (More on this issue tomorrow)

“In those days, the IOs could challenge the DPP or for that matter questioned the AG if he refused to charge a person when there were ample evidence to do so gathered during their investigations.

“In the black-eye case, for instance, I even threatened Abdul Gani that I would lodge a report against him and the AG after the AG’s Chambers declared the IP was never received by them, when in actual fact they have already signed the receipt for the IP. So much so, this ‘loss of IP’ was even brought up in Parliament.”

 Nowadays, he said the IOs just accept whatever is decided by the AG.

 Amendments aim to serve ‘selfish’ aims

 Mat Zain said he could attest without any hesitation that the amendments to the CPC could have been due to the bitter experience of the AG’s Chambers in dealing with the police, especially with investigation officers such as him.

 “I can also say without any doubt that the CPC amendments were made mala fide (in bad faith) by Gani (far left) to serve his own selfish and evil purposes. This man is full of vengeance,” he remarked.

He said the amendment to Section 107 of the CPC may appear to ensure speedy police investigations, but that section also empowers the AG to order the OCPDs (district police chiefs) to furnish the information demanded by the chambers.

 “Put simply, the attorney-general can determine the direction of police investigations,” Mat Zain added.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 12 June 2012, 10:47 pm and is filed under
Crime
,
Law & Order
,
Police
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Let’s ban ‘em all!

— Art Harun

The Malaysian Insider

Jun 12, 2012

JUNE 12 — I quite like the way people in authority attempt to solve various problems in Malaysia.

A long time ago, safety helmets were made compulsory for every motorcyclist and pillion rider. Thereafter, some smarty-pants wore helmets with visors to rob banks. Although I was still in school at that time, I remember the so-called solution which our authority came up with to solve that problem. They simply banned helmets with visors. Problem solved, right?

Many years ago there were concerns over deaths caused by accidents involving water-scooters on Penang beaches. Of course, before everybody could finish saying “water-scooters”, I remember some hot-shots proposed that water-scooters be banned. Fortunately that did not happen.

Baby dumping? Oh well, that’s easy. Ban, among others, Valentine’s Day celebration.

The best of the lot are the efforts taken by some of our so-called ulamaks to solve the problem of Muslims having very weak “aqidah” or faith.

Muslims in Malaysia must be among the weakest when it comes to “aqidah”. After all, a parliamentarian readily told the Parliament last year, if I am not mistaken, that Malaysian men cannot “tahan” to see their wife (or wives) cooking in the kitchen when they come back from work. The wife (or wives) must thus be ready to have sex with the men there and then. This was, and is still, of course readily agreed to by the Obedient Wives Club which also advocates, among others, spiritual sex. (I think the OWC took the idea of spiritual sex from the cyber sex or phone sex phenomenon.)

Sorry, I digress.

Yes, Muslims in Malaysia are very weak in their “aqidah”. Solutions, anybody? Yes, ban the poco-poco dance. Ditto Valentine’s Day celebration. In Bangi, someone actually said cinemas should not be built. What else ya? Oh, yes. Electronic Bible. Ban it please. While we are it, why don’t we ban the Bible in Bahasa Malaysia as well, right? That would be a holistic approach. Yes. Superb.

If those were not enough, we should then have a seminar titled “Strengthening the Faith, the Dangers of Liberalism and Pluralism and the Threat of Christianity towards Muslims. What is the Role of Teachers?”

Of course, recently, we have the Erykah Badu banning. All because of some art work on her body. The most recent is Irshad Manji’s book. Over in Indonesia recently, they went gaga over a Lady Gaga concert. You all know the result, right? Yes. What else but a ban.

Looking at the trend, the enemies of Islam are not just the Israelis, the Jews, the United States and their allies. The most potent poison one could unleash against us, Muslims, is nothing but women, apparently. Send Irshad Manji and that’s it, 15 million Muslims would lose their faith soon. Send in Lady Gaga and hundreds of millions of Muslims would be out of their Islamic mind sooner than one could spell “Gaga”.

Malaysia is, however, not alone when it comes to banning things. China, which coincidentally invented paper, started banning books on philosophy which came from anywhere other than the state of Qin in the 3rd century BC. In fact, China is still leading the way in this area of socio-illogical move. Most recent is its banning of Kate Winslet’s breast in the “Titanic 3D” movie for fear of the men reaching out to touch them in the cinema. Classic.

Books seem to be the favourite for this activity. In this regards, Islam is not the only religion in whose name books were banned. The Catholic Church had forced Peter Abelard to burn his own book, which consisted, among others, his interpretation of the Trinitarian. There was also a time when the Bible was prohibited from being translated into the vernacular. And guess what? The Catholic Church also used to have issues with Greek plays as well as Arabic and Jewish texts. Hmm… déjà vu?

In England, Henry VIII led the way. He actually did not like William Tynedale’s version of the Bible and had it, of course, banned. Not enough with that, he burned him at the stake.

Meanwhile, the “greatest nation on Earth”, aka the US of A, is not spared with this disease as well. In Massachusetts, the Quaker texts were banned. And, of course, they also hanged witches at Salem. Boston saw the imprisonment of Ann Austin and Mary Fischer for texts which offended the then acting governor.

One of the most astounding book burnings happened in the land of freedom and liberty itself — France. In 1842, surprise, surprise, officials at the school for the blind actually collected books written in Braille and burned them. Of course we all know that Louis Braille’s method later became a universal writing method for the blinds.

Anything which can be banned would be banned. Australia, the land of wonderful beaches, man-eating sharks and kangaroos, a year or two ago sought to prevent exploitation of children in pornography. And how did they propose to do that? Hilarious. That’s how. They proposed a ban of small-breasted women in pornography.

Malaysia’s regulations on prohibited names are perhaps necessary due to the fact that some parents do give their children names such as Siti Mazda or Abdul iPhone. We can however take refuge in the fact that we are not alone. In Denmark, there is the Law on Personal Names to be content with. Under that law, people expecting children can choose a pre-approved name from a government list of 7,000 mostly West European and English names — 3,000 for boys, 4,000 for girls. Those wishing to have non-approved names must seek permission at their local parish or church. Among those who wish to deviate is Lan Tan, a 27-year-old Danish woman of Singaporean and Malaysian descent who is trying to win approval for her daughter’s name, Frida Mei Tan-Farndsen. Yes. Go Malaysia!

So, worry not for this madness. We are not alone. — art-harun.blogspot.com

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 12 June 2012, 10:41 pm and is filed under
Articles
,
Human Rights
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Takut-takut Mohamad bermimpi di siang hari

 — Aspan Alias

The Malaysian Insider

Jun 12, 2012

12 JUN — Saya telah dihubungi oleh beberapa pemimpin Umno Baru di Negeri Sembilan dan meminta saya membuka Free Malaysia Today kerana ada berita hangat yang akan saya temui. Bila saya bertanya apa beritanya dia menjawab, “Baco lah bang. Ado coghito Mad Hasan nak botanding di Paroi. Nak tumpaskan PAS terus bang” katanya.

Setelah sampai ke rumah saya pun membelek-belek apa kah benar cerita yang di katakan oleh AJK Bahagian Umno itu. Benar, ada berita tentang kecenderungan MB Negeri Sembilan untuk bertanding di DUN Paroi untuk menentang YB Taufek yang kini ahli Legislatif Negeri Sembilan mewakili  DUN Paroi itu.

Sebenarnya saya percaya apa yang di tulis oleh FMT itu. Kalau berita itu datangnya dari Utusan, kita terpaksa berfikir panjang untuk mempastikan berita itu benar atau pun tidak Ini adalah kerana akhbar milik Umno itu belum lagi berjaya menulis berita-berita yang benar.

Akhbar milik Umno itu tidak “professional” dan tugasnya hanyalah untuk memecah belahkan pihak-pihak yang hendak bersatu. Akhbar itu tidak sedar yang semua rakyat kini mahu bersatu, tetapi diluar Umno dan BN.

Saya tidak terkejut jika Mohamad mengambil keputusan beralih kawasan dari Rantau ke mana-mana kawasan DUN yang lain.  Saya tidak perlu memberikan sebab-sebab secara “detail” kenapa beliau mahu berhijrah ke kawasan yang baru tetapi cukuplah jika saya katakan yang Rantau tidak lagi kawasan yang selamat bagi beliau. Pengundi Rantau hanya menunggu masa untuk menolak beliau di dalam PRU yang akan datang ini.

Ramai pengundi Rantau yang pasti kecewa kerana tidak sampai hajat mereka untuk melihat Mohamad ditewaskan oleh orang-orang kampungnya sendiri. Tindakan Mohamad untuk berhijrah ke Paroi itu memang mudah untuk beliau lakukan kerana beliau adalah Ketua Bahagian Rembau dalam mana Paroi adalah salah satu kawasan DUN dalam kawasan Parlimen Rembau. Beliau juga adalah Pengerusi kepada Badan Perhubungan Negeri Sembilan.

