Malaysian media – watchdog or running dog?

BY
TESSA HOUGHTON, GUEST CONTRIBUTOR
 – 17 NOVEMBER 2013

New Mandala

If people use the mass media to inform themselves about their society and about the performance of their politicians, and if they use this information to direct their political choices and participation, then inadequate or inaccurate information is liable to result in misconceived political acts.  (Street, 2001: 257)

Malaysia’s 13th General Election (GE13), held on the 5th of May 2013, was the continuation of a historical arc that begun at the 2008 general election (GE12), when the Barisan Nasional (BN), Malaysia’s ruling coalition for the past fifty-six years, lost the states of Penang and Selangor (and Perak temporarily) to the Opposition, as well as their coveted two-thirds Parliamentary majority. This was an unexpected shock to the system that immediately plunged Malaysia into an anticipatory political fervour. After 5 years of delays, civil unrest, and an increasingly unified opposition, with their term stretched to the far edge of expiration (and several state assemblies pushed beyond this point), BN failed to counter Pakatan Rakyat’s (PR) message of ‘Ini Kali Lah!’, returning their worst result ever. The BN not only failed to recover a two-thirds majority in Parliament but lost the popular vote for the first time, with only 47.38% support compared to PR’s 50.87%.

The anticipation and tension leading up to and extending beyond GE13 (with widespread accusations of electoral fraud and BN retaining power through systemic gerrymandering and malapportionment), was apparent not just within civil society but also within academia, surely going down as not just the most anticipated but the most researched election in Malaysian history. Non-governmental organisations, too, were on high alert, with extensive scrutiny of electoral processes and authorities. One of the main areas of interest and contention in political, academic, activist, and civil society alike was that of media bias.

The ‘Watching the Watchdog’ GE13 media monitoring project, a collaboration between the University of Nottingham Malaysia Campus’s Centre for the Study of Communications & Culture (CSCC) and the Malaysian Centre for Independent Journalism (CIJ), brought together the intersecting goals of data-based media freedom advocacy and critical media and politics research. With much of Malaysia’s mediascape controlled by BN and its constituent parties through a combination of political/regulatory mechanisms (most notably, the Printing Presses and Publications Act and the Sedition Act), and the economic domination and control that exists in a state of symbiosis with these regressive and often selectively-mobilised pieces of legislation, most Malaysians have resigned themselves to newspapers and television news broadcasts full of what is best described as ‘running dog’ journalism, with little of the ‘watchdog’ functionality one expects from a free and independent media.

Several scholars, notably those from the Universiti Sains Malaysia School of Communication, have delineated the political-economic power structures behind this state of affairs (e.g. Mustafa & Zaharom, 1998; Wang, 2001; Zaharom, 2002), and there has been content analysis carried out at both the academic level (e.g. Abbott, 2011) and by NGOs (such as CIJ’s previous monitoring exercises) in an attempt to map the extent of the actually-occurring political bias in the Malaysian media. However, these content analyses have been relatively limited in scope and/or conducted at the article level.

The ‘Watching the Watchdog’ project both expanded the scope of these previous studies (monitoring twenty-seven print, televisual and online media in 3 languages, English, Bahasa Malaysia and Mandarin, across Semenanjung and Bornean Malaysia) (see Table 1).

Table 1: Media monitored by the WtW project

The project utilised a conservative sentence-level methodology, with references to politician and political figures or political parties and coalitions only ‘codeable’ as non-neutral in tone when linguistic data such as emotive or descriptive vocabulary (such as ‘liar’ or ‘experienced’) was present. Some overarching ideological frameworks were accepted as normative – such as economic growth being (in the abstract) something generally perceived as positive – but issues such as hudud were not ‘coded’ as inherently negative, despite this being, in many cases, what was inferred. The methodology was designed to remove as much ‘coder bias’ from the results as possible; to be able to be applied effectively by a cohort of over seventy coders or research assistants; and to provide a granular measure of bias.

References to politicians and political figures were disaggregated into (1) individuals being talked about/mentioned and (2) individuals being used as sources. This allowed us to see which politicians (and political parties/coalitions) were given the highest proportion of unmediated access to the media – who, effectively, is able to use the media as their personal soapbox, and who is not. We used this disaggregation to track not just positive and negative mentions but to track source-level attacks – i.e. who was conducting attacks when used as a source, and which politician or party were they attacking?

The project monitored the month leading up to the election plus slightly beyond polling day – from the 7th of April to the 7th of May. Only election news articles were coded/analysed – no opinion columns or reader comments or contributions were included, with the one exception of the newspaper’s daily editorial if they ran one. Five interim data reports were released in the two weeks leading up to polling day, with two final overview reports on the media’s coverage of (1) politicians and political figures and (2) political parties and coalitions split by language/location/medium, as well as twenty-seven individual publication reports, released to the public on the 17th of September 2013. The full cohort of reports can be downloaded from Scribd.

For the most part, our results statistically corroborate the copious anecdata available. Within the newspapers and television news broadcasts monitored, in both Semenanjung and Bornean Malaysia, in English and Bahasa Malaysia, there was consistent bias in favour of BN and against PR. The volume of coverage dedicated to each coalition and its constituent parties and politicians varied from media to media, with some media groups, surprisingly, dedicating significantly more coverage to the opposition (although for the most part, BN received more coverage overall). However, once coverage volume was contextualised with the data on tone, this unexpected skew was explained – PR may have sometimes received more coverage overall, but they always received much higher proportions of negative coverage and attacks in comparison to BN, who always received the highest proportions of positive coverage. This was true for both coverage of political parties/coalitions (see Table 2) and politicians/political figures (see Table 3).

Table 2: Distribution of Tonal Coverage of Political Parties & Coalitions

Table 3: Distribution of Tonal Coverage of Politicians and Political Figures

These tables show the proportions of tonal coverage within each media group (e.g. Bernama’s coverage consisted of 36% positive mentions of; 39% neutral mentions of; 17% negative mentions of; and 9% attacks on political parties/coalitions), as well as the ratios within each tonal category with regards to their split between BN and PR (e.g. Bernama’s 36% positive coverage was split between BN and PR at a ratio of 1: 0.045 respectively). The top 5 most unequal ratios within each tonal category are shaded grey, with these ‘most unequal’ ratings then extrapolated across horizontally to show ‘repeat offenders’ with regards to unequal distributions of tonal material – i.e. political bias. It is notable that a very pronounced pattern of these ‘repeat offenders’ emerges, as does the overwhelming bias in favour of BN and against PR. The only media groups who do not conform to this bias pattern are the Mandarin newspapers and the online media.

The sourcing practices of all the media groups, with the exception of the online English media, were further cause for concern. Table 4 below shows the ratios of use as source distribution between BN and PR politicians (e.g. Bernama used BN sources 88.81% of the time and PR sources only 3.19% of the time). BN sources are used at much higher rates than PR sources – a fact that is likely attributable to multiple factors, including the vast electoral machinery at BN’s disposal. Causation aside, when paired with the extremely negative or attack-oriented Malaysian political environment, and the tendency for these sources to be attacking the opposition (as can be seen in the individual publication reports), this skewed direct access to the ‘media soapbox’ is another major contributing factor to the lack of a free, fair, and balanced Malaysian mediascape.

Table 4: Distribution of Use as Source

The findings below were particularly notable:

The extremely pronounced bias present in Bernama’s news wire releases: Bernama has not been monitored previously; it runs on taxpayer funds; and it is a common news source for many, if not all, other Malaysian media. As such, its pronounced bias is cause for extra concern.

The relatively balanced coverage provided by the online media we monitored: Malaysiakini and The Malaysian Insider (TMI) both regularly come under fire for being pro-opposition. Certainly, once one takes opinion columns and reader comments and contributions into account, this is likely the case, but in terms of their core news output, they are doing a professional job of maintaining balance in an extremely difficult environment.

The relatively balanced coverage provided by the Mandarin newspapers we monitored; these papers, too, have sometimes come under fire as being pro-opposition. I am unable to speak for their opinion columns and reader contributions, but their core news content also does a professional job of maintaining balance in a difficult environment.

There have been reoccurring and predictable arguments against the significance of our findings. Firstly, that the internet, and particularly social media have equalised the playing field, so it doesn’t really matter than the mainstream media are in such a state (just look at all the votes the opposition got!); and secondly, that PR has its party organs, such as Keadilan and Harakah. I’m not sure if these criticisms are naïve, deluded, or strategic, but my response is as follows.

The argument that the internet has equalised the playing field is misguided on several levels. Firstly, not everyone has internet access (roughly 35% of Malaysians are still offline), and huge differences exist in terms of the quality and quantity of the access that does exist. Older, poorer, rural populations continue to be BN’s main vote banks, as has been definitively shown by the voting data from GE13. These populations (following global trends) are much more likely to have no/poor quality/limited internet access. This is no coincidence. It has nothing to do with innate intelligence, and everything to do with access to competing opinions and ideologies. These populations have and continue to consume primarily BN propaganda masquerading as news, whereas wealthier, younger, urban populations are constantly bombarded with and socialised into consuming a multitude of competing and critical perspectives.

That is not to say that factors such as party allegiance and political leanings derived from factors such as family background, ethnicity, and religion do not have any impact on the interaction between media and audience – they do. But they are secondary factors, part of the interpretive framework audiences apply to the primary information received from the media. If the primary information pool is limited and biased and audiences do not have well-developed critical media literacy skills, then their resulting decisions are likely to be similarly biased – particularly when set within a developing context and against a meta-discursive background of stability versus the unknown.

