Don’t ban it if you don’t get it

Don’t ban it if you don’t get it

Azly Rahman

There is nothing more frightening than active ignorance. – Goethe, German philosopher

The Internal Security Ministry denied that it had seized 10 copies of the book on May 13, clarifying that it had only taken the books to check the contents. The books would be returned if they contained nothing that violated the Printing Press and Publications Act 1984.

Deputy Minister Fu Ah Kiow said news reports stating that the books were seized were incorrect and believed that the matter was being deliberately blown out of proportion to gain publicity. “It is just a very ordinary procedure, something that the officers will do if they receive reports about any publication that may be unfavourable for the public.

“They will still carry out their duties even if there is no report,” he told reporters. Fu was asked to comment on the books taken from a bookstore in Mid-Valley Megamall in Kuala Lumpur on Tuesday. Fu said his officers were still reading the contents.’ (The Star)

The above news report still amplified the culture of book banning we have had since independence. To be telling schoolchildren and parents that we ban books is not conveying a smart message for our smart schools. Why not tell these children to think and think freely and to read and read voraciously? Why use the schools to promote the message of active ignorance?

Active ignorance

In our history, one of the most famous books banned was of course The Malay Dilemma by a medical doctor from Titi Gajah, Kedah. The author later became Malaysia’s fourth prime minister, staying in power for 22 years. We banned Kassim Ahmad, Othman Ali, Karen Armstrong, and many work of national and international authors who proposed new line of thinking about society. We ban good movies on the Malaysian early political experience that tries to enrich our youth with a radical perspective of this nation and its narration.

We were even afraid of our respectable social scientist Dr. Lim Teck Ghee’s Asli findings on the New Economic Policy, written with such a refreshing and constructivist perspective. Through the repressive Internal Security Act, we jailed out intellectuals — without trial — people like Lim Kit Siang, Dr Syed Husin Ali, Kassim Ahmad, Dr Chandra Muzaffar, and many others who lived their lives presenting alternative viewpoints for a better Malaysian future. We have installed a government of active ignorance, interested in the advancement of poor understanding of human development. We continue to live a national life of contradiction.

We prefer to glorify leaders of Mat Rempits and make our youth stoned glued to 100 television channels, useless programmes such as Akademi Fantasia, and soap operas that mainly sell useless products to housewives. These do not increase the value to the nation’s collective intelligence. Reading good books does.

As we move towards a “Biotech” nation, send the first Malay Muslim astronaut into space, drop 10 Mat Rempits form the sky in the North Pole, we ban a book that could have explained all the three events of cultural contradictions I mentioned.

What’s still wrong with us?

What’s wrong with those who are thinking of possibly calling for the ban? Can’t they read and analyze and write their own rebuttal of the historical account of May 13, 1969?

If an American youth in his 20s can do a good documentary “Loose Change” to rebut the Bush Regime’s “official view” of 9/11, why can’t the government do as such? Why stop others from reading about another interpretation of history? What kind of standard of intellectual rigour helped elect those senators who called for the ban?

I thought, “senators”, like the Romans and the Greeks were supposed to be scholarly as inspired by Cicero and Socrates? I thought we elect politicians because we think they are profound scholars such as Kung Fu’Tze, Lao Tzu, Krishnamurthi, Za’ba, W.S. Rendra, Syed Hussein Alattas, and Jose Rizal.

What is wrong with this country? I thought we are more mentally advanced than the many a war-torn nation that summarily execute journalists and truth-tellers? I thought this is the year 2007 and that we have declared to produce tens of thousands of those with PhDs

Why not encourage each other to read the book first and write a review of it — we will be respected. If one’s command of the English Language is poor, take time to improve it before deciding to become a representative of the people in a world in which the rakyat will continue to challenge politicians on intellectual and moral grounds.

The power of the bloggers is showing us that politicians need to work harder to become more intelligent in their decision-making. Look at how many corruption cases are beginning to get attended to in this otherwise “Sleepy Hollow” country called Malaysia? Look at how many “Rip Van Winkles” among the politicians are beginning to wake up from their siesta and slumber in some Malaysian Catskills Mountains of upstate New York and scrambling to explain why they need to be more accountable. We elect them and we want them to behave.

Instead of spending long hours at country clubs and golf courses, read and read and improve your ability to analyze whatever “controversial” books published. Don’t ban the May 13 book if you don’t understand!

Talk about controversial issues

We must remove the clauses that prohibit us from talking about so-called controversial issues. We are an intelligent nation expecting to live in a more intelligent environment. We must banish unintelligent leaders who are still living with a May 13, 1969 frame of mind. From whom do these prohibitions and banning serve?

We must allow as many writers and scholars as possible to write critical analyses of issues that affect our lives — from the role of the Communist Party in fighting for Independence and the root cause of the May 13 1969 riots to the by-election of Ijok and the cognitive inabilities of rude, vulgar, racists and sexist politicians who continue to be given the power to define Malaysian parliamentary culture.

We are letting this beautiful country move aimlessly in an euphoric state of pseudo-intellectualism when we can do more that ban books, witch-hunt our university students, silence our academicians, criminalise our intellectuals, shy away from inter-faith dialogues, angry at newer findings on the ownership in the NEP, forced our university administrators to police our students, spew vulgarities in our August house, allow Ministers to make unintelligent statements on responsible and socially-conscious bloggers, and countless other acts that are stopping our nation from thinking and organising collective action on radical change.

We need to be serious about becoming a nation of better thinkers. We need to remove the hurdles. This will require the rakyat to demand that we remove leaders in politics, academia, social services, public education and all sectors that are anti-intellectual.

We need a new brand of leaders who will move this nation forward and create a new republic of virtue, morality, peace and justice for all races.

In the case of the book, it is time the Ministry of Information and Ministry of Internal Security each have a website to publish review of books instead of using their power to ban what it has not properly understood. This will be a more respectable thing to do. This will launch the two ministries into the Space Age — from the Age of Dinosaur. From the year 1957 to year 2007.

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 24 May 2007, 4:42 am and is filed under
Azly Rahman
,
culture
,
nation building
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Samy Vellu sexist – comparing dilapidated 43-yr-old Parliament with 50 yr-old woman

RESPECT WOMEN AND END ALL SEXIST COMMENTS

by Loh Cheng Kooi

Barely has the dust of the “bocor incident” settled in the House of Parliament when we are jolted with yet another gender insensitive statement. It is outrageous that the Works Minister, Datuk Seri S Samy Vellu finds it necessary to draw a parallel between the dilapidated state of the 43 year old Parliament House which is in need of maintenance and renovation to the looks of a woman of 50 years. This is not the first time the Minister has made such statements.  In October 2005, he was quoted to have compared “toilets to new brides”.

The Joint Action Group for Gender Equality (JAG) finds it is inexcusable that one of the longest serving Cabinet Ministers in the country chose a sexist comment to make his point on the need for renovation works on the Parliament House. His remarks reinforce the gender stereotype that a woman’s worth lies with her extrinsic attributes (looks) and not with her intrinsic qualities as a human being. His statement and comparison are demeaning and an affront to women of all ages as they reduce women to objects of beauty, depreciating in value over time.

The Works Minister’s comment taken together with the recent ‘bocor’ remark, also makes a mockery of the role and function of the Gender Cabinet Committee on Gender Equality and the government’s ratification of the international Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) as well as the Federal Constitution which prohibits discrimination on the basis of gender.

JAG calls upon the Prime Minister as Chairperson of the Gender Cabinet Committee to take this matter seriously and put an immediate stop to sexist comments from Cabinet and Parliament in general. JAG further urges the Prime Minister to ensure that all elected representatives undergo training on gender sensitivity on a regular basis.

For far too long, elected representatives have repeatedly made derogatory remarks against women, ranging from comments on their bodily functions to statements on their physical attributes, and have gotten away with such sexist language. Why are women constantly made easy targets and objects of ridicule, equated with a problem or used as a comparison whenever something goes wrong? These comments show a complete lack of gender sensitivity and reflect a deeply ingrained culture of patriarchy as well as a total lack of respect for women.

One can only wonder what it would take for our elected representatives to understand that gender insensitive and discriminatory remarks about women violate women’s dignity and basic rights. Perhaps all it needs is for the public to send a clear message at the next elections.  Gender insensitive leaders should just be voted out.

Loh Cheng Kooi

Women’s Centre for Change Penang

On behalf of Joint Action Group for Gender Equality

22 May 2007

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 24 May 2007, 4:00 pm and is filed under
Gender
,
Parliament
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Electronic discovery – Of bytes and briefs

May 17th 2007

From The Economist

The courts are struggling to cope with information technology

A CHICAGO law firm recently put up a billboard with the slogan “Life’s short. Get a divorce.” Also on the billboard were pictures of a hot babe in her underwear and a hot hunk in a towel–a sample of the delights that await the newly single. This is the kind of lawyer story that makes the evening news. Deeper, broader problems with America’s legal system tend to be ignored. Electronic discovery is one.

What’s that? Well, let’s say you follow that Chicago law firm’s advice and sue for divorce. And let’s say your soon-to-be ex-spouse gets angry. His or her lawyers might then demand to inspect your hard drive so that they can, for example, acquaint the court with your love of porn before it decides who keeps the children.