Mengikut berita itu, Mohamad bertindak berpindah itu kerana beliau mahu menambah aura pilihanraya dengan bertanding melawan satu-satunya ADUN PAS dan ia kononnya akan memberikan uumph yang lebih untuk beliau memenangi kembali kerusi-kerusi yang telah jatuh ke tangan pembangkang dalam pilihanraya yang lalu.

Baguslah kalau begitu niatnya, tetapi apakah itu sebab yang sebenarnya beliau hendak menukar kawasan itu?  Jawapannya ada dipemikiran pengundi-pengundi di NS dan tidak payah kita sebut-sebut lagi.

Boleh kah Mohamad berjaya menumpaskan YB Taufek dari PAS itu sedangkan beliau hanya berjaya memenangi kerusi Rantau dengan majoriti kecil semasa menentang tukang jahit dari PR dalam pilihanraya yang lalu? Kalau di Rantau tempat kariah dan kampungnya sendiri beliau tidak berani bertanding, bagaimana kah perkiraan beliau yang beliau boleh berjaya denagan cemerlang di Paroi?

Bagaimana kah perkiraan pengundi-pengundi di seluruh Negeri Sembilan dengan penghijrahan itu. Tidak kah mereka berfikir yang penghjrahan itu adalah untuk lari dari kawasan yang beliau wakili sekarang kerana beliau telah merasakan yang pengundi di DUN Rantau sudah tidak lagi diyakini memberi beliau sokongan kali ini?

Tidakkah beliau merasakan yang walaupun mungkin beliau merupakan “winnable candidate” untuk Paroi, tetapi tindakan itu akan menjejaskan prestasi Umno di kawasan-kawasan lain di Negeri Sembilan. Berita ini merupakan berita yang amat menarik, kerana seorang yang bergelar MB yang bertindak lari dari kawasan beliau sendiri dengan alasan yang melakukannya sebagai “gerakan strategik” untuk menumpaskan PAS.

Kalau beginilah keadaannya maka teori saya yang mengatakan yang sekarang ini hakikatnya BN sebenarnya sedang melawan PAS, bukannya PAS yang hendak melawan BN. Lain-lain perkataan PAS dan PR di Negeri Sembilan sedang mendahului BN secara psikoloji nya. BN pula yang sedang bersilat mengikut rentak dan tari PR pula.

Bagaimanapun kita tahu PAS tidak akan mampu ditumpaskan lagi. PAS sudah menyelinap jauh kedalam sanubari rakyat, bukan sahaja dikalangan orang Melayu tetapi juga mendapat sambutan dari semua kaum dinegara ini, termasuk di Negeri Sembilan sendiri.

YB Taufek akan tetap menjadi wakil bagi rakyat kawasan Paroi di Dewan Legislatif Negeri Sembilan itu, insyaallah. “Takut-takut Mohamad Hasan hanya bermimpi disiang hari sahaja” kata beberapa orang pimpinan Umno di Negeri Sembilan.

Kalaulah benar berlaku pertembungan diantara Mohamad dengan Taufek di Paroi ianya adalah pertandingan diantara seorang yang sentiasa merendah diri dan berperibadian baik dengan seorang yang sombong dan meninggi diri yang merasakan dirinya sebagai pemimpin yang datang dari langit. — aspanaliasnet.blogspot.com

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 12 June 2012, 10:29 pm and is filed under
Elections
,
UMNO
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Secret now out – allegation that Bersih 3.0 rally a coup attempt by PR to topple government  completely baseless but Najib government afraid of “salt and water bottles” for fear of having lost support of the people

Question No. 4 during Question Time in Parliament today was the star attraction of the day as I had asked the Prime Minister to substantiate his allegation more than a month ago that Bersih 3.0 rally was a coup attempt by the Opposition to overthrow the government.

MPs from both Barisan Nasional and Pakatan Rakyat were expecting some “shocking” revelations to substantiate the very serious allegation by the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak in Gua Musang on 4th May and which had the immediate support of three former Inspectors-General of Police, Tun Hanif Omar, Tan Sri Rahim Noor and Tan Sri Musa Hassan that the Bersih 3.0 rally was a coup d’etat attempt by Pakatan Rakyat to overthrow the Najib government  on April 28 itself!

The Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz, who replied on behalf of Najib, was however a total disappointment as he could not give even an iota of evidence to substantiate Najib’s allegation and went completely off tangent into a tirade against Bersih 3.0 and Pakatan Rakyat.

Nazri is entitled to his jaundiced views about Bersih 3.0 and Pakatan Rakyat but they do not constitute evidence that the Bersih 3.0 rally on April 28 was a coup attempt by Pakatan Rakyat to topple the Barisan Nasional government by force on April 28.

As I countered Nazri during my supplementary question, is the Najib government so weak that “salt and water bottles” (which was  all that some of the peaceful Bersih 3.0 protestors were armed that day to defend themselves against any police tear gas and chemically-laced water cannons) could even topple it?

Nazri was deadly serious in his reply, saying “Don’t underrate salt and Water bottles” saying that in Tunisia, the government was  toppled by handphones when it did not have the support of the people.

The secret is now out – the Prime Minister and the three former IGPs have absolutely no evidence whatsoever to back the wild and reckless allegation that Bersih 3.0 rally was a coup attempt to topple the government by force, but the Najib government is mortally afraid of “salt and water bottles” because they can topple governments which have lost support of the people.

The challenge to Najib is to find out why despite all the big talk of transformations in various aspects of national life in the past three years, he is losing rather than gaining popular support.

As I repeated in Parliament this morning, the government’s misjudgment and mishandling of Bersih 3.0 and continuing demonization of Bersih 3.0 organisers and Pakatan Rakyat is an even  bigger public relations disaster than the government’s initial misjudgment and mishandling of Bersih 2.0 rally of July 9, 2011.

For a start, Najib and three former IGPs Hanif, Rahim and Musa should have the decency to publicly apologise for the  baseless allegation that Bersih 3.0 was a coup attempt by Opposition to topple the government by force.

Secondly, the government should dissolve the Hanif “independent advisory panel” inquiring into Bersih 3.0 violence and brutality, unless the panel’s has a secret agenda and term of reference  – to come out  with a finding that Bersih 3.0 rally was a coup attempt by the Opposition to topple the government by force.

Instead, the government should give full support to the Suhakam inquiry into Bersih 3.0 to find out what went wrong on April 28 to result in the violence and brutality which marred a peaceful and momentous  gathering of hundreds of thousands of Malaysians regardless of race, religion, class, region, age or gender in support of a common national cause – a clean election!

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 13 June 2012, 12:35 pm and is filed under
Bersih
,
Elections
,
Najib Razak
,
Police
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Any Minister who dare to ask Cabinet tomorrow to openly apologise for the PM’s wild and baseless allegation that Bersih 3.0 was  a coup attempt by Opposition to topple government?

Now that the Barisan Nasional government, through the Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz’s reply in Parliament yesterday, had as good as  confessed that there is not even an iota of evidence to substantiate the wild and reckless allegation of the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak in Gua Musang on May 4 that the Bersih 3.0 rally was a coup attempt by the Pakatan Rakyat opposition to topple the government by force on April 28, the Barisan Nasional Ministers must place this topic on top of the Cabinet agenda tomorrow.

The Cabinet Ministers must come to the rescue of the Prime Minister to save his face by assuming collective responsibility and make an open apology on behalf of the Prime Minister to the hundreds of thousands of Malaysians who took part peacefully and patriotically in the Bersih 3.0 rally and the 28 million Malaysians for this wild, reckless and baseless allegation about the Bersih 3.0 rally being a coup attempt by the Opposition to topple the government by force on April 28.

The question Malaysians want to know is whether there is any Minister, whether from UMNO, MCA, MIC, Gerakan, Sabah or Sarawak who dare to ask the Cabinet tomorrow to openly apologise for the Prime Minister’s  wild, reckless and baseless allegation that Bersih 3.0 was a coup attempt by the opposition to topple the government by force on April 28.

Or will the former Prime Minister, Tun Mahathir be proven right that the Cabinet Ministers are no better than “half-past six” Ministers?

After Nazri’s reply in Parliament yesterday, which is distinguished by his complete failure to furnish even an iota of evidence to substantiate Najib’s wild and baseless allegation, there are at least three things the Cabinet should do tomorrow:

Firstly, establish who was responsible for  feeding the Prime Minister with the false and baseless information that Bersih 3.0 rally was an Opposition coup by the Opposition to topple the government by force on April 28.