As for the rising importance of social media – certainly, the opposition appear to be savvier in terms of utilising Web 2.0 platforms than BN, likely because they have had to learn or perish. However, much of what circulates on Facebook and Twitter is in reaction to news stories emerging from the mainstream media. While recognising the importance of citizen journalism, social media, and micro/blogging, high quality ‘traditional’ journalism is still central to the facilitation of a vibrant mediated public sphere. Furthermore, socially mediated political debate often tends towards ‘cyberbalkanisation’ – and in an already heavily polarised and increasingly bitter political environment, is this really what is needed? A more diverse and balanced mainstream media environment would feed into engagement across difference – rather than opposition supporters clustering around Malaysiakini and TMI and circulating in one social media loop, and government supporters clustering around the sites of Utusan et al and staying within their own respective media enclaves, only emerging to ridicule and malign one another. It would also help foster meaningful debate between religions, races, classes, and between Semenanjung and Malaysian Borneo – all important conversations to do with the core issues of national identity and community.

The same argument applies for party organs like Harakah. Party organs and news media perform different roles, and the former cannot substitute for the latter. News media should facilitate informed political participation and hopefully understanding of (if not agreement with) our socio-political community; party organs are for the express purpose of party advocacy, and are intended to ‘preach to the choir’. When the vast majority of the mainstream Malaysian ‘news’ media, labelled and sold as such, is actually more akin to a BN party organ; when the only media functioning as anything like professional news journalism organisations are in Mandarin or are online? It’s safe to say that something is seriously rotten in what aspires to be the “best democracy in the world” (Najib Razak, September 18, 2011).

The media are key to the democratic and electoral integrity of any political system, and “[f]reedom of information is a fundamental feature of a democratic society” (Street, 2001: 170). Malaysian citizens who relied on English and Bahasa Malaysia newspapers and/or television as their media source/s during the GE13 campaign (either by choice or as a result of only limited options being available) were not provided with fair and accurate information with which to construct informed voting preferences, with clear voting patterns emerging along these strata of info-communicative diversity and scarcity, and the media used more as a tool of division than of reconciliation. Although gradual improvements in internet penetration and demographic shifts may benefit the opposition, BN continues to possess many structural advantages and despite lacking agility overall, is capable of adapting to the shifting terrain. With Malaysia already turning its attention towards GE14, the national media continue to be the arena in which political struggles play out. In media as in politics, only time will tell whether entropy or stasis will prevail.

Tessa J. Houghton
 is Assistant Professor in Media and Communication / Director of the Centre for the Study of Communications and Culture at the University of Nottingham Malaysia Campus.

References

Abbott, J. P. (2011). Electoral Authoritarianism and the Print Media in Malaysia: Measuring Political Bias and Analyzing Its Cause. Asian Affairs: An American Review, 38(1): 1-38.

Deuze, M. (2011). Media Life. Media Culture and Society. 33(1): 137-148.

Mustafa, A. K., & Zaharom, N. (1998). Ownership and control of the Malaysian media. Media Development. XLV (4): 9-17.

Street, J. (2001). Mass Media, Politics & Democracy. Basingstoke: Palgrave.

Wang, L. K. (2001). Media and Democracy in Malaysia. Javnost/The Public. 8(2): 67-88.

Zaharom, N. (2002). The structure of the media industry: implications for democracy. In Loh, K. W. and Khoo, B. T. (eds.) Democracy in Malaysia: Discourses and Practices. London: Curzon, p.111-137.

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 21 November 2013, 10:15 am and is filed under
Elections
,
Media
,
Pakatan Rakyat
,
UMNO
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


The battle inside PAS – the issues

Bridget Welsh
 | 1:49PM Nov 20, 2013

Malaysiakini

COMMENT Malaysia’s Islamist party PAS heads to its 59th muktamar this week, electing its leadership once again as it does on a biannual basis.

The party’s elections have come under the microscope, with attention riveted on the heated contests between the ‘pro-ulama’ and ‘progressives’ or ‘Erdogan’ factions.

The decisions made at the muktamar this week will set the course for the opposition in the years ahead and determine whether the Islamist party will be able to bridge some of its internal divisions that played a major role in diminishing its electoral performance in the 13th general election (GE13), especially in Kedah, or continue on a path towards splintering itself and the hopes of a united national opposition.

To begin with, it is important to start with a caveat. PAS is the party in Malaysia that holds its party elections most frequently, for short two-year terms, and it has a record of reversing directions, with the pendulum swinging to both the more conservative and liberal directions.

This is to say that whatever happens in the muktamar is a reflection on ongoing trends and tensions within the party itself that are evolving and will evolve further, post-muktamar.

This said, much of the attention in the media has centred on the increasingly heated ideological differences of the two factions and the personalities involved. It is necessary to unpack what the underlying ideological issues are, as they are intertwined.

It is also important to acknowledge that the issues facing PAS are affecting Islamist parties globally. To simplify, I boil the issues down to four: leadership, alliances, doctrine and strategy.

Leadership composition and consultation

With attention centred on the ulama – many of whom are actually ustaz – the focus is on the senior leadership contests and who should comprise the party’s leadership.

This issue has long been debated in PAS and among Islamists generally. Should the party be exclusively ulama-led, and if not what role should others play in the leadership process?

This issue is not an easy one for any religious party. What has brought the issue to the fore in recent years has been the pressures of being in government on a broader, more national scale.

Increasingly experts – non-ulama – have moved to the forefront in representing PAS in governance, and this has fostered a dynamics of displacement for the ulama within the party and, for some, engendered a perceived climate of siege against the ulama.

This has been compounded by perceptions of an inability of many of the ustaz to show an understanding of the pressing issues facing the country, beyond religion.

It is not just about the role that ulama play individually, but the process of decision-making moving away from more consensus leadership towards divergence, often with the ulama openly differing with an elected representative, as two different forms of political legitimacy are contested.

One claims legitimacy through learning about religion and the other through the decisions of people believed to be shaped by faith. Increasingly, both sides are opting for non-consultation with each other, contributing to increasing division within the party as a whole.

The ulama have raised the stakes for this election, taking a stand that is forcing hard choices. At the muktamar, delegates have been presented with a stark choice, to opt for a more exclusive ulama dominance or a more inclusive, diverse leadership.

Friends and enemies

A related issue involves who should PAS ally itself with, or whether it should ally at all. Recently, post-GE13, the focus has been on PAS’ role in Pakatan, with concerns raised about the prospect of PAS leaving Pakatan persisting.

The deadline threats given by PAS candidates to its Pakatan partners in places like Penang – a product primarily of politicking for positions – reflect a reservation and insecurity among many in PAS within Pakatan.

Among some, there is discomfort working with non-Muslims, perceived inferiority vis-a-vis other parties, and the perception (in fact misperception when one looks at the electoral results) that Pakatan Rakyat has weakened the party electorally, especially among its Malay base.

National support for PAS has expanded, as seen in the increase in the popular vote, and based on an estimate of polling centre voting patterns, Malay support only dropped by two percent, still higher than in 2004. The losses were largely concentrated in Kedah, and to a lesser extent in Kelantan.

The inward orientation of many PAS members, especially those based in the East Coast, contribute to these insecure views of GE13, pressuring PAS to return to the past position of going it alone.

However, that position of going it alone is no longer a reality in today’s politics. One lesson of GE13 is that without allies you are likely to either be wiped out or minimally lose out to Umno. Kota Damansara is a case in point.

Divide-and-rule is a tactic that was honed by Dr Mahathir Mohamad and remains a key ingredient in the Umno arsenal. In fact, the dynamics of pushing to leave Pakatan is being fuelled by Umno, which continues to present itself as a potential ally and is attempting to infiltrate the party.

There are concerns that Umno has made headway in its effort to splinter PAS. There appears to have been a concerted effort to woo members in PAS through financial incentives, gifts in kind to religious schools, offers of business contracts, television advertising space, and more.

These infiltration efforts have been reinforced by the mainstream media criticising PAS for allegedly failing to defend Islam and supposedly losing autonomy to the Chinese.

The use of fear, insecurity and divide-and-rule tactics have been longstanding, but as Umno has increasingly faced the reality of no increase in popular support in GE13, it has been ratcheted up by the mainstream media and the liars-for-hire bloggers’ activities.

The aim is to split PAS, and in doing so, break up the party that has increased its support among Malays by over 50 percent since the early 1990s, thereby destroying this challenge to Umno.

At the muktamar, delegates will decide which side they will ally in who they select in their leadership. A clear signal will be sent if they cut off leaders who are the bridge for communication and mutual understanding.

This issue, more than the question of leadership, has the potential to shatter PAS’ electoral fortunes and divide it from its electoral base for generations.

Democratising discourse

The decision about alliances is complicated by political doctrine or rather political indoctrination over religion. Debate over Islam in Malaysia, as everyone knows is highly politicised, with the movement sadly towards greater intolerance. There has been an evolving “us versus them” dichotomy and language, full of attacking labels and lacking nuance, or understanding.

Increasingly Islam is being portrayed as something to be possessed and defended rather than shared or appreciated, with the rights of those who differ both in the faith and outside of it increasingly curbed.

This political narrowing of Islam has led to more polarised views about Islam in Malaysia, which have in turn fostered more intolerance across the faiths.

This has been fed by many (although not all) Islamic religious authorities who often blatantly disregard the rule of law, are seen as arrogantly vested in wielding their power, and perceived to have long forgotten the premises of religious freedom. There is no longer an appreciation that choice is a crucial ingredient in the practice and honouring of any faith.

Intolerance has also been fuelled by Umno, which has tried to strengthen its position politically by dominating the discourse over religion through not only its support of religious authorities but the indirect funding of NGOs that have become uncivil proponents of distortions.

Umno, with its moral decay over issues of corruption, has had to outsource its efforts to seek religious legitimacy. The dominant Umno paradigm is thus one that follows the racial chauvinism of the party over Malay rights; it is a paradigm in which Islam is being defended or wielded as a weapon against the rights of non-Muslims.

In schools (and school canteens), mosques, media outlets and in the social media, this Umno paradigm of Islam become more dominant, contributing to an erosion of decency and kindness.