As technology changes the way people communicate, the legal system is stumbling to keep up. The “discovery” process, whereby both parties to a lawsuit share relevant documents with each other, used to involve physically handing over a few boxes of papers. But now that most documents are created and stored electronically, it is mostly about retrieving files from computers. This has two important consequences.

First, e-discovery is more intrusive than the traditional sort. Catty or salacious gossip, the kind that was once swapped at the water cooler, is now often committed to e-mail. This is easy to subpoena and virtually impossible to erase. There is always a back-up somewhere, so even if you delete the e-mail privately denigrating a stock you are publicly urging your clients to buy, it will still be read out in court. If your firm is sued for sexual discrimination, expect the plaintiff to demand all the lewd e-mails your male executives have ever swapped with each other.

Second, e-discovery is more burdensome than the old sort. In the old days, if a big firm was sued, it might have to produce half a million documents, says Malcolm Wheeler, a lawyer who represents big corporate clients in Denver, Colorado. Now, it would have to produce many times that: e-mails, attachments, voicemail recordings and so forth. This can be fiendishly expensive. In a recent case, says Mr Wheeler, his client had to pay 31 lawyers to spend six months ploughing through electronic documents just to figure out which ones ought to be handed over the plaintiff. There is a danger, he says, that big firms will settle with frivolous plaintiffs just to avoid the costs of disclosure, which in turn will encourage more frivolous lawsuits.

Mr Wheeler ranks e-discovery as “the single most significant change to the legal system” since he left law school in 1969. Richard Baer, the top in-house lawyer for Qwest, a telecoms firm, will not go quite so far, but he agrees that it is a problem.

 He thinks his firm spends at least 25% more on legal fees relating to discovery than it did two years ago. What worries him more is that the rules are so unclear. Do you have to save every version of every document and every fiddle to a computer-aided design? How do you decide what is relevant?

On May 16th a think-tank called the Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System, at the University of Denver, suggested some guidelines. One is that the rules need to be clearer, especially in the states. Another is that judges need to familiarise themselves with the relevant technology, so they can make informed rulings as to whether a disclosure request is reasonable. They should also learn about, and alert litigants to the existence of, software tools that allow quicker searches for relevant documents. If judges understand what e-discovery is about, they are more likely to issue coherent precedents. If not, the legal system risks being over-loaded.

                This entry was posted on Friday, 25 May 2007, 3:40 pm and is filed under
IT
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


MPs Bung Mokhtar/Mohd Said – the “Ugly Malaysians”

The Barisan Nasional (BN) Member of Parliament for Kinabatangan Datuk Bung Mokhtar Radin is trying to  jump out of the burning quagmire which  he found himself in together with the BN MP for Jasin, Datuk  Mohd Said Yusof as a result of their unrepentant and recalcitrant sexism in Parliament more than a  fortnight ago.

He thinks that he has found a very smart exit strategy for his predicament by challenging me to contest against him in his Kinabatangan constituency in the next general election and even offering 1,000 votes free — which was given front-page treatment in Sabah newspapers yesterday.

He cannot be more wrong or naive to think that he could distract or deflect national and international attention from his unrepentant and unpunished  male chauvinism in Parliament on May 9, 2007.

Clearly, Bung Mohtar just don’t get it — that  there is no way he could extricate himself  from the quagmire and the furore he and Mohd Said had created would  go away by  just turning  it into a cheap farce, such as challenging me to contest against him in Kinabatangan.

The issue at stake has nothing to do with him and me, and that is why my answer is a definitive negative when a reporter asked whether I would counter-challenge Bung Mokhtar to contest against me in Ipoh Timur parliamentary constituency.

The question is solely about Bung Mohktar himself  Bung Mohtar’s greatest  enemy is not any third party but his own self and he must wrestle with his own soul and devil as well as his own sense of decency, as he and Mohd Said have become the worst examples of “Ugly Malaysians” on the occasion of the 50th Merdeka anniversary,  bringing shame and dishonour  to Parliament, the nation and women in Malaysia, ASEAN and the world.

This is all because of their foul and gender-offensive mouthings which they have not shown  one iota of remorse for over a fortnight — compounded by  their bogus apologies in  the farce orchestrated with  the Women, Family and Community Development Minister, Datuk Seri Shahrizat Abdul Jalil.

The net result had been completely unexpected — arousing even greater wrath and outrage among decent men and women, because the fraudulent apologies were so clear and blatant.

Bung Mokhtar and Mohd Jasin should realize that they have stumbled onto one of the unintended effects of the process of globalization — that women MPs not only in Malaysia but in ASEAN and the world would be taking up the cudgels to protect their dignity and honour which had been  besmirched by the duo’s  boorish and sexist remarks, as sexist attack on the honour of DAP MP for Batu Gajah, Fong Po Kuan was also an attack on the honour of all women MPs in Malaysia, ASEAN and the world!

This is why ASEAN and global Parliamentarians have stood up in solidarity with Po Kuan and denounced the sexism in the Malaysian Parliament as both errant MPs have become even more obnoxious after their fake apologies — to the extent that Bung Mokhtar is so devoid of remorse or shame as to challenge me to contest against him in Kinabatangtan.

Bung Mohtar and Mohd Said should be forewarned — that unless they are prepared to fully express contrition for their boorish and sexist conduct and accept punishment, such as six-month suspension as MP and six-month community service with women groups with parliamentary allowance during this period donated to women activities, public outrage at their unrepentant  and recalcitrant sexism will continue to snowball, not only in the country but in the regional and international arenas.

Already there are proposals from MPs from other ASEAN countries that such unacceptable and unrepentant sexism  in Parliament should be exposed and condemned at the ASEAN Inter-Parliamentary Organisation (AIPO) Conference in Kuala Lumpur in September and in forthcoming Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU) and Commonwealth Parliamentary Association (CPA) international conferences.

The ball is in the courts of Bung Mokhtar and Mohd Said, whether they want to become two MPs who will in future be equated with the term “Ugly Malaysians”!

                This entry was posted on Friday, 25 May 2007, 12:34 pm and is filed under
Gender
,
Parliament
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


“No more govt inefficiencies, no more IPCMC sabotage, no more mirages”

One of my first reactions when I received news in Tokyo on Monday of the  Prime Minister’s announcement of
pay rise and doubling of cost of living allowances for the civil service
–  and in particular the 18% to 42% in the basic salary increase for the police –   is whether the Independent Police Complaints and Misconduct Commission (IPCMC) Bill will at last  be presented to Parliament next month for passage to demonstrate government commitment to have a world-class police service,  whether in reducing crime,  professionalism, accountability or  integrity.

I had given my full support both in Parliament and outside for a generous increase in police pay as Malaysians want to have a world-class police service which is professional, accountable, incorruptible and efficient in reducing   crime to restore to Malaysians their fundamental citizenship  right to be free from crime and the fear of crime in the streets, public places and the privacy of their homes.

The reaction of the Inspector-General of Police, Tan Sri Musa Hassan to the “generous pay increase” has been quite euphoric, as illustrated by the headlines:
“IGP: No more bribes, no more excuses”

(The Sun)
,
“IGP: No excuse for cops to take bribes now”
(
The Star)
 and
“Musa: No leeway for corrupt cops”

(New Straits Times)
.

Although the expression of Musa’s euphoric reaction is quite deplorable, as it is self-exculpatory in justifying the erstwhile police notoriety  as one of the most corrupt government departments,  let’s  not quibble over the past but look forward to a clean, new and corruption-free future for the police service from now.

Malaysians have heard of many  past announcements of “new dawns” for a professional world-class police service to keep crime low but they have all  proved to be mirages.  Examples of such past illusions include:

	When Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi became Prime Minister on Oct. 31, 2003, he pledged that one of his top priorities would be to reduce crime, whether in the streets, public places or the privacy of homes.  Today, Malaysians feel even more unsafe from crime than when Abdullah became Prime Minister.

	Abdullah had raised great hopes about his commitment to create an efficient, incorruptible, human rights-sensitive world-class police service when he set up the Royal Police Commission which came out with 125 recommendations.  However  the Royal Police Commission recommendations quickly became  a “lame-duck” Report  when  the  most important recommendation, the establishment of IPCMC, became a “political football” with the police lobby successfully arm-twisting Umno MPs and got  it dispatched to  cold-storage at  the Attorney-General’s Chambers when the IPCMC  should have been set up and operational  more than a year ago!

	At the 200th anniversary celebrations of the Royal Malaysian Police in March, IGP Musa announced that the police is being rebranded with a new vision and mission in line with the recommendations of the Royal Police Commission.    Coincidentally, Suhakam inquiry findings that excessive police force was used against protesters at the KLCC demo on May 28, 2005 on petrol and power price hikes had just been made public. To date, the  thunderous silence on the part of the police as to whether  disciplinary action would be taken against the errant police personnel in accordance with the Suhakam inquiry findings remained unbroken.

	Last month, Abdullah promised Malaysians that there would be no compromise in an all-out war against crime — but what Malaysians have got is “no compromise” in rhetoric but  not real action against crime.

The message Malaysians want to send to the Police, the Prime Minister and the Cabinet after the RM8 billion pay hikes is:  “No more government inefficiencies, no more IPCMC sabotage, no more mirages”.