Former Inspector-General of Police Tun Hanif Omar, who gave immediate support to Najib’s allegation, told the media the next day that the Prime Minister must have received intelligence from the Special Branch before making the allegation.

But this has been denied by the Inspector-General of Police, Tan Sri Ismail Omar who said two days later in Kulim that the police were investigating the Prime Minister’s allegation that the Bersih 3.0 rally was a coup attempt by the Opposition to topple the government.

This is coming to a  full circle – if Najib had been briefed by the Special Branch resulting in his allegation in Gua Musang, why was the IGP talking about  the police investigating Najib’s allegation two days later in Kulim?

Something is not right. Has the Prime Minister another “Special Branch” to feed him with such security intelligence that has nothing to do with the normal Police force under the IGP and which the IGP knew nothing about?

Secondly, the Cabinet should face up to the reality from Nazri’s parliamentary reply yesterday, that the Barisan Nasional government was afraid of  the salt and plastic mineral water bottles that some Bersih 3.0 protestors had armed themselves on April 28 – not as offensive weapons to challenge the police or topple the government but to defend themselves against any reckless and disproportionate use of police tear gas or chemically-laced water cannons, as happened on that day!

In reply to my rejoinder whether the Barisan Nasional government was so fragile that it could be toppled with salt and plastic mineral water bottles, Nazri said salt and water bottles should not be underrated as they could topple governments which have lost the  support of the people.

The Cabinet should discuss at length the wisdom of Nazri’s admission  – that governments can topple not only by salt and water bottles but by handphones as in Tunisia, Libya and Egypt if they lose the people’s support.

The real issue is not salt, water bottles or handphones which are just symptomatic  but the root cause of the government’s loss of people’s support because of rampant corruption, abuses of power, economic injustices exploitation and gross violation of human rights.

Is the Cabinet capable of admitting and finding out why after three years’ of a whole spectrum of transformation policies, the Najib administration is losing out to Pakatan Rakyat in the battle for the hearts and minds of Malaysians to the extent that Najib’s Ministers envisage salt, water bottles and even handphones as “weapons of mass destruction” for continued Barisan Nasional rule and Najib premiership?

Thirdly, the Cabinet must make amends, admit to the fact that the government’s misjudgment and mishandling of Bersih 3.0 rally is an even greater public relations disaster than its initial misjudgment and mishandling of Bersih 2.0 rally on July 9, 2011.

Is the Cabinet prepared to take the bold and right decision to end the demonisation of Bersih 3.0 organisers and Pakatan Rakyat leaders in Parliament as well as over the controlled mainstream media, and most important of all, dissolve the Hanif “independent advisory panel” on Bersih 3.0 and give full support to the Suhakam inquiry to ensure a credible, impartial and comprehensive inquiry into the Bersih 3.0 violence and brutality, regardless of whether the victims were police personnel, media representatives or peaceful protestors?

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 14 June 2012, 8:34 am and is filed under
Bersih
,
Elections
,
Najib Razak
,
Parliament
,
Police
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


BN takut garam, botol mineral

Lim Kit Siang [ Ipoh Timur ] minta PERDANA MENTERI menyatakan bukti dakwaan beliau bahawa perhimpunan Bersih 3.0 adalah satu cubaan rampasan kuasa oleh pihak Pembangkang untuk menjatuhkan Kerajaan.

Lim Kit Siang [ Ipoh Timur ] to ask the PRIME MINISTER to state the evidence for his claim that Bersih 3.0 assembly was a coup attempt by the opposition to topple the Government.

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 14 June 2012, 2:41 pm and is filed under
Bersih
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


No need for Mahathir to fear he will end up like  Gadaffi or Mubarak. I do not even want to see him in jail but he must not block full investigations into the host of financial and political scandals under his 22 years as PM

It is quite  unworthy and  dishonourable for Tun Dr. Mahathir  to imply in his blog
“My Fears”
 yesterday that I am “inspired by what happened to Gadaffi and Mubarak” and that I would “love” to see him “dragged to the courts and sentenced to death or to at least a life sentence” and “Maybe like Gadaffi I would be murdered”!

I do not know whether Mahathir is becoming a victim of  a very fevered imagination, to the extent that he could imagine and blog  that I would want him to end up like Gadaffi or Mubarak.

Nothing is furthest from my mind  but I forgive Mahathir these wild and preposterous imaginings.

Mahathir started his blog yesterday: “ Lim Kit Siang is reported to have said that I am working hard to ensure the Opposition will not win because I am afraid when the Opposition Government is in place, it will act against all my ‘misdeeds’ when I was Prime Minister.”

Let me state that I stand by every word of  my statement of 3rd June 2012, where I said that the former Prime Minister “has been more than his hyper-active self in the past fortnight, not only making preposterous statements about the political situation in the country but doing his utmost to fob off any possibility that the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak might stick to his earlier timetable to hold 13th General Election in June/July”.

I had referred to three such preposterous statements in the previous two weeks, viz:. when Mahathir

•	Made the wild and preposterous statement that the Bersih 3.0 rally was a “preparation” and “warm-up” by Pakatan Rakyat for violent demonstrations to reject the results of the 13th general election should the opposition fail to win it.

•	Made another wild and preposterous statement when warning that the defeat of UMNO would be akin to the Malays losing power in their own country, when the coalition that would replace UMNO/Barisan Nasional would be Pakatan Rakyat comprising PKR, PAS and DAP;

•	Returned again and again to the theme that because of the Abdullah premiership, the Najib government is still weak and not ready for the 13th General Election which he wants to be held off until after the fasting month which ends in August.

In my statement, I said:

“However, the real reason why Mahathir is so hyper-active in the past fortnight and making so many wild and preposterous statements is because the former Prime Minister is worried that the truth will be out about all the financial scandals during his 22-year premiership if Pakatan Rakyat forms the national government in next polls.”

In my statement, I not only supported a proposal that Pakatan Rakyat, if were to capture Putrajaya, should re-open investigation on the RM30 billion Bank Negara forex scandal of 1992, I went a step further and said:

“If Pakatan Rakyat forms the federal government in the next general election, there should be a Royal Commission of Inquiry into the RM30 billion Bank Negara forex losses scandal in 1992, as well as into all the other financial scandals during Mahathir’s 22-year premiership.”

I referred to Barry Wain’s  book on Mahathir,  “Malaysian Maverick”, where Barry  estimated that Malaysia lost RM100 billion just in four financial scandals during Mahathir’s premiership.

I said Mahathir would not want and would be most afraid of full investigations into these financial scandals.

In ending my statement, I said:

“Yesterday, former Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak was sentenced to life imprisonment for complicity in the killing of protesters during last year’s uprising.

“I am not suggesting that Mahathir should face jail sentences for the financial scandals in his 22-year premiership but at minimum, Malaysians are entitled to know the truth about these financial scandals which would serve as painful national lessons to prevent their recurrence.

“But clearly, this is what Mahathir would not want and would do his utmost to prevent, including outclassing himself in the wild and preposterous statements about Pakatan Rakyat in the run-up to the next general election.”

Let me assure the fourth Malaysian Prime Minister that there is no need for him to fear he will end up like Gadaffi or Mubarak.

I do not even want to see him in jail but he must not block full investigations into the host of financial and political scandals during his 22 years as Prime Minister – not only into infamous financial scandals under his watch but also how the key national institutions in the country like the Judiciary, the civil service, Attorney-General’s Chambers, the Police, the Anti-Corruption Agency , the Election Commission were compromised and subverted to serve the behests of one man, the Prime Minister.

Mahathir has claimed innocence to any abuse of power in his 22 years as Prime Minister. It is for him to prove his case to  the nation, future generations and history.

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 14 June 2012, 4:31 pm and is filed under
Mahathir
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Remove Moral Studies from the SPM

CPIASIA

Foreword by CPI

A group of concerned parents are making a representation to Suhakam with regard to many longstanding complaints about Moral Studies taught in upper secondary school.

For many years now, the exam format of this subject has been so rigid that students are forced to strictly memorize 36 ‘values’ and definitions. They are then required to regurgitate word for word what they’ve memorized when sitting the SPM paper.

Such a method of testing morality is best suited to training parrots and appears to be designed by monkeys. Who are these monkeys that have been instrumental in designing the examination and how have they been allowed to get away with their monkey business for so long?

Any youth who has been educated to think critically might well ask, why 36 values, and why not 35 or 37? Who defines these ‘values’? Why must definitions drafted by some textbook writers be so stringent that not a word is to be changed? Even the 10 Commandments handed down by God from atop Mount Sinai allow more flexibility in their wording.

Poor SPM results in Moral Studies have penalized non-Muslim students who otherwise had scored straight As or A+ in their other subjects.

In comparison, Muslim students who are exempted from Moral Studies but instead take the Islamic Studies papers do not have to risk their SPM balance sheet being pulled down due to below-par performance in this one subject alone.