While there are many deeply conservative PAS ustaz – many of whom are running for office this round – who buy into the tenets of the Umno paradigm of the religion, what is not appreciated is that within PAS there are robust discussions about what the faith should be and over the last decade these discussions have widened. These have become the arenas for nuance and differences, where black and white labels are dismissed in favour of grey and colour.

This debate over doctrine is frightening for many, even within PAS itself. It is easier to see the world through one set of dark lenses rather than to open up to varied shades of light. This party election involves not only positions over doctrine, but the ability to debate ideas; it involves democratising the discourse over Islam.

Political strategy

How to manage Malaysia’s widening democracy has created other challenges for PAS. PAS is a political party and like all political parties its main aim is to get into government. From 2008 onwards, PAS has evolved into a national party, and the decisions over strategy are increasingly complex and complicated.

The days of winning by attending weddings and funerals in the rural areas are largely over.  Personality politics is waning as it being replaced by debates over issues and populist hand-outs. PAS is playing catch-up. It is thus not a surprise that factionalism and differences have expanded, and the debate over the electoral tactics to adopt has intensified.

Many in PAS are concerned with their core base – Kelantan. Should the tactic for PAS be to defend its current base, especially Kelantan, or should it expand? If so, how should it do this? Without candidates standing outside of the state, bringing home voters to the state, Kelantan would have likely fallen to Umno. The challenge of governing rural Malay states well is now centre stage, with the issues of inclusion and expertise coming to the fore.

The challenge for the future strategy remains. Should PAS appeal to economic concerns or return to earlier failed options such as hudud? What can be done to strengthen the economic credentials of the party or should they return to religious law?

These issues have come to the surface again, as one would expect after GE13, an election where the party did not meet its own expectations and lost the state of Kedah.

Why did it lose this state? Was it a decline of Chinese support compared to the national average, poor governance, religious issues or leadership? The answers to these questions are not easy to answer, as there are many views.

The lesson of Terengganu in GE13 is revealing, a place where PAS gained ground and almost won back the state. Instead of using a strategy of religion, PAS opted for good governance and pointed to the excesses of the current state leadership, especially the menteri besar, Ahmad Said. In contrast to 2004 where a conservative hudud religious agenda alienated voters, focusing on good governance yielded stronger support.

The debates over GE13 are ongoing and used for political mileage in the fight for leadership positions. In fact, one irony of what is happening in the party campaign is that serious introspection of PAS’ electoral performance is being overshadowed by performers in the party election.

Altogether, there are broadly two routes. One that is touted is that PAS should follow a more conservative religious path, to return to the past and go into the arms of Umno.

Malaysia’s ruling party wants PAS to be divided and in the mode of the past, as it knows this will secure its position. Another is to diversify the issues of political engagement, to include good governance and the economy. This is the more difficult and risk-taking choice.

For many, these are not mutually exclusive paths, but there is a matter of prioritisation and these have become linked with the different factions and campaigning, with the pro-ulama camp opting for a more conservative religious route and the progressives pushing for more inclusion and diversity in political engagement.

The 1,300-plus delegates have difficult decisions to make this week, and it is likely that whatever the outcome, these issues will not be solved in this meeting. Signals, however, will be sent, not just for the future direction of PAS, but whether the party is willing to make hard decisions and embrace a more democratic future.

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 21 November 2013, 11:04 pm and is filed under
PAS
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


The Zacharevic lesson all those in authority must learn – the greater the unreasonable pressure by those in power, the greater the righteous reaction by the public

The cut-out figures of the graffiti by Lithuanian-born street artist Ernest Zacharevic on “high crime”  are not just a feature in Johor Baru but are being plastered in other parts of the country.

It is reported that such cut-outs are appearing in Kuala Lumpur and Rawang and very soon, undoubtedly, will be sighted all over the country.

This is a Zacharevic lesson that all those in authority must learn – that the greater the unreasonable pressure by those in power, the greater the righteous reaction by the public.

Zacharevic has the various authorities, in particular the Johor Baru City Council (MBJB) and the Johore State Government to thank for the fame he has acquired for his “high crime in JB” mural, not only in JB, Johore and in Malaysia and even world-wide in this information age of instant communication in a borderless world.

Yes, the MBJB has “white-washed” Zacharevic’s “high crime” mural on a wall of a dilapidated shoplot in Taman Molek but the MBJB has achieved what Zacharevic would not be able to attain on his own – lasting fame for Zacharevic’s “high crime” mural not only among the residents of Johor Baru but beyond boundaries and borders outside JB and Malaysia  in the information world, highlighting the concerns of the people of Johor Baru to end JB’s notoriety as the capital of crime in Malaysia and to become a safe and secure city for its residents, visitors and investors.

The twin issues of the fundamental right to safety and security as well as free expression are intertwined in the Zacharevic controversy.

But what the people of JB, Johor and Malaysia hope as the immediate consequence of the Zacharevic controversy is yet to be seen, i.e. a new resolve and commitment by all the authorities in JB, involving the municipality, the State Government and the police, rallying the people of JB in an effective initiative to make JB a low-crime city!

When can the campaign to “white-wash” JB’s notoriety as the capital of crime in Malaysia begin?

This is the only real meaningful response to Zacharevic’s “high crime” mural in JB!

Artikel ini juga boleh didapati dalam Bahasa Malaysia di:
https://blog.limkitsiang.com/2013/11/22/pengajaran-daripada-kes-zacharevic-untuk-pihak-berkuasa-semakin-besar-tekanan-diberikan-oleh-pihak-berkuasa-tanpa-sebab-yang-munasabah-semakin-panas-reaksi-orang-ramai/

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 21 November 2013, 2:47 pm and is filed under
Crime
,
Johor Bahru
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


How Tengku Razaleigh saved the construction industry: Practicing the 10 Golden Political Principles

Koon Yew Yin

21st Nov. 2013

The Perak Academy has invited Tengku Razaleigh to give a talk in Ipoh on the 23rd Nov. 2013 and he wishes to talk about ‘The economic reality in Malaysia today’. Many of you will remember that Tengku was here about a year ago to launch my book ‘Malaysia: A Road Map For Achieving Vision 2020’. Previous to this occasion, the Perak Academy also invited him and he talked about his 10 golden political principles on which I wrote and published an article.

Although I am not a politician, I have long been an admirer of Tengku Razaleigh.  In the last two years I have tried to draw the attention of the public on several occasions to his stand in Malaysian politics which I believe contains values and principles that are superior to the manifestos and principles of other leading politicians in the country.

Key amongst what are Tengku’s “Ten Golden Political Principles” to ensure the survival and progress of the nation in the difficult years ahead is the need for all political parties to include in their constitutional objectives the equality of citizenship as provided for in the Federal Constitution. He has also emphasized that political parties must not propagate economic or political policies that discriminate against any citizen and called on all parties to include and uphold constitutional democracy and the separation of powers as a fundamental principle.

He has also insisted that it shall be the duty of all political parties to adhere to the objective of public service and to refrain from involvement in business, and to ensure the separation of business from political parties.

To my mind, this is the principle which is being transgressed all the time and which needs all political parties and politicians, especially from the Barisan Nasional side to  observe it scrupulously.

It is with respect to this principle of selfless public service and the need for politicians and political parties – while helping the private sector thrive – to stand apart from it that I most remember Tengku, especially since I was privileged to witness him personally practice it

At that time more than 30 years ago Tengku Razaleigh was the Minister of Finance in the late 70’s and early 80s. I was already an established businessman having founded Mudajaya and IJM. I was also the Secretary General of the Malaysian Contractors Association as well as being a member of the Board of Engineers and a member of the SIRIM Committee that was responsible for drafting the Malaysian Standards for Cement and Concrete.

From my key position in the construction industry during that period, I had various meetings with Tengku on emergency issues and developments that affected this important component of the Malaysian economy.

Price fluctuation clause for building materials

Perhaps the most serious challenge to the construction industry occurred during the fuel oil crisis in the early 1980s when the prices of all building materials shot through the roof and contractors were caught in a jam. They all could not fulfill their obligations under the terms of their contracts. Many of the material prices went up more than 100%; for example the price of cement went up from RM 3.50 to Rm 8.50 per bag of 50 kg.

How could contractors complete the contracted work when their original bids were made on the basis of much cheaper priced materials?  As a result of this crisis, all schools, hospital, highway and other public construction projects came to a standstill.

When I met the Tengku, I told him that existing construction contracts did not have a provision for material price adjustment. I also pointed out that if clients – such as the Government – were not obliged to reimburse contractors for any additional construction cost arising from the fuel price hike, contractors who could not afford to lose so much money to complete their contracts would simply walk away from the projects.

I told him that the only fair way was to introduce a price fluctuation clause in all the construction contracts.  This would ensure that clients and employers were obliged to compensate contractors for the additional cost when the material price went up whilst reductions and adjustments to progress payments could be made when the material prices went down.

I remember vividly that as a result of our meeting, Tengku Razaleigh immediately instructed his top treasury officials to work out the details for the price fluctuation clause and for its immediate implementation.

Tengku’s Character

Not only did this reveal Tengku to be a man of decisive action but there was no hemming and hawing on how difficult it was to introduce the reform.

Neither was there any attempt to extract personal benefit or advantage from it for himself or his party as now appears to be the accepted practice in Malaysia when politicians deal with the construction industry.

Without the introduction of this critical escalation cost clause, I am sure that many contractors such as Yeoh Tiong Lay (presently of YTL fame) as well as I myself would have gone bankrupt.

As a result of Tengku’s decisive action in introducing the price fluctuation clause, our construction industry was able to survive the crisis period of the 1980s in relatively good shape.  Since then, the construction industry has grown from strength to strength and  has gone global, competing on competitive tenders in other countries including India and China.

I have no doubt that it was Ku Li’s understanding and practice of the economics of moral and material development during the late 70s and 80s that has provided the crucial ground work for the prosperity and affluence that we take for granted today.

The best tribute that we can pay to someone who has the longest record of selfless public service to the nation is to ensure that his Ten Golden Political Principles become the template for our future development.