Although the position of the IGP and the top police leadership have changed from the previous one of open and active  opposition to the IPCMC proposal  — which was a defiant act  of insubordination in its  an open  revolt against the elected government  –  to one of accepting whatever  policy decision of the political leadership, this is most inadequate and unsatisfactory.

With the 18% to 42% police salary increases, IGP Musa should provide leadership and end his ambivalent and non-commital attitude towards the IPCMC proposal by coming out in strong support for the IPCMC Bill to be presented to Parliament for debate and passage next month   to demonstrate police support of  the key proposal of the   Royal Police Commission to  have a world-class police service, whether  in performance, professionalism, accountability or integrity.

Continued abdication of responsibility on the part of the IGP from giving open and active support to the IPCMC proposal can only raise questions among Malaysians whether the police force is capable of giving a commensurate reciprocity to the 18% to 42% increases in police salary revision.

When the Cabinet could find time in its  last two meetings to put the Manchester United friendly match in July  on its agenda, it is totally inexcusable if Cabinet Ministers  could not find time to give top priority at its next Cabinet meeting to accord  full approval for the establishment of the  IPCMC and to present the IPCMC  Bill to Parliament next month for debate, enactment and establishment.

In the next three weeks till the resumption of Parliament on June 18, opinion leaders, NGOs and the civil society should make their concerns and demands heard loud and clear  for the immediate establishment of the IPCMC.

                This entry was posted on Friday, 25 May 2007, 9:02 am and is filed under
Parliament
,
Police
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


ASSK’s continued detention – suspend/expel Myanmar from ASEAN

The extension of the house arrest of Nobel Peace Prize laureate and Burmese  pro-democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi by the Myanmese military junta, which will keep her confined to her residence for a fifth straight year, must be condemned in all ASEAN, Asian and world capitals.

Myanmar’s membership in ASEAN must be seriously reviewed  as the continued detention of Aung San Suu Kyi marks  the abysmal failure of the 10-year ASEAN experiment to influence the Myanmar military junta to be a responsible member of international community when Myanmar was admitted into ASEAN as a member in 1997 in the teeth of regional and international opposition.

At that time, the rationale was that “constructive engagement” with the Myanmese military junta was the only option for ASEAN nations to influence Yangon and wean it from its ruthless and repressive form of dictatorship as it had proved to be completely impervious to regional and international opinion.

This year 2007 marks the ten-year membership of Myanmar in ASEAN, which is also to celebrate its 40th anniversary.

The blatant defiance of regional and international opinion urging the release of Aung San Suu Kyi, who had spent 11 of the past 17 years in detention, despite the unprecedented Open Letter by 59  former heads of state and  government including former Malaysian Prime Minister, Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad, former Presidents in ASEAN like Corazon Aquino, Fidel Ramos, Abdurrahman Wahid, Megawati Sukarno is testimony that the Myanmar military junta is not prepared to make any concession to become a responsible member of the international community.

In the circumstances, the other ASEAN nations must seriously consider whether they should continue to allow Myanmar to be a millstone around the neck of ASEAN, bringing disrepute to the regional organization, or whether they should face up seriously to the option to suspend or expel Myanmar from ASEAN.

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 26 May 2007, 8:09 am and is filed under
Burma
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


World’s second largest court complex – most mishaps and no CF!

For two consecutive days on
May 9
 and
10
, 2007, I had asked in my media statements whether a certificate for fitness for occupation (CF) had been issued for the second largest court complex in the world in Jalan Duta, Kuala Lumpur  in view of its many mishaps, and if so when.

If no CF was issued, why was the court complex allowed to be used; and if there was CF, whether actions would be taken against those who had been so negligent as to issue the CF when there are still so many defects, including structural ones, which had to be rectified?

There was silence from the relevant authorities for a fortnight, until Berita Harian front-page headline today screamed:
“Mahkamah tiada CF — DBKL belum terima sebarang permohonan: Datuk Bandar”.

I am surprised that  Datuk Nazri Aziz, Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department in charge of the law portfolio, had not acted with dispatch following the alert I sounded on May 9 as to whether there was any CF for the Jalan Duta court complex.

Nazri should also  explain why two different figures for the cost of the court complex had been quoted by the media in the past month — RM270 million and RM290 million. Or have we reached a stage where RM20 million is chickenfeed and is not worth any bother, when damages, losses and criminal misappropriation are in the region of hundreds of millions or even billions of  ringgit?

The spanking new complex at Jalan Duta, Kuala Lumpur has been hogging the limelight this month for all the wrong reasons — ceiling collapse, cracks on the walls, faulty toilets, air-conditioning breakdowns, power disruptions, ankle-deep  flood in the cafetaria caused by burst pipe, overflowing sewerage manhole in Level II basement storeroom damaging court files and documents,  and the latest, the entry of the Anti-Corruption Agency (ACA) to investigate the entire construction scandal with nobody having any confidence that the ACA would not be wasting its time and resources.

But there has been no end of troubles for the spanking new court complex, as today’s press reported that more than 50 court staff and lawyers were
stranded
outside the new Jalan Duta court complex for several hours yesterday after officers from the Commercial Vehicle Licensing Board (CVLB) and the Road Transport Department (JPJ) ordered the court’s shuttle service to stop operating.

Imagine this happening a week after the Chief Justice, Tun Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim declared himself
satisfied
 after a surprise visit following complaints of parking woes and transport arrangements ferrying people using the court complex!

The spanking new court complex in Jalan Duta, Kuala Lumpur, the world’s second largest court complex, is now the main and very productive source for  the Malaysian judiciary and nation becoming  the butt of international banter and jokes.

Reduced to the same level of ridicule is the Transparency International’s latest global report on
corruption in judicial systems
  where Malaysia  is ranked very highly — No. 9 in the world!

This ranking  is so ridiculous that Malaysians, whether in public or private sector, reacted in disbelief and incredibility and no Cabinet Minister dare to come forward to boast about it, knowing he or she will become an instant  national joke.

The court complex in Jalan Duta, KL was  built by the Public Works Department, and this was why there was the grand
handing-over ceremony
last month from the Works Minister, Datuk Seri S. Samy Vellu to Nazri, before it was handed over to the judiciary.

Samy Vellu should go on public television to be questioned by a panel comprising MPs and NGO representatives as to why he handed over the RM270 million court complex in Jalan Duta, KL to the Prime Minister’s Department when it was so sub-standard and full of mishaps — and even when there was no CF?

If he dare not appear on television to subject himself to a public grilling on the greatest building scandal in 50 years of Malaysian history, Samy Vellu should do what is honourable,  accept full responsibility and resign from the Cabinet!

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 26 May 2007, 4:48 pm and is filed under
Corruption
,
Court
,
Good Governance
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Dewan Rakyat  House Committee – 5 BN MPs not fit and  should resign

Before I left Kuala Lumpur last Sunday for Tokyo for an international conference  at the Japan Diet, I had issued a media statement calling on the Dewan Rakyat  House Committee under the chairmanship of the Speaker to  come out of its
hibernation
and hold an emergency meeting to take ownership of the many deplorable problems of Parliament House — roof leaking and even  fire risks from short circuit despite a RM100 million renovation two years ago — and to resolve them once and for all.

The sole Opposition MP on the House Committee,
Tan Kok Wai
(DAP — Cheras) wrote to the Speaker, Tan Sri Ramli Ngah as Chairman of the House Committee on Monday asking for a House Committee  meeting to discuss matters concerning Parliament’s leaky roofs, wiring, details of the building’s renovation and upgrading, its progress and the contractor’s inefficiency.

I just checked with Kok Wai and he told me that no meeting of the House Committee has been convened.

The other members of the House Committee apart from the Speaker and Kok Wai are all from the Barisan Nasional: the  Chairman of Barisan Nasional Backbenchers Club, Dato Raja Ahmad Zainudin bin Raja Omar (BN — Larut); P. Komala Dewi (Kapar),  Datuk Goh Siow Huat (BN – Rasah), Datuk Wan Junaidi bin Tuanku Jaafar (Santubong) and Datuk Suhaili bin Abdul Rahman (Labuan).

Malaysians are seeing a disgraceful  aspect of  Parliament  – MPs  of the Dewan Rakyat House Committee who are not in the least bothered about the scandals of leaking roof and fire hazards in Parliament despite RM100 million renovation.

Parliamentarians who are not in the least bothered about the parliamentary scandals of leaking roof and fire hazards should not sit in the House Committee in the first place and should resign and be replaced by other MPs who are more conscientious and responsible about their parliamentary duties.

Let Raja Ahmad, Komala, Goh Siow Huat, Wan Junaidi and Suhaili justify to the Malaysian public their utter indifference about the deplorable state of Parliament House, which comes directly under their responsibility  as members of the House Committee.

Are they all afraid of Works Minister, Datuk Seri S. Samy Vellu?

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 27 May 2007, 11:37 am and is filed under
Parliament
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Don’t interfere in doctor transfers

by J Martin

I read with interest in the mainstream media regarding Lee Kah Choon’s reply in parliament and appeal to politicians from interfering with doctor’s transfers.

This, of course, is a long standing problem in not only the Health Ministry but almost every ministry in the country, especially when it involves the transfer of senior officers.