Even within the national examination system, there exists a two-tier streaming based on religion which has prompted non-Muslim parents to cry foul.

While there is nothing objectionable to having Moral Studies in the syllabus, it should nonetheless be removed from the SPM slate.

The non-Muslim parents are representing to Suhakam that their children’s education right to a fair exam assessment is being compromised by this compulsory paper that discriminates on the basis of religion.

Beyond this petition, there are key questions and concerns that need to be posed and answered. How can Malay/Muslim-oriented public systems run by Malay elites be made to be transparent and accountable so that they do not discriminate or penalize non-Malays and non-Muslims?

Why are such policies of clear discrimination and prejudice against certain segments of Malaysians persisting and how do we ensure that they do not recur?

This entire episode needs to be opened up for full public discussion and scrutiny. It may be the tip of the iceberg of a structural deformity within our public service that needs to be exposed, operated on and excised.

The CPI team looks forward to hearing more from the public on this and similar unconscionable policies especially affecting our young.

Moral Studies SPM results – Demoralising!

My daughter was a student of SMK Tarcisian Convent, Ipoh who obtainedher SPM results on March 22, 2012.

She, together with eight of her friends, managed to get 8A+ for all subjects they tookexcept for Moral Studies. I believe for the first time in the history of the said school none of its 120-odd students got A+ for the subject.

This outcome may seem nothing out of the ordinary except that in thestandardized SPM trials – which is the examination paper and answer scheme set by the respective state education department – 26 of the Fifth Formersobtained A+ for Moral Studies. Another 40 or so students obtained an A.

How is it then that not a single student obtained an A+ for Moral Studies in theactual SPM examination?The plight of these students was extensively highlighted in the print media –StarMetro, Tamil Nesan and Makkal Osai on March 23, Nanban (March 25) as well as the electronic media Malaysiakini and Perakview.

A total of 39 students have appealed to the Examination Board to have their examination results re-checked with payment of RM50 and awaiting the outcome which may take up to three months from the date of the release of the SPM results. By the time the outcome is known the students would have lost their chance to apply for JPA and numerous other scholarships as well as entry into universities/colleges of their choice because of their inability to secure an A+ in Moral Studies.

Therefore, the lackadaisical attitude of board in taking three months to revert with the outcome ensures it is an act in futility, and the right to re-check illusory.Also to my surprise, after taking up the plight of the students in SMK Tarcisian Convent, I discovered that most parents are not aware that Moral Studies is a compulsory subject only for the non–Muslim students which is taken into account in determining the overall performance of a student in SPM.

Also are you aware that Moral Studies is a “closed paper” which means that past year papers are not available in the market for students to use as references? Why should it be so? Muslim students do not take Moral Studies but instead Islamic studies.

Logically, Moral Studies as part of the curriculum should be taught with a view to inculcating good values, so that when the students step out into the real world they would know how to conduct themselves in a manner  acceptable in a civilized society. Therefore moral studies should touch on simple matters needed for daily co-existence, such as mutual respect, responsibility, tolerance, obedience to law, etc.

These are matters that one can even learn from life’s experiences. In a gist, there should be nothing technical or mind boggling about studying moral as a subject.

Somehow “the educationist” entrusted with the drawing up of the syllabus thought fit to make the subject as technical as possible with so much rigidity that students are forced to memorize 36 “values” and definitions word for word and to regurgitate them like a parrot in the examination.

Any departure from the words used will be penalized. It baffles me to discover that my daughter’s schools engaged “experts” to teach the students the technique of answering moral studies questions. As we are aware morality is a most subjective matter because what is the accepted norm and standard of conduct or behaviourdiffer from society to society and era to era.

Therefore what ought to have been a simple subject has been made so difficult by the people entrusted with preparing the syllabus and setting the examination questions that the non-Muslim students who excel in the sciences and mathematics do not fare well in Moral Studies.

This raises a few questions.

Does it means that a student who gets 8A+ in all other subjects except Moral Studies are deemed not morally excellent or lacking in morality?

Does it also mean that Moral Studies is a subject far more difficult to comprehend and answer than the sciences and mathematics?

These questions clearly indicate, to quote Shakespeare, “that there is something rotten in the state of our education (not Denmark)”.

This has been going on for more than 10 years and year in year out we hear rumblings from students and parents how they or their children have lost out because of the failure to secure A+ (before this 1A) in Moral Studies. However no concrete action has been initiated till to date put an end to this mockery.

Therefore the parents of this year’s affected student from SMK TarcisianConvent, Ipoh together with the help of an NGO intend to make representation to Suhakam that Moral Studies be completely removed from the syllabus or at least downgraded to a non-examination paper in schools.

We intend to raise it as human rights issue affecting the minority in this country (only the non-Muslims) as the right to fair education is for every citizen and is enshrined in the constitution and no one should be allowed to usurp that.

Furthermore, it is not fair that non-Muslim students should study Moral Studies while Muslim students take Islamic studies and the results from these two very diverse subjects determine the overall performance of a student in a critical examination like SPM. How can one compare the worth of an apple to an orange?

Also I feel the time is appropriate to raise this issue as the government is requesting feedback from all stakeholders with a view to reviewing the entire education system that has gone to the dogs.

Course of action:

If you are a student (or the parents on behalf of the student) who sat the SPM result 2012 and feel victimized by the Moral Studies exam result, please let us have the following information, namely the student’s name, which school, howdid the student fare in the other subjects that the student took and what did the student obtain for Moral Studies in the trial examination and in the actual SPM result.

Please forward all information and comments to the following emailaddress, namely
[email protected]
 that we can garner support to make an effective representation and see that justice is done.

You can also find us on Facebook under the group Morally Upright.

* The above e-mail was circulated by S.V. Namasoo, coordinator.

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 14 June 2012, 2:38 pm and is filed under
Education
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Call on MACC to re-open investigations why 18 “high-profile” cases had escaped corruption charges after the first 100 days of the Abdullah premiership and the hundreds of other “big fishes” who have escaped in past eight years

Despite increased budget, powers, manpower and resources than its predecessor, the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) is a great letdown as it has failed to be even a pale shadow of Hong Kong’s Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) – failing to net a single “big fish” in its three-and-a-half years of operation.

The MACC continues to play politics to serve its political masters in the Barisan Nasional government, as for instance, its recent focus on re-opening old investigations into PKR leaders Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim and Azmin Ali.

I call on the MACC to re-open investigations why 18 “high profile” cases had escaped corruption charges after the first 100 days of the Abdullah premiership in February 2004 and the hundreds of other “big fishes” who have escaped the dragnet in the past eight years.

In February 2004, Tun Abdullah Badawi had marked his first 100 days as the fourth Prime Minister with two very high-profile corruption arrests – former Perwaja Steel managing director Tan Sri Eric Chia and the then Land and Co-operative Development Minister, Tan Sri Kasitah Gaddam.

Eric Chia was arrested and charged on February 10, 2004 and Kasitah on February 12, 2004. On February 13, 2004, the then Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, Datuk Seri Dr. Rais Yatim announced in Jelebu on behalf of the Abdullah administration that at least another 18 high-profile corruption cases were with various authorities awaiting further action.

It was immediately reported at the time that several Cabinet Ministers sent word to Abdullah to “go slow” in the campaign against “high-profile” corruption.

In the event, both Eric Chia and Kasitah won acquittals in their corruption charges, but the “another 18 high-profile corruption cases” who were about to be arrested and charged with corruption just disappeared into thin air.

What happened to these 18 “high-profile” corruption cases, as the Anti-Corruption Agency (ACA) director-general at the time, Datuk Zulkipli Mat Noor had confirmed in May that the ACA had submitted the results of its investigations into the 18 “high profile cases” to the Attorney-General for prosecution based on ACA findings.

If MACC and the various  MACC supervisory committees like the MACC operations evaluation panel are serious about fighting corruption, especially “grand corruption” involving high-profile personalities whether in politics or government, they should give priority to re-open investigations why 18 “high-profile” cases had escaped corruption charges after the first 100 days of the Abdullah premiership and the hundreds of other “ big fishes” who have escaped the dragnet in past eight years.

Recently, Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department and the head of the government’s Performance Management and Delivery Unit (Pemandu) Datuk Seri Idris Jala admitted that it was toughest to battle public perception of corruption in the country.

Idris cannot be more  wrong. It is not a question of perception but a fact – that Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak’s campaign to eradicate corruption is one of his biggest failures,  particularly the campaign to fight “grand corruption” involving high-profile personalities in politics and government.

There has not been a single “high profile” corruption arrest since the formation of the MACC in January 2009, although there had been many “high-profile” victims of MACC like the tragic cases of Teoh Beng Hock and Ahmad Sarbaini. Beng Hock’s third death anniversary will be in a month’s time.