                This entry was posted on Friday, 22 November 2013, 6:24 am and is filed under
Razaleigh Hamzah
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Moody’s has given us a good mood… but is it sustainable?

– Ramon Navaratnam

The Malaysian Insider

November 21, 2013

After the earlier cautious Fitch Rating Report on Malaysia’s sovereign credit outlook, the Moody’s Investors Service’s upgrading of our credit outlook from “stable to positive”, uplifts our mood on our country’s economic prospects.

Yes Moody’s has given us a good mood on our economic prospects. But unfortunately the question lingers as to whether this feel good mood, about our sovereign credit and economic outlook, can be sustained and for how long?

The upgrading had been due to the   positive and bold   promises  made  in Budget  2014  Speech by  Dato Seri Najib Tun Razak. His speech has obviously made an impact on Moody’s.

The Budget  gave the  welcome  assurances that the fiscal deficits and the debt ratio would be better  managed and reduced, to achieve more sustainable fiscal and financial  strength  and economic prospects.

We have to take note however that Moody’s based their “positive outlook” for Malaysia, on our continued good performance, relative to our “peers”. We can include our neighbours like the Asean countries, and even Korea, Taiwan and Hong Kong.

Many of these countries have better records in economic management. Hence, we have  to be vigilant all the time and take corrective measures not only within our economy, but also in comparison to the  better  economic  performance of our peers. We have to also be increasingly competitive and meritocratic.

Here again we must ask ourselves whether we will be introducing adequate structural reforms that will not only  raise revenues like the proposed new General Services Tax in 2015, but whether the government will be more assertive in constraining our huge and rising expenditures. Will the new expenditure supplementary budgets that will inevitability be introduced next  year, increase the low budget estimated deficits?

The Economic Transfer Programme have helped to increase Private Investment; but this is slowing down. Government or public investment has its limitations due to budget and debt constraints. So what will motivate sustained growth and better income distribution for the Malaysian economy?

To move forward more steadily and purposefully, and to be more convincing to ourselves and the rating agencies, we will need more structural reforms in our economic management such as to:

1.  Raise the transparency in our non-financial public sector on indebtedness and to reduce contingency liabilities.

 2.  Reduce our recourse to the use of “off Budget institutions” to show less budget expenditures.

 3.  Dampen high household debts.

 4.  Curtail the rising costs of houses, through less protective Bumi policies.

 5. Drastic measures to cut corruption and the wastage of public funds, as indicated in the sound Auditor General’s reports.

More importantly, we have to seriously reconsider the adoption of the basic reforms that were proposed in the New Economic Model. These fundamental reforms are the kind of issues that Moody’s could have politely described as “politically and administratively challenging”, since they go to the heart of fiscal discipline and sustainable socio-economic development.

Whether and how we can achieve our reduced budget deficit and debt targets will be carefully monitored by Moody’s and other international rating agencies in the months ahead!

For instance, they will keep close track of our tendering procedures for mega contracts and projects, to see if we are getting full value and viable returns for our expanding expenditures from our limited hard-earned income. In short, they will watch our quality of governance.

An example of poor governance and bad financial management is shown in the current controversy around the raising of assessment rates proposed by the Kuala Lumpur City Hall. Rate payers and tax payers want to know why they have to be further burdened, without being consulted adequately on new taxes. They have become more sophisticated and ask what they are getting in return for higher rates and taxes?

Have the federal government and local council services improved that much to justify new taxes? Are local councils they sufficiently accountable?  Should local elections be reintroduced to check on lack of accountability and poor governance and bureaucratic and political indifference?

Conclusion

Finally, although our mood and sense of well-being may be improved with Moody’s upgrade of our credit outlook, we have to be realistic and continue with our  pursuit of good governance and fiscal discipline.

We cannot afford to drop our guard and become complacent! Our budget promises and performance will be careful scrutinised at home and abroad. Thus, we have to strengthen and sustain our reformative process for better governance with greater priority. – November 21, 2013.

* Ramon Navaratnam is the chairman for the Asli Center of Public Policy Studies.

                This entry was posted on Friday, 22 November 2013, 5:18 am and is filed under
Economics
,
Finance
,
Najib Razak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Pengajaran daripada kes Zacharevic untuk pihak berkuasa – semakin besar tekanan diberikan oleh pihak berkuasa tanpa sebab yang munasabah, semakin panas reaksi orang ramai

Keratan gambar grafiti “jenayah tinggi” oleh seniman jalanan kelahiran Lithuania Ernest Zacharevic kini bukan saja boleh dilihat di Johor Baru malah juga di beberapa tempat lain dalam negara ini.

Menurut laporan, keratan berkenaan mula muncul di Kuala Lumpur dan Rawang dan tidak lama lagi ia tentu boleh dilihat di seluruh negara.

Ini pengajaran buat semua pihak berkuasa – semakin besar tekanan diberikan oleh pihak berkuasa tanpa sebab yang munasabah, semakin panas reaksi orang ramai.

Zacharevic boleh berterimakasih kepada beberapa pihak berkuasa, khususnya Majlis Bandaraya Johor Baru dan Kerajaan Negeri Johor kerana berkat tindakan mereka ke atas mural “jenayah tinggi” beliau di JB, namanya masyhur bukan hanya di JB, Johor, dan Malaysia, malah juga di peringkat dunia dalam zaman maklumat yang memungkinkan sesuatu berita disebarkan dengan cepat dalam dunia tanpa batas.

MBJB telah memadamkan mural “jenayah tinggi” Zacharevic yang dilukis pada tembok sebuah kedai usang di Taman Molek dan tindakan itu membolehkan Zacharevic mencapai sesuatu yang mungkin tidak mampu dicapainya tanpa bantuan MBJB – memasyhurkan mural “jenayah tinggi” itu bukan saja di kalangan penduduk Johor Baru, malah juga di luar JB dan Malaysia dalam dunia maklumat tanpa sempadan dan tindakan itu juga telah membantu penduduk Johor Baru mengungkapkan keinginan mereka agar reputasi JB sebagai pusat jenayah Malaysia dihapuskan, suapaya bandar itu menjadi bandar selamat bagi para penduduknya, pelawat dan pelabur.

Kontroversi Zacharevic berkaitan dengan dua isu berkembar yang asasi, iaitu hak untuk hidup dalam suasana selamat serta hak untuk bersuara secara bebas.

Tetapi kesan segera yang ingin dilihat oleh rakyat JB, Johor, dan Malaysia masih belum kelihatan, iaitu tekad dan komitmen baru semua pihak berwajib di JB, termasuk majlis bandaraya, Kerajaan Negeri, dan polis untuk menggembeleng warga JB dalam sebuah insiatif yang berkesan untuk menjadikan JB sebagai sebuah bandaraya rendah jenayah.

Bilakah kempen untuk memadamkan reputasi JB sebagai pusat jenayah Malaysia akan bermula?

Itu adalah satu-satunya respons yang benar-benar bermakna terhadap mural “jenayah tinggi” di JB!

This article is also available in English at:
https://blog.limkitsiang.com/2013/11/21/the-zacharevic-lesson-all-those-in-authority-must-learn-the-greater-the-unreasonable-pressure-by-those-in-power-the-greater-the-righteous-reaction-by-the-public/

                This entry was posted on Friday, 22 November 2013, 10:08 am and is filed under
Crime
,
Johor Bahru
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Should Penang Island control its population growth?

by Richard Loh

22nd November 2013

Since Pakatan Rakyat rules Penang many are comparing the Island with Singapore or Hong Kong but do not realised that both Singapore and Hong Kong are governments by itself with no hindrance/control by a Federal or central government. Though Hong Kong may now be influenced by China one way or another after 1997.

Also since then various NGOs are openly voicing their opinions or objections to how the state government runs the state especially in developments and the infrastructures.

They are very much concerned with the hills, the seas and beaches and rivers, forests, park land and cultural aspects which they term as ‘The Commons’. The article in Anil Netto’s blog titled Corporate predators eyeing ‘the Commons’ prompted me to write and ask the pertinent question “Should Penang Island control its population growth?”

 The one thing that NGOs seldom talk about is population growth. All their fights over environment destruction are due to what, is it not cause by human beings? No doubt human beings can easily be taught how to be environmentally friendly as they can also be taught how to live on trees, but would they. As population grew the need to house them grew as well and the whole cycle begins with developments vs environment(The Commons). To avoid any misunderstanding, what I am saying or proposing is specifically on Penang Island only.

 Penangnites must know that Penang Island is already badly damaged in terms of developments and infrastructures by poor planning, outdated National Land Code and Building by-laws. There is no way any government can reverse it provided they dare or can impose strict restrictions on private lands. One example of strict restriction is, any private land less than 5acres cannot be developed (even if it is gazetted as development land). If you can visualized the situation as it is now, you can see small buildings popping up at every corner by private land owners, some land less than an acre.

 What are the consequences? Traffic congestion, drainage & sewerage system failure. When the government plan and construct the infrastructures in the early years they did not foresee the future growth hence built the infrastructures as per required at that time. Since then more and more developments, big or small were built and all discharges be it cars, drainage & sewerage from those new developments are connected to the main infrastructures which were built and only cater for in the early years.

 There is no way the government can restrict private developments as long as developers comply with the National Land Code and Building By-laws which are enacted by the government themselves. Developments will continue when the demand is there as more people flock to reside on the Island and the local resident population growth itself.

 So, can you blame the greedy developers when they are allowed to buy up as many private lands, big and small, comply with the authority requirements and developed them. Is the government to be blamed when their hands are tight by their own laws?

 Some may question why Singapore or Hong Kong can do it and not Penang Island. Let me use Singapore as an example how they can developed so well since I was there in the 70’s involving in the construction of their HDB flats.