However the Health Minister should also look into other areas where politicians have been known to be a nuisance.

Politicians should further:

1.      Not interfere where hospitals are to be built. We have frequently multi-million ringgit hospitals in constituencies where there are actually more cattle than people just because the ruling party candidate there wants a leg-up to win the election.

This is an absolute waste of health resources. Even recently the MOH suddenly allocated RM16 million for a “health clinic” for Ijok which has a total population of less then 15,000.

2.      Not interfere with who gets the equipment contract to supply the MOH.

3.      Not push their own favored, frequently incompetent contractors, to build hospitals.

4.      Not interfere with who gets to supply pharmaceuticals and consumables.

5. Wives or husbands of politicians should not be promoted for positions when there are other more loyal and dedicated employees who have been waiting for ages to be promoted.

6.      They shouldn’t lobby for their favorite officer, son, daughter, Pengarah, deputy DG, DG etc for Datukships and Tan Sri’s.

7.      Not interfere with who gets to operate the hospital car park.

8. Not interfere with who gets to operate the hospital cafeteria.

9. Not interfere with who gets to operate the hospital’s minimarket.

10. Not interfere with who gets the scholarship to pursue their postgraduate studies.

11. Not interfere with who gets to be the Head of Department, Dean, Pengarah, Deputy DG, DG etc.

12. In addition, politicians shouldn’t influence who gets to enter medical school.

13. Not interfere with who gets which MOH privatization deal.

14. Not let politicians decide who gets to set up medical schools and also take excessive students without lecturers.

15. Not tell medical schools to drop standards to allow students to pass.

16. Not decide which medical school gets recognized and which doesn’t.

I am certain readers can add on more to this list. How on earth is the MOH going to police and enforce this?

They don’t have the resources, manpower and even administrative or political clout. No amount of memos, rules, regulations or acts of parliament is going to stop this nonsense.

In fact if the MOH tried, they would probably be playing catch the thief and forget all about patient care.

The Minister really needs to look into who is advising him as it is beginning to appear as a case of Nigel Hawthorne’s paradoxical maneuvering and machinations in the BBC sitcom “Yes Minister”.

Not too long ago, in a ‘quick-fix’ solution, the cabinet approved the recruitment of 1,000 foreign doctors. However in 2003, reportedly due to poor performances ranging from poor skills, communication and discipline, 120 of these doctors were fired and a further number got terminated last year which was reported in the media round the world giving the impression that officials running the MOH may have no clue what they are doing.

Political interference in the MOH will only stop if the MOH starts to look into decentralizing and to have less government in its management.

And to achieve this, it needs to look into systems such as that of the NHS in the UK or the one in Singapore. It is high time the MOH stops duplicating services especially in towns with multiple private hospitals and just work out a scheme to outsource services as is currently being done for heart, dialysis and cancer services.

The wastage at the MOH where costs and services are hugely marked up by rent seeing politicians and just about anyone else wanting to have a finger in the pie is long past overdue.

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 27 May 2007, 9:06 am and is filed under
Health
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Malaysian heads Fiji Anti-Corruption Commission?

(1)
Radio New Zealand International

Head of Fiji’s Independent Commission against Corruption to remain head of LAWASIA

Posted at 01:33 on 26 May, 2007 UTC

The newly appointed commissioner of the Fiji Independent Commission Against Corruption , Mah Weng Kwai of Malaysia, says he will remain the president of the Law Association for Asia and the Pacific.

As well, Mr Kwai has told the Fiji Times he will maintain his law practice in Kuala Lumpur.

He says he did not apply for the job but was offered it and accepted because of concern about allegations of corruption.

Mr Mah says he deems his appointment valid and questions about the validity of the commission would be best dealt with by the courts.

He says there is a need for foreigners to take up the reigns at the anti-corruption commission because they are not connected to local politics.

(2) Fiji Times

Front page / News

I didnt apply, says new FICAC chairman

FREDERICA ELBOURNE

Saturday, May 26, 2007

The new commissioner of the Fiji Independent Commission Against Corruption, Mah Weng Kwai, said he did not apply for the post but was instead asked by interim Attorney-General Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum to take up the post.

Speaking from Tel Aviv, in Israel, yesterday, Mr Kwai, who is president of Lawasia, said his appointment to the commission was in his personal capacity and had nothing to do with the regional legal body he headed, nor did it compromise Lawasia.

He was, however, wary of the fact that he headed Lawasia and governed its interests in the Asia and Pacific region.

“I recognise the role played by Lawasia in the Asia-Pacific region. My thinking is there is a need for a response to allegations of corruption and if FICAC is one way for it to be done, then it doesnt compromise my position in Lawasia,” Mr Kwai said.

He said there was a distinction between Lawasia and his appointment to the commission because it was a personal matter.

Mr Kwai said remuneration was yet to be discussed with Mr Sayed-Khaiyum and that he did not expect to draw much from it.

He said he first met Mr Sayed-Khaiyum during a Lawasia observer mission to Fiji earlier this year and was later asked if he wanted he job.

He (Mr Sayed-Khaiyum) has been a member of Lawasia. Ive known of him as a lawyer. I first met him during our observer mission to Fiji earlier this year.

He said his role as commissioner would be as supervisor and he would not be coming to Fiji for long periods of time.

He will maintain his role as president of Lawasia and operate his legal firm, Mah Weng Kwai and Associates, in Kuala Lumpur, while he heads the anti-corruption commission.

Mr Kwai said he would be in Fiji in late June-July as he was attending the Israel Bar Association annual general meeting which would be followed by the Lawasia biannual conference in Hong Kong.

He said his appointment stemmed out of concern over allegations of corruption in the country.

Mr Kwai said he wished to contribute in whatever small way to the commission if there was a need for someone who was totally unconnected to Fiji.

He said he deemed his appointment valid and questions of the validity of the commission were another matter that would be best dealt with by the court.

“I’ve been requested to do a job in Fiji. I haven’t been told if there is a salary. This is not a full time job for me,” he said.

“I believe a deputy commissioner will be appointed soon, a foreigner.”

Mr Kwai said the need for foreigners to take up the reigns at the commission because they were not connected to local politics.

I am totally open-minded and unbiased and Id like to get on with the job under FICAC law, he said.

He said the observer mission stemmed out of concern for the rule of law and order in Fiji.

He was president of the Malaysian Bar from 2001-2003.

Mr Kwai said he would not consider re-election when his annual term expires in October.

In an earlier interview, Mr Sayed- Khaiyum said the President, Ratu Josefa Iloilo, appointed Mr Kwai under the commission against corruption promulgation.

He said it was the Presidents prerogative.

He said Mr Kwai brought in a wealth of experience, was of international standing and a leading member who served in the Malaysian Bar and the International Bar Association.

Mr Sayed-Khaiyum said Mr Kwai brought with him many contacts.

Mr Kwais appointment is for five years.

He said in similar commissions like Australia, New Zealand and Hong Kong, prosecution comes about after years of being set up following quite a lot of background work, evidence gathering on corruption.

“Comparatively speaking, the commission is doing very good work, obviously not all the information is being made available, until there is sufficient evidence for charges to be laid. When you compare the jurisdictions of those commissions, the work does take some time,” Mr Sayed-Khaiyum said.

He said Mr Kwais appointment was expected to expedite the work of the commission, which has been using solicitors overseas.

“We have a solicitor from New Zealand who is working on the collation of evidence gathered by investigation teams,” Mr Sayed-Khaiyum said.

He said advertisements on the required expertise would be made in due course.

A statement by Lawasia late last year condemned the actions of the Fiji military in removing the democratically elected government from power and called for a quick return to parliamentary rule.

Congrats to Mah Weng Kwai on his appointment, although it is a matter of concern that there is some confusion in Fiji between Malaysia and Melanesia, in the following  May 24 online posting from
fijilive
,

“Law Asia President appointed Fiji corruption chief”
 which said:

Law Asia President appointed Fiji corruption chief

Thursday May 24, 2007

The President of Law Asia, Mah Weng Kwai, is the newly appointed Commissioner for the Fiji Independent Commission Against Corruption (FICAC).

In a press conference today, interim Attorney General Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum said that Fiji’s President Ratu Josefa Iloilo made the appointment as provided for under the Fiji Independent Commission Against Corruption Promulgation 2007.

Law Asia is an organisation whose representatives came to Fiji recently on a fact-finding mission and gave its report.

“Kwai brings an immense wealth of experience as he is a person of international standing,” said Sayed-Khaiyum.

“He is also the leading member of the Melanesian bar.

Sayed-Khaiyum said that Kwai has worked previously as the prosecutor for Prosecuting Corruption in Melanesia. He is also a member of the International Bar Association.

He went further to say that Kwai’s appointment is for a period of five years and he is looking forward to Kwai’s arrival to take up the post.

“He has obviously been talking to us and the President has thought of it to appoint someone of his international standing as the commissioner for the commission.

“The Commissioner will be working together with the Acting Deputy Commissioner for the Commission, deputy Fiji army commander Esala Teleni.

“He will also bring with him a lot of contacts and as we have continually said we are in the process of taping our resources from other competent jurisdictions,” said Sayed-Khaiyum.

According to Sayed-Khaiyum, one of them is Hong Kong and “we hope to be in Hong Kong early next month to talk to the commission there”.