This is why Malaysia is losing out in the battle against corruption, not only when compared to the two previous Prime Ministers Tun Abdullah and Tun Mahathir in the past 17 years as reflected by Malaysia’s worst Transparency International Corruption Perception Index (CPI) ranking of No. 60 and lowest-ever CPI score of 4.3 for the year 2011, but also when compared to anti-corruption efforts in other countries in Asia and the region, whether China, Indonesia or even the Philippines.

                This entry was posted on Friday, 15 June 2012, 3:59 pm and is filed under
Corruption
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Funds boost for BN MPs an act of desperation which says that Najib has lost out in the political argument

By Dr Chen Man Hin, DAP Life advisor

Anwar claims that Najib is scraping the bottom of the barrel in his desperation to give money to BN MPs to get support from the people. Actually the government coffers are already empty. The money he is now splashing round to the low income groups and to BN MPs who badgered for money are sourced from Petronas and EPF funds.

Predictions of the economy are bad. The GDP growth for first quarter is about 4% which is 2% lower than the expected 6%.

World economy is bad. The Eurozone countries are mired in debt. The China economy is slowing down. So Najib’s dreams of achieving a high income economy are dashed.

The World Bank has no praises for Najib’s economic reforms because he has not made structural reform. The Time magazine echoes the views of the World Bank.

Najib now has his back against the wall. His cronies can’t work up an ideology to boost party morale. The only way for Najib to win votes is to use government funds to hand out money to the people.

For the first batch of RM500 to each poor household, Najib borrowed money from EPF. It cost RM2.6 billion to pay out to 5 million families.

The government has no funds and must now borrow to bribe the votes with another RM500 for each poor family as promised by him.

He now has to compete with MAS which is also scouring for several billion to revive the chronically financially broke airline.

Using money to buy support from the people, is a sad reflection of the sad state of affairs of the Najib government. It means that Najib has lost out in the political argument to win the hearts and minds of the people.

The people which include all the races have lost faith in BN because of its corruption, and lack of good governance. The people are able to differentiate between the policies of PR and the policies of BN. And they will surely elect PR to take charge of the government after GE13.

                This entry was posted on Friday, 15 June 2012, 11:28 am and is filed under
Dr. Chen Man Hin
,
Economics
,
Elections
,
Najib Razak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Nobody surprised no Minister dare to raise in Cabinet that Najib is “Emperor with no clothes” in his wild and reckless allegation that Bersih 3.0 rally is an Opposition coup attempt to topple the government

Nobody is surprised that no Minister dare to ask the Cabinet at its weekly meeting yesterday to openly apologise for the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak’s wild, baseless and reckless allegation that Bersih 3.0 rally was a coup attempt by the Opposition to topple the government.

Otherwise, the Barisan Nasional Government and the Najib Cabinet would not have suffered such a grave credibility gap that the sixth Prime Minister and his Ministers are increasingly become the butt of jokes of Malaysians, whether for their words or deeds, in a manner which had not befallen the Cabinets of the previous five Prime Ministers.

Najib’s Ministers will privately agree that the Prime Minister and the Home Minister, Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Hussein have not been able to produce an iota of evidence to substantiate such a preposterous allegation, despite public and dubious backing by three former Inspectors-General of Police, Tun Hanif Omar, Tan Sri Rahim Noor and Tan Sri Musa Hassan, and that the last nail for  the coffin of such a preposterous allegation was driven home in Parliament on Wednesday by none other than the Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz who could not produce any evidence in reply to my question specifically asking for proof for  such an allegation.

But in public, no Minister will dare to say that Najib is behaving as “the Emperor with no clothes” in his wild, reckless and baseless allegation that Bersih 3.0 is a coup attempt by the Opposition to topple the government by force on April 28.

It is most unfortunate that Najib had failed to make use of the first week of Parliament to offer an olive branch to the hundreds of thousands of Malaysians regardless of race, religion, class, region, age or gender who came out peacefully in Kuala Lumpur on April 28 for a common national cause to underline the Prime Minister’s own concern and support for clean elections.

Instead, in the first three days of Parliament this week, the Najib Ministers and their backbench cheerleaders continued to demonise and antagonize the hundreds of thousands of peaceful Bersih 3.0 protestors, particularly with Nazri’s canard that “salt and mineral water bottles” could topple the Barisan Nasional government.

Najib should realize that he is  doing himself and the Barisan Nasional a grave disservice  in continuing to countenance irrational and baseless attacks on the Bersih 3.0 rally, and that he himself, UMNO and Barisan Nasional would have to pay a heavy price for such irresponsible politicking in the next general election, whenever it is held.

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 16 June 2012, 4:14 pm and is filed under
Bersih
,
Elections
,
Najib Razak
,
Parliament
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Our silence: An open letter to Malaysians

by CW Vong

Dear Malaysians,

Recently, I watched some Bersih videos on YouTube. I have been avoiding watching them and reading articles related to the rally because such news often makes me feel depressed. Perhaps I should have stuck to my habits because I found myself extraordinarily shaken after watching these videos.

I did not go to the Bersih rally here in Melbourne. I have not, in any way, ever lent support to any political organisation in Malaysia, be it those currently in office or their opposition. Admittedly, I do not know if my name and identity card number has been used to vote without my knowledge – which is always a possibility in my country. Personally, I have never seen the inside of a voting booth. I have avoided matters of a political nature regarding my country my entire life.

‘Why?’ you ask. Because, truth be told, I have never believed that my country could change and that it was worth sticking out my neck for. Mr Anwar Ibrahim is only the most famous of many who have been through the ISA. I have kept silent. And so have many of you. So why should I be so emotionally charged after watching a demonstration video?

Malaysians, let me tell you my story. Your story might not be the same as mine – I do hope it is kinder – but this is what I learned about Malaysia as I grew up:

When I was about 11-years-old, I came back to Penang after my family had lived in Glasgow, Scotland, for four years. I came back with a strong Scottish accent, a smattering of our national language, Bahasa Melayu, and I was completely unable to speak Chinese, my own mother tongue.

Linguistically, life was a challenge. In Scotland, I had faced some racism in the form of a scuffle or two with children in the playground, since I was the only yellow dot in a sea of white. But otherwise, I had been left reasonably unscathed. The form of racism I met with in Malaysia was more insidious – and possibly more harmful.

As I attended primary school, my relatives were quick to warn me about the two other major races, the Indians and the Malays. Indians were labelled as “sneaky” and “untrustworthy”. Today, I still meet the odd Chinese uncle who will quote at me possibly the most racist quote I have ever come across: “If you meet an Indian and a snake on the road, you hit the Indian first.”’

Malays, on the other hand, were labelled as the lazy bunch. Stupid and lazy. My elders told me if ever a Malay achieved anything academically, he must have either Indian or Chinese blood mixed in him somewhere. How seriously was I to take these statements? I am still unsure. As a child from a Confucian culture, you were meant to nod and accept everything your seniors told you.

I wonder how the other two races view us Chinese. I had an Indian friend confess to me once that he and his mates would share stories with each other, howling in laughter, about the Chinese they had just cheated in some recent transaction. Was it some form of vengeance?

I also once read a poem, from one of our school textbooks no less, about a Malay grandfather telling his grandchildren about Hari Raya, the Muslim new year. In the poem, the grandfather makes mention of how they would go to town and buy fireworks from Chinese traders for exorbitant prices. But, he said, it was alright to be cheated by the Chinese just that one time a year, for the sake of Hari Raya.

How strange it was to continue the next few years making friends with these two other races. In fact, because I could not speak Chinese or any of its dialects, my best friends were often either Malay or Indian, with whom I could communicate in English without shame.

Why didn’t my elders ever tell me that Indians were one of the most fun races ever to be around? That if you wanted to throw a good party, invite some Indians to run it and they will show you the real meaning of a good time? Why did they never tell me that Malays have one of the most welcoming, caring and comfortable cultures I would ever come across? That if a Malay becomes your friend, you are his brother? Why did they never tell me of the wisdom you could gain by fasting with a Muslim through the month of Ramadan?

At age twelve, real tragedy struck. I became subject to the racial preferential treatment that my government had been practicing for thirty years. I scored decently for my UPSR (the end of primary school exams) with 3As and a B but was denied entry into the most prestigious secondary school in my state, Penang Free School.

Meanwhile, some of my Malay classmates were entering this school with strings of Cs and Ds on their result cards. Looking back, I realise that at 12, I did not comprehend the gravity of the situation. Nor did I fully understand the frustration of my parents. Perhaps the silent racism of the generations before me was not entirely unvalidated. Perhaps the racial preference reinforced by the government had deeper ramifications than we think. How are we to measure these things?