 Firstly as per my opening statement, Singapore is a government by itself with no Federal or central government looking over them and secondly, they started on a near clean ground or you can say a fresh start since leaving Malaysia. Not much damages done yet to most of the Island’s land. Their planning were done with the future in mind. No doubt they evict with iron fist but they do have other places ready for you before the eviction. The way I see it is that most Singaporeans are willing to ‘Move’ with their government together in developing the nation or they will die should the nation failed.

 How far is Penangnites willing to ‘Move’ with the government, giving up their lands or old depleted buildings (outside the heritage zone) at nominal prices to make way for newer better development? Many would not since private developers can offer a much better premium.

 So, what are we going to do and I can safely declare that no government can solved the Island development problems if no drastic action is taken to address it. And I can also be quite certain that hill developments will be carried out beyond the present 250 feet allowed in 50 years time.

 I can suggest three very nasty solutions not popular with Penangnites but may be acceptable to some NGOs.

1) Government acquiring private lands and old depleted buildings by force.

 With so limited land for development on the Island whereby ‘The Commons’ must not be touch what other options does the government have? All develop-able private lands and old depleted houses standing on it must be sold to government at a controlled reasonable pricing. Amalgamate all small pieces of land into a sizable piece where newer and proper affordable housing can be developed. Simply put, remove the old low density and replace with new of higher density.

2) Control the population growth

 The population on the Island is set to keep on growing and uncontrolled development will go on till hill development beyond 250feet will be allowed by whoever is the government of the day. To avoid this and the concern of ‘The Commons’, the government should start finding out how much land is still available for development and calculate the total residential units that can be built including the existing ones. Let us assume the whole Island can allow 3 millions of residential units, present plus future with no more registering of new units. The population should then be controlled at 3millions when all develop-able land have been developed.

 The third suggestion is a little far fetched, just a little laugh for enlightenment.

3)Turn Penang Island into a Tourist Island

 Move all Penangnites and other residences to the mainland or else where. Turn existing housing areas into tourist attractions, tear down some to turn it into green zone, zoo, theme parks and whatever that can attract tourists. Let the Island grow back to the era before Sir Francis Light landed on the Island. Bring in the wild animals and let them roam wild and free as like the African Safari or The Jurassic Park. The whole Island will practically be a tourist haven. You will have to stay in a hotel if you want to visit overnight and everyone you meet will either be local Malaysian tourists or foreigners. No one live on the Island as residence but as tourist.

 Give this a thought: You want to live in a clean, affordable, easy accessibility movement, pleasant environment on an Island that was already badly damaged that can only be rectified by forceful, unpopular amendment of the laws to acquire private lands and old buildings to rebuild a newer and better housing and infrastructures. Would you accept that?

                This entry was posted on Friday, 22 November 2013, 12:47 am and is filed under
Penang
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Ulama vs Erdogans frame does not capture all of it

Terence Netto

Malaysiakini

Nov 21, 2013

COMMENT
 Predictions as to which side – the ulama or the professionals – will triumph in tomorrow’s party elections in PAS do sometimes miss the point that lasting victory for either side is dependent on how that side fares in managing the political realities that occur on their watch.

The PAS elector has over the years been known to be a pretty empirical sort who is not afraid to relegate or promote within the party hierarchy candidates who respectively are seen to flounder or flourish amid the challenges they face.

The PAS elector is a meritocrat and so is apt to vote up or down candidates who from their standpoint have done well or not done so well for the party.

This rule does not translate easily in application such that using it one can predict that the twice-defeated parliamentary candidate Mohamad Sabu (left), the incumbent deputy president, won’t fare well against challenger, Nik Amar Nik Abdullah, the newly elevated deputy menteri besar of Kelantan, in the contest for the No 2 position in PAS.

The contest is said to be the prime one in determining whether the ulama or the professionals are in control of the Islamic party but even that would be too sweeping a conclusion.

If one has to hazard a guess as to the preferences of the general PAS elector, it would be that he would want as people to lead the party candidates who can make the opposition coalition, Pakatan Rakyat, succeed enough to convince the Malaysian electorate that they should given the keys to Putrajaya.

 Witness the lack of enthusiasm whenever, in the past few years, the notion of making common cause with Umno is bandied about by the unity government proponents within the party.

The speed with which the public profile of the chief exponent of that idea, Hasan Ali (right), once a rising star in the party and its Selangor commissioner, has declined since he was expelled some three years back, is testimony to the fragility of the support within PAS for the move to unite with Umno.

 The latest ructions within Penang Pakatan stemming from public criticism by the PAS chapter there that they are being marginalised by the DAP-dominated state government is not likely to gain traction within the party which would be further evidence of the dearth of enthusiasm for severance of ties to Pakatan with consequent cozying up to Umno.

 Thus even if the ulama do better than the professionals in tomorrow’s poll the victors must abide by the general party consensus that unity with Umno and severance from Pakatan are options that are not on the cards.

It would be safe to say that whichever side wins, PAS will continue to stay in Pakatan so long as the coalition’s state governments in Selangor and Penang continue to be examples of good governance.

 Like any contestant in the electoral arena, PAS wants to succeed and desires the goods there from: the right to govern and wield power, not just at the state but also at the federal level.

Erdogan’s autocratic deportment

 Sure, non-Muslim supporters of Pakatan would like to see the professionals in PAS elected into positions of control in the party.

But it is delusive to think that Islamic professionals lean towards the tenets of liberal democracy over the autocratic promptings of a literalist interpretation of their religion.

Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan storms out of DavosThe autocratic deportment of the professionals – Prime Minister Tayyip Recip Erdogan (left in photo) of Turkey in the last two years, and that of President Mohammed Morsi of Egypt from November last year until he was removed by the military earlier this one – are examples that suggest the professional/ulama dichotomy of differentiation between Islamist politicians.

 A more accurate gauge of telling them apart would be to see if they are ashaarites (God is power and will) or mutazilites (God is also reason).

The debate between these two schools of Islamic scriptural interpretation is a longstanding one, with the mutazilities (rationalists) seen as having lost the interpretive battle as long ago as the 12th century.

 But that defeat, like the ones that occur to either the ulama or the professional camps in PAS’ biennial election cycles, is not permanent.

 The schools of thought wax and wane as state-ruling embodiments of them flourish or flounder as may be the case in the flux of historical time.

As an increasingly agnostic/atheistic liberal democratic west is seen as not successful in managing their societies without debt and moral decay, the attraction of a religion-influenced polity will remain potent in Muslim-majority countries.

 In the latter, that attraction will constantly spawn a competition to dominate the levers of power between ashaarites and mutazilities.

The problem with this distinction is that it is not easy to say who is an asharite or who is a mutazilite. Erdogan started out inclined to the latter school, but in the past two years at least, he has become willful and autocratic. When last November President Morsi placed himself above the judiciary in the Egyptian power structure, he revealed himself as an ashaarite.

 The question of whether Islam is compatible with democracy is a world-historical issue. Some say it can only be compatible if the mutazilites win the interpretive argument within the religion.

 Tomorrow’s party poll in PAS will determine small but crucial steps within the context of that millennial argument.

——————————————————————————–

TERENCE NETTO has been a journalist for four decades now. He likes the profession because it keeps him in touch with the eminent without being under the necessity to admire them.

                This entry was posted on Friday, 22 November 2013, 5:50 am and is filed under
PAS
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


What Good Things Has the Govt Done for Malaysians?

By Kee Thuan Chye

Yahoo! News

22nd Nov 2013

I wanted to write something positive about the Federal Government. But I could think of only two good things that it has done in the last few months.

One of them – making English a must-pass subject at the Sijil Pelajaran Malaysia (SPM) examinations starting in 2016 – I had written about at length before. The other is the introduction of financial education in the school curriculum starting next year with Primary 3 students and in 2017 for secondary schools.

This is a welcome move by the Education Ministry, although it is being done with the collaboration of Bank Negara, which seems to have initiated the idea. I wish we had this when I was in school; it would have helped me understand money and what to do with it. This is something important to learn from young, and I’m happy for our young that they will soon be getting that benefit.

If I had learned how to save, invest, manage my finances and plan for the future, I might not have squandered the money I earned in my youth. I could be owning numerous units of property now or earning substantial revenue from investing in businesses. Today, I wouldn’t still have to slog to eke out a living.

So much for that. But for my project, I figured that if I wrote only about this good thing being done for our young, I might manage just one-quarter the length of an article. That would be too short. But I did want to write something positive. So what could I do?

I decided to send an e-mail to about 40 people I know asking them to tell me what good things they thought the Government had done for the Malaysian rakyat in the last few months.

Many did not reply. And those who did gave me a crystal-clear indication of what they think of the Government. And how much confidence they have in the decision-makers in Putrajaya. Honestly, I wasn’t surprised.

Lawyer Mansor Adnan (not his real name – all the names mentioned here are not real, by the way, but they do reflect ethnicity) wrote back, “Have to really dig deep for this one, bro.” My reaction was, he was finding it hard too.

A few minutes later, he wrote again: “Frankly, I can’t think of any. That’s frightening, isn’t it? Or this could just mean I’m an incurable cynic.”

I don’t think he is. In fact, he’s one of those sensible, non-partisan, thinking Malaysians who care about the country. And he’s right – it’s frightening.

Kulwant Singh, a former civil servant, reinforced the frightening aspect when he wrote: “Will have to put on my thinking cap. More bad than good.” I asked him to try. He didn’t reply.

Burhan Fadzir, an arts practitioner, responded: “Search me. It was all only for the Malays.” Well, he is entitled to say that.

The most unconventional response came from Dean Khoo, a retired lecturer. He wrote a quatrain:

This government shall continue to rot

As a leopard does not change its spots.

It shall go on preying on people’s fear

Though the winds for change are near.

It didn’t quite address my question, but it encapsulated what many of my respondents felt about the Government.