“We are also in the process of trying to negotiate through Kwai’s assistance with the resources been facilitated by either way of knowledge or indeed resources from Melanesia and Singapore,” he said.

The interim Attorney General said that there has been a lot of publicity about the Commission’s work especially in terms of the speed at which the investigations are proceeding.

“If you look at the experience and if people were to venture out off Fiji and look at the experience of the various commissions that have been set up for example in Australia and New Zealand and Hong Kong, most of these commissions have been able to bring about successful prosecutions only after months if not years of being set up,” he said.

Sayed-Khaiyum said the Commission has done a lot of background work, evidence gathering in corruption and white-collar crime.

“It does require a collation of information of evidence, the current laws under the panel code has very high standard. So those standards need to be met,” he said.

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 27 May 2007, 6:52 am and is filed under
Corruption
,
Court
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Sukhoi fighter jet deal – something fishy

by T GOPAL

Kota Damansara

I just surfed the web and found  three different news related to purchasing of Sukhoi fighter jet from Russia by Vietnamese, Indian and Malaysian governments. Go through the news and I will tell you why I smell something fishy here.

(1)
India to buy 40 Sukhoi fighter jets from Russia in $1.6 billion deal

8 February 2007

Mumbai: The government is all set to sign a $1.6 billion deal with Russia for acquiring 40 Sukhoi-30 MKI fighters. The contract will be signed before the current financial year ends and the air superiority fighters would join the Indian Air Force’s combat fleet “in about three years”, Air Chief SP Tyagi, told reporters at the Yelahanka Air Force Base on the sidelines of Aero India 2007.

(2)
02 December 2003

Vietnam Orders More Fighters

The Moscow Times

Vietnam on Monday agreed to buy four Sukhoi fighter jets for $100 million, a deal that adds fresh impetus to President Vladimir Putin’s drive to increase arms sales to Southeast Asia.

The deal, which follows sales earlier this year to Indonesia and Malaysia, means Southeast Asia this year may surpass China as Russia’s top arms market, defense industry experts said.

Vietnam signed a protocol agreement with state arms export agency Rosoboronexport to buy four Su-30MKKs, according to a source within Aviation Holding Co. Sukhoi. The fighters are made by the Komsomolsk-on-Amur Aviation Production Association.

(3)
Malaysia to receive six fighter jets from Russia

Malaysia’s air force said Friday it expects to receive six Russian Sukhoi-30MK fighter jets in May – the first batch of 18 jets it purchased in 2003.

“It is anticipated that the first batch of Sukhoi-30MKs will be officially handed over to the Malaysian government in April 2007 in Russia, with the physical arrival in the country beginning May,” the Royal Malaysian Air Force said in a statement.

The arrival of the jets – bought in a deal worth US$900 million (EUR 750 million) – is “neither premature nor delayed,” it said, denying a local news report that the delivery had been pushed back by a year

Now let me summarise the key facts :

Now, do you see the picture? Vietnam bought the jets for US$25million each, the so called corrupted India bought for US$40million each but our government must be corrupted to hell to purchase the fighter jets for US$50million each. That is US$10 million more compared to India, so times 18, you get US$180 million or about RM600 million entering someone’s pocket. But if you compare with price paid by the Vietnamese government, it would be a cool RM1.8 billion. I wonder who’s pocket is that.

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 27 May 2007, 9:35 am and is filed under
Defence
,
Good Governance
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Can of worms – new govt buildings without CFs in last 20 years

The press today reports of the
“crack-up”
of another spanking new government building –  the ceiling collapse of  the RM450 million Sultan Abdul Halim Hospital in Sungai Petani which fell in two separate areas yesterday and on Saturday.

The
New Straits Times
 story,
“Hospital’s ceiling collapses”
reported:

“In both the incidents, 28 ceiling panels came crashing down but no one was injured.

“On Saturday, 12 pieces collapsed at the men’s ward, about 1.45pm.

“Fortunately, the panels did not hit the four patients in the ward, recovering from post-surgery.

“The same day, eight panels fell at the lobby.

“At noon yesterday, eight panels fell into the pantry of the children’s nursery and intensive care unit.

“The pantry was vacant when the incident happened.”

It was  clearly a fantastic run of luck that nobody was injured in the rain of ceiling panels — but  no one should bank on such luck in future misadventures.

The Sultan Abdul Halim Hospital “crack-up” is the latest in a lengthening list of “crack-ups” of new government buildings, led by mammoth structures in the brand-new administrative capital of Putrajaya, followed by mishaps in Parliament after RM100 million renovation and the RM270 million world’s second largest court complex in Jalan Duta, Kuala Lumpur.

It was only a week ago that  the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi announced a RM8 billion hike in civil service salaries and allowances — but it now seemed so distant, overwhelmed  by one government  mishap after another, that Malaysians are asking whether it is turning out to be a RM8 billion grand cover-up of government scandals and foul-ups of the public service delivery system.

It is most shocking that even Members of Parliament on the Dewan Rakyat House Committee responsible for the physical  condition of  Parliament are quite indifferent about  the many deplorable problems of Parliament House — roof leaking and even  fire risks from short circuit despite a RM100 million renovation two years ago.

The sole Opposition MP on the House Committee, Tan Kok Wai (DAP — Cheras) had last Monday  written  to the Speaker, Tan Sri Ramli Ngah as Chairman of the House Committee asking for a House Committee  meeting to discuss matters concerning Parliament’s leaky roofs, wiring, details of the building’s renovation and upgrading, its progress and the contractor’s inefficiency.

But  no meeting of the House Committee has been convened.

The other members of the House Committee apart from the Speaker and Kok Wai are all from the Barisan Nasional: the  Chairman of Barisan Nasional Backbenchers Club, Dato Raja Ahmad Zainudin bin Raja Omar (BN — Larut); P. Komala Dewi (Kapar),  Datuk Goh Siow Huat (BN – Rasah), Datuk Wan Junaidi bin Tuanku Jaafar (Santubong) and Datuk Suhaili bin Abdul Rahman (Labuan).

These five BN  MPs  of the Dewan Rakyat House Committee should resign from the Committee if they are not in the least bothered about the scandals of leaking roof,  fire hazards and other mishaps  in Parliament despite RM100 million renovation.

On two consecutive days on May 9 and 10, I had asked whether a certificate for fitness for occupation (CF) had been issued for the second largest court complex in the world in Jalan Duta, Kuala Lumpur in view of its many mishaps, and if so when.

If no CF was issued, why was the court complex allowed to be used; and if there was CF, whether actions would be taken against those who had been so negligent as to issue the CF when there are still so many defects, including structural ones, which had to be rectified?

Two days ago, the Kuala Lumpur City Hall mayor Datuk Ab Hakim Borhan told Berita Harian that CF had not been issued for the court complex.

Today’s
Sun
 carried a  front-page story,
“CF not required”
, quoting the Minister for Local Government and Housing Datuk Seri Ong Ka Ting and Persatuan Arkitek Malaysia President Dr. Tan Loke Mun which seemed  to advance  the argument  that there is no legal requirement for government buildings to have CF before they are occupied and that the onus is on the Works Ministry’s Public Works Department (PWD) to ensure the buildings are safe and meet specifications.

This has opened a can of worms for the 50th Merdeka Anniversary celebrations just two months away.

Firstly, this means that the PWD and the Works Minister, Datuk Seri Samy Vellu must be held directly and fully responsible for the torrent of mishaps in the world’s second largest court complex since it went operational four weeks ago — strengthening the public demand that heads must roll for such shocking incompetence and ineptitude as to make both  the judiciary and the nation the latest international laughing stocks.

Secondly, are Ka Ting and Loke Mun right that there is no legal requirement and therefore no need for CFs for government buildings?  What surety and guarantee are there that all these new government buildings are really safe for use and that members of the  public are  fully insured for any injuries in  the event of mishaps? The public must be wondering how safe they are when they visit all the spanking new palatial Ministries in Putrajaya!

Thirdly, the claim that government buildings do not need CFs flatly contradicts the assurance given by the President of  Putrajaya Corporation, Tan Sri Samsudin Osman, that all buildings in Putrajaya were issued with certificates of fitness (CFs) — contrary to claims that some government departments moved into Putrajaya  before they were issued.

Samsudin said in a statement which appeared in New Straits Times 16.4.07 that “the buildings would not be occupied if a CF had not been issued”.

He said however when some clients were eager to move in quickly, temporary certificates of fitness (TCFs) were issued, examples being the Immigration Department which moved into Putrajaya in 2004.

He said: “Back then, a few buildings were issued TCFs but we ensured that they completed all the critical repairs before the proper CFs were issued”.

Samsudin was the former Chief Secretary. Could he be wrong?

The latest CFs imbroglio, demonstrating considerable confusion and ignorance among Ministers and top government officers about basic government rules, regulations and requirements, can only plunge public confidence in the efficiency, effectiveness and  professionalism of the Cabinet and government to a new low — fortifying the indictment of former Prime Minister Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad of  a “half-past six Cabinet” and administration!

Can the Cabinet on Wednesday  restore public confidence and close the can of worms opened up by the CF controversy?