My story ends well though, as years later I would have the grace of academia to win an ASEAN scholarship to Singapore and be blessed to have parents who could provide me with the finances to study in Melbourne, Australia. I feel pained for those forsaken by our country’s system – those who could have received the necessary tertiary education to bolster their careers and put them in a strong position to contribute to society.

I have stayed here in Australia almost ten years now and currently work in a suburb called St. Albans. St. Albans is an interesting suburb because of its muliculturalism. There are Sudanese, Vietnamese, Albanians, Greeks, Italians, Chinese, Indians, Slovakians, Romanians, Ukrainians and many others besides.

While it might be pushing it to say they live in completely harmony, there is at least an honesty in their dealings with each other. They like and dislike openly. Could we at home in Malaysia co-exist were we to be honest with each other? Or is silence the only way we are to survive, pleasantly singing Negaraku while black marking each other behind backs?

I learned many things growing up that I was taught never to say aloud. As mentioned, I knew that to trust or befriend any Indian or Malay too closely was seen as a foolish act. It always made me laugh, though, that the Chinese trust each other only as far as they can throw a rock.

As a student, I knew that my government would give someone else better opportunities than I on the grounds of his skin colour. Out of hours, school teachers would whisper to me that they knew for a fact exam results were doctored according to race. After all, how did a weak, recalcitrant student who had been barely scraping passes through school suddenly produce an A in an official exam?

As a student, I was told that the education system was shoddy, which is why we practiced mathematics from Singaporean work books. Many people viewed teachers as stupid and incompetent. Being a teacher was the worst career you could choose according to anyone who was not a teacher, and only those who were incapable of anything else became teachers. This was strange to toggle in my head, having an auntie who is a teacher and pretty good at what she does.

As a teenager, the horizon darkened, as I was told that there were those who had scored straight A’s in their exams but denied entry into university because of racial quotas.

I learned that if you wanted to escape a traffic fine, you kept RM50 ready to pay the policeman a bribe. I learned that if you wanted to make sure you kept your shop lot safe from vandalism, it was a good idea that when your local police station called you up to contribute several thousand dollars for their annual dinner, you did not deny them. I learned that if you delivered the baby of a police officer, you did not charge them the surgery cost.

I learned that if you wanted to open a business you needed a Malay partner. I learned that the government was full of Malays and it was hinted that all they did all day sometimes was photocopy a few papers, and if they had to do any real work like serve you at a post office counter they would pull a long face. I learned at the post office a sign instructed you to wish the counter person good morning. But once I did wish them good morning, I was lucky to receive a grunt in response, reinforcing my low opinion of them.

I was taught that our highways were dangerous, heavily taxed and that all the bus and truck drivers were on drugs while driving. Most bus and truck drivers were Malay or Indian. I learned that you could get stolen goods that “fell” off the back of these trucks if you knew the right person. That person could be a doctor of a well established private hospital. That doctor was Chinese.

I learned that the states in the north were governed by Muslim fanatics and were being trained to get involved with the troubles of the Middle East. I knew that corruption happened and that we lost millions if not billions of dollars a year to it. I knew my country was held together by a strained tolerance and that our unity was a farce to cover up a precariously balanced economical functionality. I knew of friends and family who had suffered because of these things, unable to earn a living or cheated of money and recognition.

I was told the elections were a farce and I had many strange letters to unknown people coming into my mailbox during elections. These people were known as “phantom voters” and I suspect were already deceased. I knew that in my household, we did not bother to turn on my television to know the election results. I had learned that not only would my country not care for me, worse, it would put me down for the sake of some unknown person hoarding power and wealth somewhere up the political chain.

I knew myself and many others were fleeing the country because we were scared of these things and we wanted a better life elsewhere. I knew that my country and those not as fortunate as myself would suffer because I and others were leaving them behind, taking our talent and contribution with us.

I knew these things and I have kept silent all this while. So have many of you. Because how could these things change? How could we say anything and not receive repercussions? What and who did we owe to justify us making a stand and a sacrifice for these things? So best we let our country be.

Best we let it rot and die.

Our beautiful country of Malaysia.

Have you ever truly thought about how beautiful our country is? Have you felt the soft white sands of Langkawi and felt the breeze driving in from the Indian Ocean? Have you stood in a darkened room and heard the tropical storms thunder overhead and lash with ferocity as the clouds move in from the South China Sea? Have you ever pondered the silhouette of our mountain ranges and felt the call of the wild and ancient jungles thrum through the air? Have you felt the fragility of the species we hold in our hands, the tapir and the orang utan and the Sumatran tiger – creatures that, if we are not careful, will soon be fossils and pictures in children’s books? Do you comprehend the riches of the earth our country has been blessed with? Fertile land for farming, lush jungles for lumber, rubber and palm oil, and the black gold of the earth from our coasts.

Have you just stood in the middle of a sweaty, smoke filled hawker centre and marvelled at the banquet of smells and tastes before you? Such a fantastic palate, that I have never heard a single foreigner complain of it. Have you looked at the faces buzzing around you in our shopping malls, and known the immense weight of history and tradition we carry from the mighty civilisations that emerged from the holy Ganges River, the vast Yangtze River and the archipelago of Southeast Asia? Do you wonder at our wonderful tapestries, the gongs and chants from the temples, the smells of incense, the flash and colour of our parades, the solemn call of mosques in the evenings, hundreds of dances and song, more religious festivals than any country in the world, our languages and our rich historical inheritance?

As unpatriotic as any of us could be, how could we not love Malaysia?

When I watched the Bersih videos, it was not just the political movement that got me. I agree fully with the call for fair and clean elections. But what was overpowering, was seeing thousands of people, of every age, of every colour, from every segment of society, from all walks of life, come together and say, “We care. We will not let this country rot and die.”

I never believed I would see such a thing. I never believed my people, a people that did not trust each other and insulted each other in silence, could ever really unite. Yet here they were, standing together in the streets, getting beaten up and having water sprayed at them. Hurting. But united. So from their hope of a better future, from their faith in each other to stand as one over a country they love and their love for the land and its people, I too draw faith and hope and love.

Malaysians, our time is short. The world changes faster and faster everyday and as the old Chinese curse would have it, we live in interesting times. Today, Europe, that was once the mightiest power on earth, threatens to topple spectacularly. America, the world’s super power, is fearful of its own internal workings. And the Chinese dragon shifts restlessly from slumber. Our world has been globalising for decades now and that pace has simply accelerated. The world is tense and troublesome enough to navigate without our own internal strife.

Our economy has been sluggish and in recession for two decades now. While times were good, we could make up for the corruption of our country. But now there is no more leeway for such activities. Our corruption must stop. And let us not just point at our politicians, although they have much to answer for. Let us not just point at our policemen, as easy as they may be to target.

It was my silence that has brought us here. It was your silence too. It is our silence that has made this land groan under our feet. We are the cause Malaysia suffers. We are the reason our rich and poor divide widens. We are the reason we practice a civilised, governmentally endorsed racism. We are the reason our rainforests are dying and smog blankets our atmosphere. We are the reason so many of us do not return to our own country and instead hope to live in foreign lands.

Malaysians, can you change? It will be difficult and we are working against decades of culture and practice. There will be, and have already been, casualties in multiple arenas. There will be a price to pay for the way we have lived. May others, with more wisdom than I, find the way through to a better future.

But as long as we keep our silence, our country will suffer. May whatever powers that govern our universe have mercy upon us.

Yours sincerely,

 Vong

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 16 June 2012, 9:56 am and is filed under
1Malaysia
,
Bersih
,
Elections
,
nation building
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Smoke and Mirrors: Malaysia’s “New” Internal Security Act

By Mickey Spiegel

Senior Advisor with the Asia Division at Human Rights Watch

East-West Center

ANALYSIS

“Critics also noted that the bill, coupled with amendments to other laws, tightened restrictions or banned outright activities already under constraint, added limits to previously unrestricted activities, and broadened police apprehension and surveillance powers in new and innovative ways.”

When Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak announced last September that the country’s infamous Internal Security Act (ISA) would be repealed, he referred to tensions “between national security and personal freedom,” and promised that new “legislation formulated will take into consideration fundamental rights and freedoms.” Fast forward seven months to this April when Parliament’s Lower House, followed in short order by the Upper House, passed ISA’s replacement, the Security Offences (Special Measures) 2012 Act (SOSMA).

Unfortunately, this new bill does not go far enough to protect the fundamental rights and freedoms of Malaysians. While this bill is not yet the law of the land, all that remains is for the king, Sultan Abdul Halim Mu’adzam Shah, to assent and for the text to appear in the Federal Gazette with the date it will take effect.