Teacher Mavis Thomas sounded even more bleak: “Quite honestly, I can think of no good things this government has done for the rakyat in the last few months. In fact, tragically the rakyat have had to stomach an absent prime minister who never spoke up for ALL of the people. After a gruelling election in which people of all races voted for him, he appears to be only representing the Malays. Over the last few months, he has kept silent as members of his party spewed racist remarks against the minority races on an almost weekly basis. From a PM who kept saying Nambikkai to the Indians, all that has been proven in the post-election period is a prime minister and federal government that cannot keep a promise and seem incapable of doing the right and just thing. We are experiencing involution – a nation turning in on itself.”

My quest was beginning to look hopeless.

Then Tan Huat Seng, managing director of a company, responded: “If I trusted the Barisan Nasional government, I would say the removal of the sugar subsidy and the reduction of the one for petrol were brave and good deeds. But I don’t.” Well, despite the distrust, at least he did point out a couple of things. Nonetheless, he was probably worried that the Government might use the money saved from those subsidies for the wrong purposes.

Journalist Sim Saik Siong agreed with one of Tan’s mentions: “Removing the subsidy on sugar is the only thing worth remembering.”

Remus Leong, another journalist, thought of the increase in the real property gains tax: “I think one good step is that they have FINALLY taken steps to rein in the property speculators by raising RPGT and closing other loopholes.”

But even then, he expressed scepticism about the motive surrounding the move: “As we know, the politicians are in cahoots with developers for mutual benefit, so WHY are they taking these steps? Because of too many public complaints? I doubt it. Maybe because there’s a serious danger of a bubble economy and subsequent crash.”

It seems there’s always some ulterior motive behind every measure taken by the Government. Even the BR1M (Bantuan Rakyat 1Malaysia) handout. You can sense it in the way retired executive Leman Lukman put it: “The good thing … good for the gullible rakyat … of course is the BR1M thingy … fulfilling the promise although the amount is a disappointment to many.”

Although I see where Leman was going with his sardonic “good for the gullible rakyat”, I can’t agree that BR1M is good. It encourages the subsidy mentality, and it makes use of the rakyat’s money to buy the Government popularity.

Finally, one unconditionally good thing did come – from engineer Krishna Vasudevan: “I LOVE the UTC – Urban Transformation Centre – where they have centralised JPJ, JPN, Immigration, and it’s open EVERY day from 8.30am to 10pm. I had to renew my son’s and my own passport urgently in October and I went to the UTC in Sentul on a Tuesday night. Got it renewed in an hour! Then just this weekend, my son turned 12. Went to the UTC Sentul on Saturday morning to get his IC and also to change mine as well because it was fraying at the edges. Picked up both ICs on Sunday evening and then renewed my driving licence at the JPJ there too. Very impressed by the level of service – and it’s available on weekends and after hours too! So not all is bad la!”

OK, that sort of saved the day. And at least Krishna was enthusiastic about it. He didn’t see any prawns lurking beneath the rocks (er … transliterated from the Malay idiom udang di sebalik batu.)

Nonetheless, I discovered that on the whole, the respondents’ perception of the Government was far from positive. Still, I tried.

Perhaps you have your own examples of the good things the Government has done for the Malaysian rakyat in the last few months? Care to share them with me?

* Kee Thuan Chye is the author of the new book The Elections Bullshit, now available in bookstores.

                This entry was posted on Friday, 22 November 2013, 6:00 am and is filed under
Education
,
Kee Thuan Chye
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Stop the sectarian divide

– Ahmad Mustakim

The Malaysian Insider

November 23, 2013

The issue of sectarian differences in Malaysia has been ongoing for months. Muslims have been quarrelling (some countries end up committing genocide over it) over the differences in doctrines of Islam. Have Muslims ever wondered to what end this quarrelling will bring us?

After Prophet Muhammad’s death, his companions and the next generations differed on religious matters, parallel to the growing empire and the number of people converting to Islam. It was from the political end, not religious, that the ummah was divided.

According to the Amman Message, all eight mazhab (school of thoughts), including Sunni, Shia, salafi, ibadhi, asharism and Sufism are considered Muslims and, therefore, it is forbidden to declare Muslims in the mazhab as kaffir (takifiri).

It is sad to see how the clerics and ulama could not cooperate wisely with their differences in ideology. Such a situation leaves the Muslim public in confusion over theology. You see, the great scholars of many sects did not make it compulsory to follow their teachings.

However, our ulama are more interested in the takfiri rather than making way for mutual understanding or calls for dialogue. Hence, the denial of rights for Malaysian Shias or sects other than Sunni. Surprisingly, Muslims here welcome this as it is a solution to problems of sectarian divide.

Islam came as a way of life, a solution for oppression and injustices. Today, we are more interested in claiming God’s name, rather than executing what God asks us to do. We are more interested in telling people where God is, rather than settling social problems resulting from injustice. Religion is for mankind, not for God. Ask yourself this: what have we done today with our prayers, fasts and haj?

Instead of arguing over religious theory, why don’t we Muslims put our efforts towards settling the disputes, inequalities, oppression and other social problems confronting us today. Mankind doesn’t need a better religion. Mankind needs a better world. – November 23, 2013.

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 23 November 2013, 10:15 pm and is filed under
Islam
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


PAS’s new old Putrajaya team

NEWS ANALYSIS BY SHERIDAN MAHAVERA

The Malaysian Insider

NOVEMBER 24, 2013

PAS does not believe in hype. That was one thing that a PAS grassroots leader said was what members have described as the most vicious (by its standards) party elections.

The second thing is, the grassroots reward hardworking, articulate, outward-looking leaders who do not just preach to the converted.

Party members with whom The Malaysian Insider spoke believe these were among the considerations they used to choose the people who will lead the party into its quest for federal power in the next three years.

The 18-member central working committee, the party’s highest decision-making body, which emerged last night was almost a carbon copy of the previous one that had steered the party into the 13th General Election.

It was CWC that was stocked with three groups: the so-called professionals, religious teachers and scholars, and activists.

Only four of the CWC members are new. And they were religious teachers who replaced mostly other religious teachers.

Yet the social media campaign waged in the months leading up to the elections framed it as a war between the party’s conservatives and its progressives.

The talk was that the conservatives were staging a comeback into the CWC, which had been dominated by progressives.

But the results, said PAS leaders, showed that the grassroots liked the formula of an urbane, open-minded PAS that worked hand-in-glove with Pakatan Rakyat allies, PKR and DAP, and wanted to deepen its ties with mainstream Malaysian society.

The results, which also saw veteran political organiser Mohamad Sabu being retained as deputy president, were an endorsement and acknowledgement of the old CWC’s track record in leading PAS in the last general election, said PAS Kuala Kedah division leader Nasir Zakaria.

By re-electing the same people, Nasir said, the grassroots acknowledged the hard work its leaders had put into expanding PAS support and winning seats despite the fact that it fared badly among rural Malay Muslims.

“It’s a realisation that our party is strong internally and that the challenges are external. Our loss of rural Malay Muslim support was not due to us but because we could not counter all the BR1M (1Malaysia People’s Aid),” said Nasir.

He also pointed to the fact that unlike what had been depicted in the pro-Umno media and in  social media, the grassroots were not swayed by talk that PAS was losing its way because it was ruled by progressives.

“It just shows that all this talk about ulama versus Erdogans versus professionals was just nonsense created by outsiders”.

Politics as a means

Another aspect of the results that gets missed by the ulama-v-eEdogans pundits is that just like the election in 2011, the grassroots do not see a conflict between progressives and conservatives.

In fact, just like two years ago, they like a balanced mix of progressives and conservatives, said Felda activist Mazlan Aliman.

It’s a formula that balances the party’s need to stay close to its roots as a Islamist movement and the need to gain political power in order to meet those aims.

It goes back to what PAS president, parliamentarian and ideologue Datuk Seri Abdul Hadi Awang has stressed over and over again: PAS uses politics in order to “menegakkan Islam”.

Roughly translated, it means PAS aims to bring about a society ruled by, what some say, is PAS’s version of Islam.

In order to do that, it has to gain federal power. In order to gain federal power, said Mazlan, it needed technocrats and professionals to design national policy and activists to marshal support from society.

But to keep PAS members true to their struggles, it needed religious scholars and teachers.

“They are the experts at dakwah and tarbiyah (teaching and training) of our members to remind them of our goals as a movement.”

This combination, said Mazlan, who was retained as a CWC member, was what would bring it forward as a political party and an Islamist movement.

This was echoed by newly elected CWC member and ulama Nik Zawawi Nik Salleh.

“These three groups will move together to make PAS strong to lead Pakatan to Putrajaya. This is the team that will go to Putrajaya”. – November 24, 2013.

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 24 November 2013, 7:47 am and is filed under
Pakatan Rakyat
,
PAS
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


5 lessons from PAS’s muktamar

THE MALAYSIAN INSIDER

November 24, 2013

PAS members show that they are firmly in charge of the party’s destination at this year’s muktamar. – The Malaysian Insider pic, November 24, 2013.PAS members show that they are firmly in charge of the party’s destination at this year’s muktamar. – The Malaysian Insider pic, November 24, 2013.One of the most fiercely contested PAS muktamar in recent history is over and once again PAS delegates have shown that they are masters of their party’s destination.

No amount of campaigning from well-meaning Umno leaders or its mouthpiece, “Utusan Malaysia”, could sway the votes at the 59th PAS Muktamar.

There were five important lessons that could be deduced from this muktamar:

1. Beware the enemy’s support

For the second time, party leaders, especially those running for the deputy president’s position found that endorsement from “Utusan Malaysia” is not going to get you anywhere. Support from Utusan Malaysia, Umno leaders and former discredited party leaders for ulama, particulary Datuk Mohd Amar Nik Abdullah, did not land them the coveted deputy president’s post.

2. Don’t engage in internal fighting

Those seen as divisive figures in the party were the biggest casualties in yesterday’s polls. Two of the most vocal attackers of fellow members were Syura committee member Zaharudin Mohamad and Pahang ulama chief Mokhtar Senik.