Let  the Cabinet make clear on Wednesday whether CFs are required for new government buildings before they are occupied.

However, regardless of whether new government buildings require CFs, the Cabinet should make public a full list of all new government buildings in the past 10 years, better still 20 years, which had been occupied  without any CF, and their present status.

                This entry was posted on Monday, 28 May 2007, 12:25 pm and is filed under
Good Governance
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Chua Soi Lek should resign or retract his statement

by Richard Teo

Health Minister Datuk Seri Dr. Chua Soi Lek Should resign or retract what he said when he suggested that “Medical graduates who studied overseas may have to sit for a unified medical examination and,whether their university is recognised or not, a pass in the examination would allow them to practise in Malaysia”.

Almost all medical students who opted to obtain their medical degrees overseas are force by circumstances and not by choice.

Dr. Chua should be aware that majority of STPM students who attained excellent grades were deprieved of an opportunity to do medicine at a local university because most of the places were filled by Matriculation students reserved for bumiputras.

The dilemma faced by students who aspire to become doctors were either to do their course in a private medical instituition or venture overseas if they can afford the astronomical costs.

For those who can afford and opted to do their course overseas the news of Dr. Chua’s statement that they have to undergo a medical exam in order to practice in Malaysia must be a body blow.

After spending nearly $800,000 for a medical degree in U.K and having qualified from a medical institution which is far more superior than a local one it really boggles one’s imagination how Dr. Chua could ever come to the conclusion that local medical graduates should be exempted from a medical exam while overseas graduates from a more prestigious instituition should pass another local exam in order to practise here.

Dr. Chua’s suggestion can only be supported if he thinks that the local medical institution like UM and USM are far more superior than overseas instituition like Monash Uni, Melbourne Uni or any of

the Unis in the U.K? Of course not because UM and USM are  not even in the top 100 Unis in the world whereas most of the top foreign medical institutions in Australia and U.K are in the top 100.

Dr. Chua, who is from the MCA should have been the last person to suggest such a measure because almost 80% of the overseas medical students are non-Malays who have been deprived of an opportunity to study at a local medical Uni and to introduce such a measure is to put up more obstacles for the non-Malays.

Dr Chua should acquaint himself with the qualifying Board of Law exams which requires oversea lawyers who did not complete their Bar exam overseas to do the local CLP before they can practise while local lawyers are exempted.

Every year we see Honours Law graduates from overseas who sat for the CLP fail in this exam.The pass rate for the CLP is around 10% to 20% every year and most of the oversea students are non-Malays. Obviously most of the non-Malays could not do their Law course locally and their only route was overseas.

Dr. Chua should consider his suggestion to have a qualifying medical exam carefully.The implementation of this policy would not only destroy the dreams of many a medical student whose parents mortgage practically everything they had to ensure that their children obtain a medical degree to practise but would also cause the financial ruination of al ot of would-be doctors if they fail the local medical exam to practise.

                This entry was posted on Monday, 28 May 2007, 7:57 am and is filed under
Education
,
Health
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Forum on civil service excellence

English Forum:
Civil Service Excellence: Quality vs Quantity

“
The Government must hence take the painful but very important step of trimming the civil service sector into a leaner and more efficient “machine”. The increase in pay will be a waste of public funds, if the move is not accompanied by a corresponding increase in civil service productivity
.” – Tony Pua

“
Pergerakan Pemuda UMNO mendesak Pua dan DAP mengambil langkah memperbetulkan kata-kata mereka yang langsung tidak bertimbang rasa dan begitu menghina sekali
.”

“
Pua’s negative comments about the civil service can cause considerable damage to the morale and image of the public sector
.” – Khairy Jamaluddin

Speakers
:

Lim Kit Siang, Parliamentary Opposition Leader

Lim Guan Eng, DAP Secretary-General

Tan Sri Khalid Ibrahim, PKR Secretary-General

A. H. Ponniah, former Secretary of Public Service International (Asia-Pacific Region)

Nurul Izzah Anwar, Special Assistant to Dato Seri Anwar Ibrahim

Tony Pua, Economic Advisor to DAP Secretary-General

Open invitation to Khairy Jamaluddin, UMNO Deputy Youth Chief

Venue
: KL & Selangor Chinese Assembly Hall

Date
: 30th May 2007 (Wednesday)

Time
: 8.00 pm

Admission is Free

                This entry was posted on Monday, 28 May 2007, 6:50 pm and is filed under
Announcement
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Hishammuddin’s directive barring transfer of  SK pupils to SJKT/SJKC unlawful & unconstitutional

The Cabinet on Wednesday should strike out the  Education Minister, Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Hussein’s directive under Section 8 of 1996 Education Act in unlawfully and unconstitutionally  barring national primary school pupils  from transferring to Tamil or Chinese primary schools although a revers transfer is allowed.

As pointed out by DAP MP for Ipoh Barat,
M. Kulasegaran
last week, many parents have complained that they have not been able to transfer their children from national primary schools to Tamil or Chinese primary schools, as the policy of the Education Ministry is to allow
only a one-way transfer
– from Tamil or Chinese primary schools to national primary schools but not vice versa.

Kulasegaran cited the case of a 37-year-old woman who had sent
two appeals
to the Education Ministry to transfer her eight-year-old son from national primary school to a Tamil primary school, but was rejected on both occasions on the  policy ground of “racial integration”.

In the case in point, her son and three other boys had been caned by a female teacher  in a national primary school in  Perak  state  for turning up late for an Arabic language class  for which  she had lodged a police report in February this year.

The school however denied that it had forced any non-Muslim pupil to attend the Arabic language classes.  Unhappy with that school, she transferred her son out temporarily to another primary school in Kuala Kangsar while waiting for approval for his transfer to a Tamil school.

Perak Education Director
Datuk Mohamed Zakaria Mohd Noor
had confirmed in the Star last Tuesday (22nd May 2007)  that there is such a policy directive barring the transfer of pupils from national primary schools to Tamil or Chinese primary schools.

He said  the policy was meant to encourage racial integration, adding: “We advise the parents (of this pupil) to stay in the national school. Whatever complaints you have, please come forward and we will discuss them seriously.”

Although the Education Minister has the powers under Section 8 of the 1996 Education Act to issue policy directives and regulations to give effect to the law, it is clearly provided that such Ministerial powers are limited both by the enabling Act and the Constitution.

Section 8 specifically  stipulates  that the Minister’s powers to issue “directions of a general character” must not be inconsistent with the provisions of the Act.

The Preamble of the Act declares without any ambiguity the “general principle” which the Education Minister must uphold — “that pupils are to be educated in accordance with the wishes of their parents”.

Furthermore, this fundamental principle of the parent’s freedom of choice in education specifically recognized  in the Education Act 1996 is also  given constitutional protection in Article 152 (1)(a) and (b) on the inextinguishable right of a Malaysian from “using (otherwise than for official purpose), or from teaching or learning, any other language”.

Education Department officials can attempt to dissuade parents who are minded to transfer their children from national primary schools to Tamil or Chinese primary schools, but they must respect the constitutional right of the parents to make the final decision.

The Education Minister and Education Department officials must realize that to deny parents their freedom of choice in education recognized by the Education Act 1996 and the Constitution is both unlawful and unconstitutional and invites constitutional challenges in the courts.

MIC President, Datuk Seri Samy Vellu and Cabinet Ministers from MCA, Gerakan, SUPP and other Barisan Nasional component parties from Sabah and Sarawak should take a common stand at the Cabinet meeting on Wednesday to ensure that the provisions of the 1996 Education Act and the spirit and intent of the Constitution are fully respected by the striking out of the Education Minister’s  directive barring the transfer of students from national primary schools to Tamil or Chinese primary schools.

Hishammuddin should be aware that the  arbitrary and unlawful prohibition of transfer of national primary school pupils  to Tamil or Chinese primary schools by way of a Ministerial directive runs  afoul of internationally-recognised principles and declarations on  the parents’ fundamental rights of   freedom of choice in education for their children.

This is particularly pertinent as Hishammuddin  is spearheading Malaysia’s bid for a seat on the executive board of the United Nations Education, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (Unesco) at its 34th annual general meeting in Paris in October.  One purpose of Hishammuddin’s educational visit to China is clearly to lobby for China’s support in the UNESCO board election in October.

It would be most unfortunate if  Hishammuddin’s refusal to uphold and respect the parental right to freedom of choice in education for their children as spelt out in the 1996 Education Act, the Malaysian Constitution and international instruments and declarations on the right to education of children becomes an international issue putting Malaysia in the dock.

                This entry was posted on Monday, 28 May 2007, 9:36 am and is filed under
Education
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Collective resignation of Ministers to give Abdullah free hand to end farce of “half-past six” Cabinet

Yesterday’s
New Straits Times
 journalist
Fauzlah Ismail
wrote a report on the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi’s visit to Japan last week which should be compulsory reading and critical discussion by all Cabinet Ministers for their weekly meeting tomorrow to lift them out of their  “half-past six” malaise.

Entitled
“Broaden horizons during trips abroad, says Abdullah”
, Fauzlah started with the observation: “Trips abroad, be it official or working visits, are not just about the fixed itinerary. It is about observing the culture of the countries visited and finding those that can be emulated back home.”