A far better plan would be for Malaysia’s policymakers to immediately scuttle this first attempt at replacing the ISA and seriously rethink what it means to protect national security concerns while simultaneously protecting the democratic rights and freedoms of all Malaysia’s people. There may yet be hope if influential allies of Malaysia, including the United States, publicly raise their concerns.

When the government initially tabled SOSMA, just a week before Lower House passage, longtime supporters for repeal of the ISA cheered the announcement that the new SOSMA included a clause granting suspects the right to a fair trial, an option not available under the Internal Security Act. Rather, the ISA permitted 60 days of initial police detention, which could be followed by two years of detention, renewable ad infinitum, on the say-so of the home minister. In short, no trial and no judicial review.

Under SOSMA, initial police detention is cut to a maximum of 28 days, after which the attorney-general must decide whether to prosecute and on what charges. On the down side, judicial oversight is notably absent during the first 24 hours of police custody and such absence can be extended to the entire 28-day investigatory period. SOSMA also promised to ease incommunicado detention by mandating immediate notification of next-of-kin and access to a lawyer chosen by the suspect. However, that initial access can be postponed for 48 hours should a higher level police officer consider it prudent; another serious violation of an individual’s due process rights.

When Malaysian and international NGOs, civil society organizations,activists, legal experts and local politicians long opposed to ISA took a closer look at SOSMA, they realized that while the new law marked some improvements in some areas, it was actually more repressive and retrograde in others. It demonstrated yet again that the Malaysian government was playing “bait and switch” with human rights. Critics also noted that the bill, coupled with amendments to other laws, tightened restrictions or banned outright activities already under constraint, added limits to previously unrestricted activities, and broadened police apprehension and surveillance powers in new and innovative ways.

Moreover, the SOSMA definition of a security offense–“an act prejudicial to national security and public safety”–is overly broad, as it gives the government sufficient power to bring partisan politics into decisions as to what is or is not a security breach. For example, the government could decide that the ongoing Bersih “clean elections” campaign is a security offense as it is intended to influence or compel the government to change electoral practices that help preserve the status quo.

Penal code amendments that accompanied the passage of SOSMA establish additional broad security offenses such as “activity detrimental to parliamentary democracy.” Printing, selling, possessing, publishing or importing so-called “detrimental” documents and publications, disseminating false reports, and counseling “violent disobedience to the law” all became security offenses. Importantly, the amendments do away with the presumption of innocence by requiring the defendant to prove he or she is unaware that a given document is “detrimental.” Yet that key word “detrimental” is nowhere defined, leaving wide scope for political manipulation.

Even the much-applauded language stating that “No person shall be arrested and detained…solely for his political belief or political activity” is less than it appears due to SOSMA’s definition of political activity and belief as opinion or action reflecting the views of a political party that is legally registered under the Societies Act. But the Registrar of Societies, a political appointee, has unassailable power to refuse or delay registration ad infinitum–a power that has been used repeatedly for political ends such as denying registration to a newly formed political party.

SOSMA also further erodes citizens’ individual protections, for example by ceding to the police rather than judges the power to intercept communications and, at trial, keeping secret the identity of prosecution witnesses, thus preventing cross-examination. Other changes refer to the rules of evidence, where prosecutors can utilize information without disclosing sources.

Should a suspect be acquitted despite all these roadblocks, SOSMA preserves a way to detain individuals for years by simply filing appeals. As long as the appeals process continues, an acquitted suspect may be detained or tethered to a monitoring device, a blatant denial of personal liberty that could potentially take years to resolve. The process may be different, but the resultant detention without trial is no different than the ISA’s two-year renewable terms. In fact, from initial arrest to final appeal, a person may be kept under lock and key indefinitely.

Detaining people indefinitely is, as noted, already a longtime government practice in Malaysia. Approximately 45 suspects are still held under the ISA, at this writing the last detainee is due for release in January 2014. Even if SOSMA goes into effect, it specifically provides that any order issued or action taken under ISA remains in force unless previously revoked by the home minister.

The Malaysian government should immediately withdraw the SOSMA provisions that violate protection of fundamental human rights. Then it should eliminate the overly broad and often vague language in SOSMA and associated bills that undermine basic human rights in the name of national security. And finally, those still held under the ISA should be immediately released or tried in a court of law with all the due process protections that international law demands and the Malaysian people deserve.

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 16 June 2012, 11:07 am and is filed under
Human Rights
,
ISA
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Dr M: Najib must be firm

By Dan Martin

Free Malaysia Today

INTERVIEW

June 17, 2012

He was skeptical of Najib’s liberalising moves and suggested authorities are too soft on a rising movement demanding free and fair elections

KUALA LUMPUR: Influential former strongman Dr Mahathir Mohamad has thrown his weight behind a Malaysian conservative pushback against growing calls for change, saying reform could lift the lid on ethnic tensions.

In an interview, the 86-year-old authoritarian icon expressed wariness over liberalising moves by Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak and suggested authorities were too soft on a rising movement demanding free and fair elections.

“We need a government that is firm. It should be fair. It should be firm,” Mahathir said in his futuristic 86th-floor office in the crown of the sky-scraping Petronas Towers high above the capital Kuala Lumpur.

His comments come after police used tear gas and water cannon in April 28 clashes with protesters demanding changes to an electoral system they view as biased.

Tens of thousands took part in the march through the capital, rattling the ruling party and triggering a wave of sharp conservative rhetoric against reform proponents.

Najib, who must call elections by early next year, has moved to soften some of the decades-old draconian security controls frequently employed by Mahathir during his 22 years in power.

But Mahathir, who retired in 2003, warned too much freedom risked stirring an ethnic hornet’s nest.

“Now that we want to be liberal, what has happened is that now we are more race-conscious than before. Today people are accusing each other of being racist,” said Mahathir, looking somewhat frail but his mind still sharp.

About 60 percent of Malaysia’s 28 million people are Muslim ethnic Malays who are assured political supremacy under a system that also grants them preferences in business and education.

Malaysia has sizeable Chinese and Indian minorities, many of whom chafe under the system.

Eyeing minority votes, Najib has promised to look into the relevance of those policies, while the opposition has said they should be abolished.

But Mahathir, who commands great prestige after helping turn Malaysia into a stable and prosperous nation with a mix of pro-development polices and authoritarian controls, warned change could inflame Malays.

“There is more antagonism between races than before there was this liberalisation,” he said.

The opposition has dismissed such ruling-party warnings as fear-mongering.

No Spring rising here

Mahathir also said a Najib campaign to promote racial unity was “not clearly defined.”

He added that Najib’s pledge late last year that people would no longer be jailed for their political beliefs — part of his moves to relax security controls — opens the door to extremism.

“What happens, of course, is that when you open up things — you become liberal — it is the extremists, the aggressive ones, who project their views,” said Mahathir.

“Where there was no problem, now there is a problem.”

Seeking to claw back big opposition gains in 2008 polls, Najib is seen to be walking a tightrope between voters seeking change and powerful conservative forces in his Malay-dominated ruling party and the government that it has controlled for 55 years.

Mahathir said allegations of electoral bias were “sheer nonsense,” and that majority Malays saw the April reform rally as the government failing “to stop the kind of violence that they (protesters) indulge in.”

The clean-elections movement has sparked talk in Malaysia that it could be the leading wedge of an “Arab Spring”-style outburst.

Opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim has evoked that spectre as leverage to push for change, while hardliners cite it as justifying a tough stance against dissent.

But Mahathir dismissed the possibility of Malaysians rising up, noting they enjoy more freedoms and are far more well-off than the Arab masses.

He seemed less sure on whether ruling party forces, entrenched in government since independence in 1957, would easily yield power — an opposition concern — if they lost what is expected to be a close election.

“Well, we should hope for a smooth transition, but if (the ruling coalition) doesn’t do well, it is not a good thing for this country,” he said.

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 17 June 2012, 1:47 pm and is filed under
Bersih
,
Elections
,
Mahathir
,
Najib Razak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Global Bersih: Connecting Malaysians around the world

by Lim Ka Ea

The Malaysian Insider

Jun 08, 2012

JUNE 8 — When a work engagement required me to be in Washington DC on April 28, I decided to meet some fellow Malaysians who were involved in Global Bersih 3.0: Washington DC for the purpose of writing this article. I wanted to bring their stories home with me.

Exhausted from a full day of an “unconference” and heavily deprived of sleep from an all-nighter of monitoring “live” tweets on the rally, I waited patiently for my company to arrive. They were going to end their march at the Malaysian Kopitiam, a tradition that started on July 9 last year.

I ordered a glass of “teh tarik” but when it arrived at my table, it was just regular hot tea with milk and sugar served on a small cup and saucer. Not the real thing naturally, but authentic Malaysian cuisine was not why I was there.