Zaharudin seized the initiative and began campaigning early and attacked his rivals via Facebook and at party events while Mokhtar’s over-the-top criticisims of liberals or Erodgans cost him dearly.

Both men, although popular, and often seen as potential central working committee members failed to make the cut.

3. Do not go overboard while campaigning

Those who had gone overboard in their campaigning paid the price. They lost.

El-Haraki’s Facebook page is a good example. It rallied for the clerics and the daily dose of vitriol unleashed by it against the Erdogans did little for the ulama campaign.

The excessive campaigning, bordering on fanaticism, left many wondering if the ulama were power crazy.

4. Hardworking leaders the choice of the majority

PAS delegates appreciate a hard worker and anyone who advances the party’s cause on the ground. Case in point – Mazlan Aliman. In the previous muktamar, Mazlan won first place in the CWC and this time, he came in second.

There is nothing that stands out about Mazlan, the president of Felda Settlers’ Children Association (Anak). But his diligence in fighting for the Felda settlers’ cause and, by extension, advancing the party’s struggle stood him in good stead with the grassroots.

5. Running an election is not an easy task

This year’s party polls had not one but two glitches, which left the election committee chief Asmuni Awi red-faced. He offered his resignation to pacify party delegates after the CWC elections could not be held on Friday because of errors in the ballot papers.

However, PAS members at the muktamar chose to forgive him after he admitted the error and apologise for it. – November 24, 2013.

                This entry was posted on Monday, 25 November 2013, 6:59 am and is filed under
PAS
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Dr Dzul: Sokongan Melayu kepada DAP meningkat, PKR, PAS menurun

Oleh Mohd Farhan Darwis

The Malaysian Insider

November 24, 2013

PKR menerima penurunan tertinggi sokongan masyarakat Melayu.PKR menerima penurunan tertinggi sokongan masyarakat Melayu.Sokongan masyarakat Melayu kepada DAP ketika Pilihan Raya Umum 2013 (PRU13) meningkat, namun sokongan etnik berkenaan terhadap rakan komponen Pakatan Rakyat (PR) yang lain mengalami penurunan, kata Dr Dzulkefly Ahmad.

Ahli Jawatankuasa Kerja (AJK) PAS Pusat itu  ketika membentangkan dapatan itu di Muktamar Tahunan PAS ke-59 PAS berkata, PKR menerima penurunan tertinggi sokongan masyarakat Melayu, iaitu sebanyak 7%, dan sokongan Melayu terhadap PAS turut menurun 2%.

DAP bagaimanapun menerima peningkatan sokongan sebanyak 2%.

“Bagaimanapun, sokongan masyarakat Melayu terhadap PAS meningkat di Terengganu dan Johor,” kata bekas ahli Parlimen Kuala Selangor itu di Stadium Malawati, Shah Alam hari ini.

Justeru, PAS jelasnya perlu memberikan penekanan terhadap meningkatkan sokongan kumpulan anak muda daripada komuniti majoriti di negara ini kerana mereka akan menjadi penentu dalam PRU14.

Perwakilan PAS dari Kedah, Mohd Nasir Zakaria turut membangkitkan perkara sama dalam perbahasan ucapan dasar Presiden dan menegaskan perkara itu berlaku disebabkan PAS gagal dilihat membela institusi raja, tidak membela rakyat dan tiada tokoh masyarakat.

Berbanding Umno jelasnya yang memiliki lima ciri berkenaan berbanding PAS yang dilihat mempunyai integriti dan Islam sahaja.

Malah, beliau turut memberi ingatan, sekiranya perkara itu, dan masalah dalaman parti tidak diselesaikan, prestasi PAS akan lebih teruk dalam PRU14. – 24 November, 2013.

                This entry was posted on Monday, 25 November 2013, 7:05 am and is filed under
DAP
,
Elections
,
PAS
,
PKR
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Keutamaan bagi Pakatan Rakyat ialah untuk membentuk majlis strategik peringkat tertinggi untuk menyusun rancangan menawan Putrajaya dalam pilihanraya akan datang

Tahniah diucapkan kepada pimpinan dan perwakilan PAS atas kejayaan melaksanakan Muktamar ke-59 di peringkat kebangsaan, pemuda, dan wanita dengan lancar sehingga menggagalkan usaha para penyusun konspirasi Umno yang telah bekerja lebih masa menerusi media sosial di ruang siber untuk mewujudkan perseteruan dan perpecahan dalam PAS dan untuk menghancurkan kesatuan matlamat Pakatan Rakyat. Muktamar yang baru berlangsung itu memberi harapan kepada majoriti rakyat Malaysia yang percaya bahawa politik dua pakatan di Malaysia masih hidup dan bertenaga.

Timbalan Presiden PAS Mohamad Sabu menyedarkan semua orang apabila beliau menyebut dalam ucapan penggulungannya bagi Muktamar ke-59 itu bahawa PAS tidak akan berkembang ke luar pantai timur semenanjung jika parti itu tidak menyertai Pakatan Rakyat bersama PKR dan DAP.

Kata Sabu:

“Kalau PAS berjuang secara sendirian, sudah tentunya jajahan kita tidak lebih daripada Rantau Panjang (utara Kelantan) sehingga Kemaman (Terengganu).

“Di bawah Pakatan Rakyat, jajahan kita melebar sehingga ke Selangor dan Insya Allah sampai ke Johor.”

Pada tahun 1999, PAS mendapat faedah besar daripada kemarahan orang terhadap BN berikutan krisis politik dan ekonomi 1998 sehingga ia memenangi 27 kerusi parlimen dan 98 kerusi DUN, menjadikannya parti pembangkang terbesar.

Bagaimanapun, 93% dan 86% kerusi parlimen dan negeri yang dimenangi PAS ialah di negeri “Utara”, iaitu Perlis, Kedah, Kelantan dan Terengganu.

Pada tahun 2004, berikutan “Tsunami” Pak Lah, PAS hanya berjaya memenangi 6 kerusi parlimen dan 33 kerusi negeri (100% kerusi parlimen dan 94% kerusi negeri di negeri-negeri utara).

Tahun 2008 menandakan anjakan besar sokongan terhadap PAS dari negeri-negeri di luar negeri utara. PAS menang 23 kerusi parlimen dan 83 kerusi negeri, hanya 70% kerusi parlimen dan 76% kerusi negeri di keempat-empat negeri utara.

Pada tahun 2013, PAS kerusi parlimen yang dimenangi PAS kurang dua (21 kerusi) berbanding pada pilihanraya 2008 (23 kerusi), tetapi parti itu berjaya menambah dua lagi kerusi negeri (85 kerusi) berbanding sebelum itu (83). Kali ini, hanya 67% kerusi parlimen dan 66% kerusi negeri adalah di keempat-empat negeri utara (lihat Jadual 1 di bawah).

Jadual 1: Taburan kerusi Parlimen dan Negeri PAS (1999 – 2013)

Negeri

1999

2004

2008

2013

Parl.

State

Parl.

DUN

Parl.

DUN

Parl.

DUN

Perlis

0

3

0

1

0

1

0

1

Kedah

8

12

1

4

6

16

1

9

Kelantan

10

41

5

24

9

38

9

32

Terengganu

7

28

0

4

1

8

4

14

Penang

0

1

0

1

0

1

0

1

Perak

2

3

0

0

2

6

2

5

Pahang

0

6

0

0

0

2

1

3

Selangor

0

4

0

0

4

8

4

15

KL

0

NA

0

NA

1

NA

0

NA

Negeri Sembilan

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

Melaka

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

Johor

0

0

0

1

0

2

0

4

P.Msia

27

98

6

35

23

83

21

85

Perlis, Kedah, K’tan & T’gganu

25

84

6

33

16

63

14

56

Lain-lain

2

14

0

2

7

20

7

29

di Utara %

92.6%

85.7%

100.0%

94.3%

69.6%

75.9%

66.7%

65.9%

Lain-lain %

7.4%

14.3%

0.0%

5.7%

30.4%

24.1%

33.3%

34.1%

Dengan menganggotai Pakatan, PAS telah berjaya melangkah melampaui empat negeri terasnya.

Kegagalan PAS di Kedah pada tahun 2013 tidak boleh dikaitkan dengan penyertaan PAS dalam Pakatan, sebaliknya kerana faktor dalaman. Penjelasan yang sama boleh dikemukakan untuk memahami kemerosotan sokongan terhadap PAS di Kelantan.

Jika sokongan terhadap PAS di negeri-negeri utama Melayu terjejas kerana keanggotaannya dalam Pakatan, sudah tentu pencapaiannya di Terengganu tidak akan meningkat.

Jelas bahawa pertambahan penduduk secara pesat di Semenanjung Malaysia akan berlaku di Selangor, KL dan Johor. Di negeri-negeri inilah kita akan melihat adanya peningkatan jumlah kerusi (parlimen dan negeri). Kebanyakan kerusi baru ini dari segi kaum adalah kerusi ‘campuran’.

Jika PAS hendak terus berkembang di luar 4 negeri utara, ia perlu bekerjasama dalam konteks Pakatan untuk meningkatkan sokongan Melayu dan juga bukan-Melayu. Di negeri-negeri utara, PAS perlu memperkukuhkan diri dan Pakatan di peringkat dalaman.

Satu lagi cara untuk meneliti prestasi PAS berdasarkan negeri ialah dengan menganalisa peratusan undi yang diraih PAS di kerusi-kerusi yang ditandingi oleh PAS di setiap negeri.

Maklumat berkenaan boleh dilihat dalam Jadual 2 di bawah.

Sokongan terhadap PAS di Kelantan dan Terengganu mencapai tahap tertinggi pada tahun 1999 (iaitu masing-masing 60.5% dan 58.7%). Sokongan terhadap PAS di Kedah mencapai tahap tertinggi pada tahun 2008 apabila ia meraih 50.6% undi di kerusi-kerusi yang ditandinginya. Pada tahun 2013, walaupun sokongan terhadap PAS merosot di Kedah, Kelantan, dan Terengganu berbanding tahun 1999, peratusan undi yang didapatinya masih jauh lebih tinggi daripada yang didapati pada tahun 2004.