Fauzlah  said that Abdullah used his fourth visit to Japan since taking office in 2003 to observe what the Japanese do best and what examples he could bring home for Malaysians to emulate.

Clearly what struck the Prime Minister most was the culture of maintenance in Japan, causing him to ask newsmen covering his five-day visit last week:

“Did you check their toilets? Did you notice how clean the city is?”

He was impressed with the Japanese culture of maintenance, especially of public buildings and places.

Fauzlah wrote:

“Indeed, the toilets, especially at the Narita International Airport where millions of local and foreign passengers go through, and the city were impeccably clean.”

Another part of Japanese culture which struck Abdullah was queuing.  Fauzlah quoted the Prime Minister:  “Do you see people or cars jumping queue? The queue may be long but they still wait their turn.”

There was a third thing about the Japanese which impressed Abdullah – when the Prime Minister was  reminded of the Malaysian habit of passing the buck to others.

“This has to stop. The departments and agencies concerned must take responsibility. Whoever is responsible must know what he is responsible for and take action without being told to do so.”

Fauzlah posed a most pertinent question to the Prime Minister — why, after 50 years of bilateral relations, have Malaysians yet to learn all these from the Japanese — but Abdullah had no reply except to say: “That’s an interesting question” and to express the hope that the  14,000 Malaysians who stayed in Japan for training and studies under the Look East Policy would go home and continue with what they learnt in Japan.

Why must Fauzlah’s article be compulsory reading and be the subject of critical discussion at tomorrow’s Cabinet meeting?

Very simple — Fauzlah has inadvertently zoomed in on the critical flaws of leadership and governance in Malaysia in the past 50 years.

The lack of the culture of maintenance is too painfully self-evident from the almost daily reminder  of government building or public construction defects, whether falling ceilings, cracked walls, burst water and sewerage pipes, air-con and power breakdowns, and now horror of horrors, the revelation that government buildings like the troubled-starred world’s second largest court complex in Jalan Duta, Kuala Lumpur does not have and does not need CFs!

The Prime Minister has been talking about a culture of excellence and towering Malaysians, but 50 years of the national education system have failed to impart to  Malaysians the most basic toilet training to the extent that Abdullah has to look with envy at the Japanese toilet system in all his four  visits to Japan as Prime Minister.

There is no culture of responsibility, don’t mention the tradition of hara-kiri,  for Ministers to boldly accept responsibility for failures or setbacks in their Ministries — vividly illustrated in the current season of man-made mishaps and disasters in the various Ministries.

Fauzlah rightly pointed out that Abdullah was the minister in charge of implementing the Look East Policy when it was introduced 25 years ago.

If after 25 years, Abdullah has failed to get Malaysians to emulate the Japanese qualities of the  cultures of maintenance and  responsibility, what hope is there that he would succeed now unless something extraordinary is to take place in the Cabinet tomorrow.

Is Abdullah prepared to do something extraordinary at the cabinet meeting tomorrow by  asking all the Cabinet Ministers to collectively resign to give him a free hand to appoint a new Cabinet to end the national farce and charade of a half-past six Cabinet and administration?

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 29 May 2007, 5:06 pm and is filed under
culture
,
Good Governance
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Michael Backman – most wasteful projects in Malaysia

Exclusive Interview with Michael Backman

1. What was the initial thought that prompted you to write about your “Boleh or Bodoh column”? What was and has been your intention in writing the article?

Malaysia has good people, good resources and a legal system that ought to function. It depresses me that Malaysia hasn’t been more successful than it has and that it is still fighting the old fights of the 1960s.

Malaysia ‘s Chinese have accepted the NEP and its successor policies. They define themselves as Malaysians first and foremost and are among the proudest Malaysians. They have learned Malay. Essentially, they have done everything that has been required of them and yet still there is this endless preoccupation with race in Malaysia.

Meanwhile the rest of the world is just so unbelievably dynamic now. Malaysia is looking more and more like a sleepy backwater relative to what’s going on elsewhere in the world.

Many Malaysians don’t seem to understand this. Many like to travel overseas – but when they do, too many look but they don’t see. They don’t see how things in Malaysia could be improved. They don’t want to learn from anywhere else. They think Malaysia is a special case. They should be bringing back new ideas to Malaysia. Instead they just want to bring back duty free.

2. Have you ever considered the impact the column might have upon your relationship with Malaysian government and its people? We understand Rafidah Aziz, Malaysia’s Minister for Trade and Industry, criticised your column by saying you probably know nothing about Malaysia. Has there been any (positive or negative) impact/response from publishing the column?

I write to be read and I write to have an impact, otherwise there is no point in writing. I criticised the space program for Malaysia’s first astronaut – the making of teh tarik and so on – and the Malaysian Government changed its mind on that and announced that the astronaut would be doing sensible scientific experiments after all. Perhaps I had an impact there.

In any event, more than a thousand Malaysians e-mailed me to say that they agreed with my views. If I am giving a voice to those Malaysians who share the same views but feel that they can’t express them then I’m happy to have been of some help.

But then why should I as a non-Malaysian comment about Malaysia? As far as I am concerned, strict notions of nationality are breaking down. We are all involved in each other’s countries now. Malaysians have a lot of investments in Australia. Australians invest in Asia and so on. We all have stakes in other countries and so all should be able to comment on how they are run. The free flow of ideas and openness are good things. The only people who do not like this are politicians in Malaysia and Singapore. You will never hear Australian or UK politicians complaining about those things. So you should ask yourself, why do Malaysian and Singaporean politicians dislike public debate and openness?

As for Rafidah, I know quite a lot about Malaysia. And I know quite a lot about Rafidah, which is why I wrote about the corruption allegations against her in my second column. Rafidah understands her trade brief very well, but she is dictatorial. Look at how she rules UMNO Wanita.

Sadly, I suspect I know more about Malaysia than many Malaysians. One reason for this is because Malaysia’s media is so poor and many things cannot be discussed openly. Ministers like Rafidah would prefer that Malaysians are not told things. Perhaps they have something to hide.

There is an idea among Malaysians that their country is particularly special and unique and that non-Malaysians simply cannot know much about Malaysia. That simply isn’t true. All countries are complex and have their nuances. You can be expert in a country without being from that country. Indeed, sometimes it helps not to be from that country. If more Malaysians sent more time away from Malaysia, they would gain a far clearer picture of what Malaysia is and what it is not.

I have met many Malaysian politicians and business people, spent time in almost every Malaysian state, sat through sessions of the Malaysian parliament and even attended an UMNO general assembly, stayed in kampongs, visited rubber plantations, and so on – that’s more than most Malaysians. I have stayed with Malaysian friends in Damansara, in Ampang and in Pandan Jaya. But Rafidah only stays in Damansara.

3. We understand you’re an expert on Asia’s political and economical affairs. But you seem to have taken an extra interest in Malaysia (like having a special column for Malaysia’s articles on your webpage

(http://www.michaelbackman.com). Why Malaysia?

I studied at an Australian university. Many of my classmates were Malaysian students – Chinese, Malay and Indians. I became very interested in Malaysia from that time on.

4. After reading the column, one can hardly not to think that Malaysia is a somewhat badly “managed” country. We know it might be a big question, but what do you think has contributed to the “mismanagement”of the country?

It is not all bad news. Malaysia has handled race relations well. The NEP with all its imperfections was good for Malaysia. But Malaysia is rich in resources and there is a lot of squandering of those resources.

Education is big part of the problem. Malaysian schools are not nearly good enough. There are Malaysians who are now very regretful and resentful that they attended school in Malaysia. Some have told me that they have spent a lot of their adult lives trying to undo the damage of rote learning and ‘follow the leader’-type training that they were given in Malaysia.

Malaysian schools are a long, long way behind schooling in the West in which emphasis is very much on learning how to question, be creative and not being afraid to publicly voice your opinions. When I was at school in Australia I was encouraged to write essays in which I took the opposite view to my teachers. And the more I argued against my teachers’ positions on things such as social and political issues, the higher the grades that I received. Malaysian schools need to become like this.

5. From the top of your head, what would you rank as the most wasteful projects/policies ever implemented by Malaysia Government in the past 10 years, and why?

Proton – Malaysia should NOT have a national car. You cannot get sufficient economies of scale with a population as small as Malaysia’s when it comes to car manufacturing

Putrajaya – removing civil servants from ordinary society does not make for good government

KLIA – all that infrastructure, very little air traffic and it still takes forever for your luggage to come though – it is ridiculous

Petronas Towers – the lower floors are mostly full of lift shafts – you can’t rent out a lift shaft

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 29 May 2007, 7:33 am and is filed under
nation building
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Will Cabinet adopt  “RM22,500 fines for selling Milo at RM1.80” rule to fight corruption?

The Cabinet tomorrow should decide whether it is prepared to endorse  and adopt the
“RM22,500 fines for selling Milo at RM1.80”
rule as the yardstick to punish the corrupt among the high and mighty to restore integrity and good governance in public life in Malaysia.

This follows the very high-handed action of Domestic Trade and Consumer Affairs Ministry enforcement officers penalizing a mamak restaurant in Kuala Terengganu, Restoran Nasi Kandar Tanjung, issuing
compound fines of RM22,500
for charging RM1.80 for a glass of iced Milo.