While waiting for nearly an hour, I kept myself alert by listening to other people’s conversations with my eyes closed, giving the illusion that I wasn’t eavesdropping. It wasn’t difficult at all since I was close to being brain dead.

Two waitresses, presumably Malaysians, were quizzing each other at the bar on what the rally was all about in Cantonese. Although they were speaking under their breath, I could identify the gossipy tones of a hush-hush conversation between two nosey neighbours across the fence.

They ended their conversation abruptly when a party of eight Americans walked in. One of them shrugged her shoulders and before she left hastily to welcome the party, she ended by sighing, “Haiyah. Who really knows? It has nothing to do with us, right?”

Once the loud conversations ensued at the table, I established that the Americans were probably members of a foodie club of some sort. Their leader began to introduce the dishes, which had been pre-ordered because they were all served shortly after they were seated.

The leader insisted that everyone must absolutely try the curry puff and “popiah.” To reinforce her authority, she continued to share her knowledge of Malaysian food culture and how she thought the food in Penang was one of the best she had ever tried in Asia. The rest nodded in sheer admiration of her worldly wisdom.

As soon as the tiny door to the basement of the building, where the modest restaurant is located, opened, a hyped-up small group of young Asians and two Caucasians in bright yellow T-shirts entered. Unmistakably, they were the company I had been expecting. I recognised Kean and Andrea whom I had met a few days ago and I was quickly introduced to the others.

I was happy to see Andrea again. Behind that quiet and shy demeanour, she’s fondly known as “the slayer” at The Hatchet, a student paper at the George Washington University, where she served as senior editor. We had met at a campus bar at the university where she’ll be finishing her journalism degree soon.

Having interned with an online news portal in Malaysia a few months back, she was fully apprised of the political situation in Malaysia. Coming from a country where a permit for peaceful assembly is often required only to provide the police sufficient time to implement regulatory measures aimed at minimising obstructions to public life, rather than to restrict the right to peaceful assembly per se, she said she was shocked that this should happen in Malaysia.

Like Andrea, Mike, also an American, shared the same sentiment that peaceful assembly is a universal right that should be supported. Before being married to the lovely Grace, he said that he was not aware of the political situation in Malaysia at all.

Now, he’s happy to share this cause with his Malaysian wife who looked radiant in an identical Bersih T-shirt, concealing her protruding belly. They’re expecting their first born soon. The couple had travelled more than one hour to be at the march that day.

Grace holds a green card but is unwilling to revoke her citizenship. She’s been catching up on Malaysian news through an online news portal and is obviously concerned about reports on electoral fraud.

She grew up in a politically savvy family in Malaysia and such events are not foreign to her. She certainly didn’t look as if the rally was such a big deal to her as she happily tucked into her fried noodles.

I turned to Lee who was sitting quietly across the table. From her silence, I could sense that she was not too eager to share her “Bersih stories.” This piqued my curiosity even more. After some gentle probing, she confessed that she didn’t want to be visibly seen to support Bersih.

“I just don’t want to get into trouble with the Malaysian embassy, you know. I still rely on them for diplomatic assistance,” she justified herself.

“But why are you here today?” I asked.

She said she attended the march because she was curious but that didn’t eliminate the fear factor for her.

Playing the devil’s advocate, I couldn’t resist asking, “How do you feel though when you see what’s happening today in Malaysia? Hundreds of thousands of people are abandoning their fear to fight for electoral reform. Isn’t that inspirational to you? If they can abandon that fear, why not you?”

She didn’t answer my question immediately. I could see she was weighing my question carefully, possibly not because she didn’t know the answer but how she could respond to me as calmly as possible. Perhaps my question sounded judgmental because when she did finally answer, I could sense tears brimming in her eyes.

I thought I detected a quivering voice when she said, “Malaysians living in Malaysia don’t have to be at the mercy of the government to go on with their livelihood. Not me. I need them to sort out my paperwork here.” A split second later, she quickly added, “I’m living here on my own. What happens if I need the embassy’s help one day? I attend embassy functions occasionally. I know some of the people working there. I, I just don’t want to get into trouble.”

Lee was right. I was being judgmental and as soon as I heard her, I realised that she was conflicted. I thought to myself what kind of a country am I living in when people are afraid of its government even when they are thousands of miles away from it?

“Would you be less fearful if there’s a change in government?” I ventured to ask.

“Yes, yes. I think it would be better,” Lee answered but for now she’s trying her luck to obtain a green card in America.

The conversation soon turned into the green card lottery system, a system that allows 50,000 eligible immigrants to obtain permanent residency annually. Lee then made an announcement that another Malaysian she knows had just recently won the lottery, much to the others’ envy.

Kean changed the conversation by sharing his horror story of the Malaysian consulate in Australia. Married to an Australian, he had gone through hell with the consulate while attempting to sort out the citizenship of his Australian-born child. The consulate had allegedly lost the paperwork and after four years, the process is still pending.

After more than an hour of animated conversation on Lina Joy and what not, I managed to talk to Feng, a post-graduate student, before we left.

“You know, I missed Bersih 1.0. Since then, I told myself I would never miss Bersih 2.0, if it happened again. So, I organised Bersih 2.0 in New York City last year. It was successful and those guys in NYC are really active. They know what to do. Of course, it’s still nothing compared to the students in Australia. They really have guts, courage and passion. More socially active, you know.”

Feng explained that no one from the Bersih Steering Committee had instructed them to start a chapter in New York and Washington DC. It was done independently. The only correspondence ever done with the Bersih Steering Committee was to get the latter to help them with the publicity.

“When [the idea of having a] Global Bersih came up, nobody in the States stepped up. Malaysians who are members of MCA [here] were against it. They said it would tarnish the country’s image. I gave up arguing with them because they wouldn’t listen.”

I asked Feng why those who were present at the march today were mostly of Chinese descent.

“Many Malays are on scholarships. They want to be a part of it but they’re fearful of the repercussions.” He then added quickly: “The same can be asked of Bersih 1.0. Why so few Chinese and Indians? It was mainly the Malays who started Bersih 1.0 but then Bersih 2.0 changed everything. I don’t think it’s valid or fair anymore to ask why only a certain race is fighting for this cause.”

I asked Feng my last question: “Have you ever been asked why you left the country if you love it?”

He laughed at my question and his answer caught me by surprise.

“Who said I love my country? I’m not a patriot. Look at people like Chin Huat and Ambiga. To me, they are the real patriots. They have a choice to leave Malaysia but they didn’t. I’m not a patriot but this seems to be the right thing to do. This is my right and I’m exercising it.”

“And what right is that?” I asked.

“I don’t want other people to fight for me anymore. I want to fight with them. That’s my right.”

Earlier that week, Kean explained that many of the Malaysian diaspora do feel guilty for living abroad. That sense of abandonment does exist. Global Bersih allows them to redeem their guilt by doing something; either by organising a rally, participating in one or simply just to donate money to the cause.

My conversations with my fellow Malaysians in Washington DC taught me something. Being a Malaysian is not necessarily defined by distance, but by spirit and essence. No amount of national ties can be severed if one continues to care about the people whom they’ve left behind and, in their absence, continue to do what they can for the people. For those who’ve asked what have these Malaysians abroad done for the country, perhaps a more valid question to ask is what are the Malaysians in Malaysia doing instead?

Missing out on Bersih 3.0 was totally unplanned. Although I had been critical of the rally’s impact on real electoral reform, I never doubted its tremendous ability to become a national event in the history of the country.

Attending Bersih 2.0 was to me a life-changing experience as a Malaysian. If anything, I felt more Malaysian than any other day that I’ve lived in the country and it gave me a thought — perhaps the younger generation has more difficulty grasping the concept of unity or “Malaysian-ness” as opposed to Malay, Chinese, Indian and “Yang Lain-Lain” is because we never really had to fight for a common purpose together.

Not until then, the fight has always been about who’s getting a bigger piece of the pie and who’s a “pendatang”? Whether or not Bersih has succeeded to achieve its main objectives, I believe that for many, it has taught us a valuable lesson — it’s not always about “them” and “us” but who we are and what we want together as Malaysians. This, unfortunately, is a lesson our education system has sorely failed to impart and uphold.

For those who have constantly upheld the excuse that Bersih has tarnished the country’s image, I urge them to back their statement up with evidence. During the “unconference” I attended, several participants from different countries actually referred to Malaysia as an authoritarian regime. Clearly, it wasn’t the demonstrators who had embarrassed the nation, but what the government is doing to the demonstrators that gave them that impression. Needless to say, I was embarrassed.

When I came home, I gave the only Bersih 3.0 Washington DC T-shirt I could snag up to a friend’s husband who was in Kuantan for work during the rally. I smiled and thought to myself, that’s how connected we all are.

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 17 June 2012, 11:28 am and is filed under
Bersih
,
Elections
,
nation building
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.