Pada masa yang sama, sokongan terhadap PAS di luar 4 negeri utara telah meningkat dengan banyak sejak tahun 1999, khususnya di Pulau Pinang (peningkatan sebanyak 16.8%), Selangor (peningkatan sebanyak 11.0%), Negeri Sembilan (5.1%) dan Johor (7.2%). Ini menunjukkan bahawa keanggotaan PAS  dalam Pakatan telah menguntungkannya di ketiga-tiga buah negeri.

Jadual 2: % undi dimenangi PAS di kerusi parlimen yang ditandingi PAS (1999 hingga 2013)

Negeri

Parlimen (As a % of Votes in PAS Seats)

Perbezaan 1999 hingga 2013

Perbezaan 2004 hingga 2013

1999

2004

2008

2013

Perlis

44.5%

35.6%

44.5%

44.7%

0.2%

9.1%

Kedah

48.4%

42.1%

50.6%

46.4%

-1.9%

4.4%

Kelantan

60.5%

47.2%

55.1%

54.4%

-6.2%

7.2%

Terengganu

58.7%

44.2%

44.9%

48.9%

-9.8%

4.7%

Penang

30.0%

28.2%

38.4%

46.8%

16.8%

18.6%

Perak

44.3%

35.0%

48.1%

43.6%

-0.7%

8.6%

Pahang

44.0%

32.6%

39.7%

42.1%

-1.9%

9.5%

Selangor

43.3%

32.6%

51.9%

54.3%

11.0%

21.7%

WPKL

47.5%

27.3%

48.7%

44.3%

-3.2%

17.1%

Melaka

34.0%

21.4%

29.4%

28.9%

-5.1%

7.5%

Negeri Sembilan

34.4%

23.0%

30.8%

39.5%

5.1%

16.4%

Johor

28.1%

17.6%

28.8%

35.2%

7.2%

17.6%

Semj. Msia

47.5%

34.4%

45.3%

47.3%

-0.2%

12.9%

Keanggotaan PAS dalam Pakatan jelas telah membantu parti itu memenangi dua kerusi parlimen baru pada tahun 2013, kerusi yang tidak mungkin dimenanginya tanpa sokongan Pakatan.

Di Temerloh, kerusi parlimen yang mempunyai 63% pengundi Melayu, 26% Cina, dan 9% India, PAS telah menang dengan majoriti 1070 undi berkat sokongan kuat daripada 35% pengundi bukan-Melayu dalam kawasan tersebut.

Di Sepang, kerusi yang mempunyai 59% Melayu, 23% Cina, 18% India, PAS menang dengan majoriti 1142 undi menentang seorang bekas menteri UMNO dengan sokongan kuat 41% pengundi bukan-Melayu dalam kawasan tersebut.

Jika PAS hendak merebut kembali kerusi Sungai Besar (34% bukan-Melayu), Kuala Selangor (36% bukan-Melayu) dan Titiwangsa (32% bukan-Melayu) yang dipegangnya dulu, ia mesti memanfaatkan kekuatan jenama dan kerjasama Pakatan.

Bukan hanya PAS mendapat faedah daripada kerjasama dalam Pakatan Rakyat kerana hal yang sama juga boleh disebutkan untuk DAP dan PKR.

Tidak diragui lagi bahawa dengan membentuk pakatan, setiap satu daripada ketiga-tiga parti DAP, PKR, dan PAS berjaya merebut lebih banyak kerusi parlimen dan negeri berbanding jika setiap parti ini bertanding secara bersendirian, dan dengan kerjasama itu juga mereka mampu meningkatkan jumlah keseluruhan kerusi yang dimenangi di seluruh negara.

Perkara terpenting bagi Pakatan Rakyat kini ialah untuk membentuk majlis strategik peringkat tertinggi untuk menyusun rancangan merampas kerajaan pusat dan menawan Putrajaya dalam pilihanraya akan datang, selain mencatat keputusan terbaik untuk PR di setiap negeri.

This article is also available in English at:
https://blog.limkitsiang.com/2013/11/25/top-priority-for-pakatan-rakyat-is-to-set-up-a-high-level-pr-14ge-strategic-council-to-plan-for-the-capture-of-federal-government-in-putrajaya-in-next-general-elections/

                This entry was posted on Monday, 25 November 2013, 6:03 pm and is filed under
Pakatan Rakyat
,
PAS
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Plagiarism: Much more than storm in Tee cup

By
Dr. Lim Teck Ghee
 | Monday, 25 November 2013 00:43

CPI

The case of prominent Utusan Malaysia columnist, Ridhuan Tee Abdullah, who has been accused of plagiarism should be of public concern for several reasons.

Firstly, within academia, there are few worst sins than plagiarism. The term “sin” may appear to be too strong but Ridhuan Tee who, regularly from his Utusan Malaysia pulpit, dishes out his pseudo-intellectual views on developments in the country from a supposedly Islamic perspective probably will understand better the use of this term in the context of the wrongdoing he is alleged to have committed. Or then again, perhaps he does not.

Generally, university students enrolled in any university in the world – whether reputable or not – are taught right from the start that they cannot simply lift or copy the work of others without acknowledging and citing the source. This is cardinal rule number 1 – the need to differentiate between one’s own work and that of others.

The rule is rigorously enforced not only to encourage the student to engage in fresh and original work that stems from his own thought processes but also to protect the intellectual property rights of others whose works, ideas or words have been borrowed.

In the case of the allegation made against Ridhuan, apparently he has copied not only entire paragraphs but also the grammatical errors which appeared in the original blog article.

According to the initial report on the allegation, UTM lecturer Dr Airil Yasreen Mohd Yassin claimed that Ridhuan’s individual assignment for the Grade DS51 Efficiency Level Assessment (PTK4) coursework conducted from May to June 2010, contained paragraphs he had written in his blog in 2009.

Punishment for plagiarism

The penalty for plagiarism is always severe so as to punish the offender and to discourage others from engaging in it. If the work is an essay or a project paper and the plagiarism is proven, this below is an example – according to a handbook for its freshman composition course that all undergraduates are required to take – of the penalty imposed by Harvard University.

Harvard policy requires instructors to report all suspected cases to the dean of the college, and most such cases are ultimately adjudicated by the administrative board. If the majority of board members believe, after considering the evidence and your own account of the events, that you misused sources, they will likely vote that you be required to withdraw from the college for at least two semesters.

Since a vote of requirement to withdraw is effective immediately, you lose all coursework you have done that semester (unless it’s virtually over), along with the money you have paid for it. You must leave Harvard; any return to campus will violate the terms of your withdrawal. You must find a full-time job, stay in it for at least six months, and have your supervisor send a satisfactory report of your performance in order to be readmitted. … Finally, any letter of recommendation written for you on behalf of Harvard College – including letters to graduate schools, law schools, and medical school – will report that you were required to withdraw for academic dishonesty.  If you are required to withdraw for a second time, you will not, ordinarily, be readmitted.

(see
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/chatterbox/2002/01/doris_kearns_goodwin_liar.html
)

No action by the authorities

In response to the renewed disclosure of his alleged wrongdoing, Ridhuan Tee has accused his critics of “character assassination” and challenged them “come and face me upfront”.

This matter is not whether one side or the other has the “telur” (cojones) to confront the other and slug it out. It is one in which stakeholders, who should be concerned about the integrity of our academic system, will need to take a position so that the charge is resolved once and for all, and repetition of such instances is deterred.

There is a second cause of concern. A serious charge of academic dishonesty has been allowed to remain unanswered since 2010 when the authorities were first notified about it. Apparently nothing has been done by the university authorities or the Ministry in charge of higher education. Worse still, the alleged guilty party has been promoted rapidly in the university system.

Now what do these developments say about our university system? That plagiarism is perfectly acceptable among academics, in particular those writing in the national language in the university system? That the National Defence University does not view plagiarism as a serious issue? Or that plagiarism is so pervasive in the university system that it is of little use in trying to fight it? Or that if plagiarism stems from an academic who is waving the Islamic or racist battle flag that favours the present ruling party, it is somehow deemed to be acceptable?

Perhaps the authorities have conducted their investigations and have arrived at findings which have found Ridhuan not guilty of the allegation. Or perhaps Ridhuan has admitted to making an honest mistake in reproducing the excerpts and passing them off as his own words. If so, the authorities need to come out with a statement and full explanation in the interest of transparency and accountability, as well as in ensuring justice to Ridhuan Tee.

And lastly what does it say of Utusan Malaysia, the national newspaper recently lauded by the Prime Minister for being “in the forefront of reporting in this country and shaping the mindsets of the people” as well as “being a symbol of the Malay struggle and a representation of the achievement of the Malay community”?

Any other respectable newspaper would have suspended its staff or columnist who has been accused of plagiarism and would not have permitted the errant person to continue writing until the charge has been proven to be without substance.

In the case of Ridhuan Tee who has set himself up as the champion of true Islamic values and ethical behaviour, one would have expected the paper to be concerned about abiding by journalistic ethical norms and of avoiding being seen as guilty by association. But then perhaps the word “plagiarism” is not found in Utusan’s dictionary or there is no one else that the paper can turn to who can produce the erudite commentaries that flow from Ridhuan’s pen?

Stakeholders taking an interest in this case should not only be political parties such as MIC and the DAP. They should also be members of the committee that screened Ridhuan Tee’s paper and promotion, and the Vice Chancellor all of whom have remained mum in the three years since this issue was first raised as well as the larger community of academics.

The public whose taxation monies are used to finance our universities need to remind the authorities that this is not just any storm in a teacup but one that reflects on how serious we are about upholding international standards.

                This entry was posted on Monday, 25 November 2013, 12:20 pm and is filed under
university
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.