The Ministry
enforcement officers
also seized food and drinks worth about RM750 and they also tore down the shop’s signboard.

Terengganu Mentri Besar Datuk Seri
Idris Jusoh
 was full of praise for the high-handed enforcement action, which had been criticized as overzealous and unwarranted, saying that it was high time such severe action be a  lesson to all food outlet operators who flouted the law.

Are the RM22,500 fines for charging RM1.80 for a glass of iced Milo defensible?  Absolutely not, as they are  not only high-handed, overzealous, unwarranted but gross abuses of power.

I fully endorse actions by enforcement officers against food operators or traders  for indiscriminate price increases, but one power abuse cannot justify another even more heinous power abuse.

I am all for  the deterrent principle, as contained in  the Chinese saying “to kill a fowl to frighten the moneys”, to curb exorbitant  profiteering but this cannot justify gross abuses of power which undermines  public confidence in good governance in the country.

On the specific case of the mamak restaurant in Kuala Terengganu, there is dispute about the facts —  with the accusation  on the one hand that it had overcharged about 20 sen to 30 sen more than the usual price and the
defence by the 35-year-old operator
of the restaurant in Jalan Hiliran, Kuala Terengganu that he had started charging RM1.80 for the drink ever since he started his business early this year and it had nothing to do with the recent civil servant salary increase.

Without being  bogged down by the facts, I  agree as  a matter of principle that strong deterrent action should be taken against the mamak restaurant if it had been guilty of unscrupulous  profiteering by charging RM1.80 for a glass of iced Milo, after the government had announced a salary increase for civil servants of between 7.5% and 35% effective from July.

The issue is whether the mamak restaurant should be given compound fines of RM22,500 even if it is true that it had unscrupulously increased the price of a glass of iced Milo from 20 to 30 sen?

Fine it  up to 1,000 times of the unscrupulous profiteering of 30 sen  or up to RM300, and nobody would accuse the enforcement officers of gross abuse of power. But to impose RM22,500 fines, which is more than 70,000 times of the unscrupulous profiteering if any — where is the sense of proportion and justice?

I am shocked that the Deputy Domestic Trade and Consumer Affairs Minister Datuk S. Veerasingam could
justify
 such gross abuse of power by his enforcement officers on the ground  that under the Trade Descriptions Act 1972, an individual can be fined up to RM100,000 or three years’ jail, or both, for selling an item at a price higher than what is displayed.

Is Veerasingam seriously suggesting that the mamak restaurant operator could be fined up to RM100,000 or jailed for three years for overcharging  an iced glass of Milo by 30 sen?  If so, then Veerasingam is not fit to be Deputy Minister in the Domestic Trade and Consumer Affairs Ministry, or the whole government is rotten to the core!

The
“RM22,500 fines for selling Milo at RM1.80”
 fiasco has raised an important question among many Malaysians — why the double standards in law enforcement?

This is the reason for my call to the Cabinet tomorrow to declare  whether it is prepared to endorse and adopt the
“RM22,500 fines for selling Milo at RM1.80”
 rule as the yardstick to punish the corrupt among the high and mighty to restore integrity and good governance in public life in Malaysia, requiring corrupt Ministers and public servants to be penalized by over 70,000 times for their corrupt and ill-gotten gains?

If the
“RM22,500 fines for selling Milo at RM1.80”
 rule is to be applied strictly without fear or favour, then action should be taken instantly  against Ministers, Deputy Ministers, Chief Ministers and Mentris Besar who have amassed fortunes completely disproportionate to their known means of income, and their  ill-gotten gains should not only be confiscated, they should be penalized by over 70,000 times their ill-gotten gains.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 29 May 2007, 12:57 pm and is filed under
Corruption
,
Law & Order
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Why 5-month paralysis in appointment of Chief Judge, Malaya?

The Chief Justice Tun Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim announced at the close of the Asia-Pacific Judicial Reform Forum yesterday that a
study
 would be conducted on judicial systems in the region to determine if a judicial commission on the appointment and promotion of judges would ensure the independence of the judiciary.

He said judicial experts will be looking at how judges are appointed and promoted, then look at which system would be best for the independence of the judiciary — and the preferred system will be recommended for countries in the region to adopt.

Justice Kenneth Madison Hayne
 of the High Court of Australia said six weeks would be set aside to collate  the information and present it in a usable format.

He said: “Factual information will definitely be published, but we would be circumspect about publishing opinions expressed in the survey”.

Fairuz’ announcement is a disappointment for three  reasons:

Firstly, while it is commendable that the Asia-Pacific Judicial Roundtable  Forum wants to make a regional study whether  a judicial commission on the appointment and promotion of judges would ensure the independence of the judiciary, it is most presumptuous for the judges at the Judicial  Roundtable Forum to assume that only members of the judiciary are most qualified to decide on the question, excluding other  equally if  not more important stakeholders such as lawyers and laypersons of the civil society.

In fact, it is a very pertinent question whether judges are the most suitable and  capable persons to  solely decide on the  question of the independence of the judiciary, which affect not only judges but the larger societies which they serve.

The history of mankind has proved again and again that the principle of the independence of the judiciary had often to be salvaged and established not only in the face of opposition of reactionary power-holders but  in many cases in the teeth of opposition of  serving judges as well.

Secondly, how is the Asia-Pacific Judicial Roundtable study on the judicial systems in the region to carry out its remit effectively with regard to countries like Malaysia which does not have such a judicial appointment and promotion commission?

This question becomes even more pertinent when it cannot pass unnoticed that  the Asia-Pacific Judicial Roundtable in Putrajaya had ended  without daring to register any protest or even comment  on the judicial crisis unfolding in  Pakistan, where its
Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry
 had been arbitrarily suspended by President Pervez Musharraf sparking a Pakistani political and constitutional crisis over the doctrine of  the separation of powers among the executive, legislature and judiciary as well as the restoration of full democracy in Pakistan.

Thirdly, it would appear that the Judicial Roundtable study is  being used as a good excuse for Fairuz to continue with his denial syndrome to  further proscrastinate and frustrate judicial reforms, particularly on the urgent need to have a  more transparent process of  judicial  appointment to ensure that the judges appointed are of merit, professionally qualified,  persons of integrity and   good character, independent and  courageous.

The present system, where the judicial appointments are decided by two persons, the Prime Minister and the Chief Justice, have proved to be most unsatisfactory, plunging the country into a series of judicial crisis since the late eighties — and the  national and international confidence in the system of justice enjoyed by the country in the first three decades of Independence has yet to be fully restored.

In this connection, it is relevant to ask what is the reason for the five-month paralysis of the judicial appointment process where the post of Chief Judge of Malaya remains vacant since the retirement of Tan Sri Siti Norma Yaakob on January 5?

I had raised this issue in Parliament during the Royal Address debate at the end of March, saying that it “reflects poorly on the efficiency and professionalism of the Chief Justice that he cannot ensure a smooth transition for high judicial appointments so that a new Chief Judge of Malaya was able to take over from Siti Normah on her retirement on 5th January 2007”  – especially as Siti Normah’s  retirement date was known beforehand as she was given a six-month extension (which cannot be further extended) when she turned 66 on July 6 last year.

I visited the website of the judiciary to find that Siti Normah is still described as Chief Judge although she had retired some five  months ago.
(http://www.kehakiman.gov.my/html/judiciary_members.shtml)

This raises the further question as to how IT-efficient  is the judiciary despite the huge sums of money spent on the judicial system, with the Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz early this year officially handing over the e-judiciary  project to Fairuz, which promised an end to  court delays, postponements and huge case backlogs when courts nationwide go online.

But can such e-judiciary system work successfully when the judiciary is not even able to update its own website after six months?

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 30 May 2007, 12:40 pm and is filed under
Court
,
IT
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


After Lina Joy case – Malaysia, Quo Vadis!

The Federal Court 2-1 majority decision rejecting
Lina Joy’s appeal
marks a tectonic shift of Malaysia in moving further and further away from the Merdeka “Social Contract” founding principles of nation-building agreed by the forefathers of the major communities on the attainment of independent nationhood.

It  casts a larger shadow over the national horizon with the country entering the second half-century of nationhood, with  increasing doubts among Malaysians about the meaning, permanence, sustainability  and viability of constitutional guarantees, civil liberties and fundamental rights.

This is because the Lina Joy case has shattered confidence in the constitutional guarantees on freedom of religion, the Constitution as the supreme law of the land  and above all, the sacred Merdeka  “Social Contract”  underlying the Constitution that Malaysia is a secular nation with Islam as the official religion but not an Islamic state.

Malaysians alarmed at the abandonment of the “Social Contract” principles are fully justified in their concerns, especially when one compares as to what would have happened to a Lina Joy case in the first quarter-century of the nation’s history as compared to today when the nation stands on its 50th year of nationhood!

After the disappointing Lina Joy judgment of the Federal Court yesterday, voices were heard from some Islamic groups urging “those hoping for an opposite outcome to reconsider their position and to consider modifying their expectations to suit what is good and more sustainable considering our realities” .

Moderate Malaysians, both Muslim and non-Muslim, must be very concerned by such voices as the same argument with the very  same words could be used to justify the complete abandonment of the fundamental secular principle of the “Social Contract” for the establishment of an Islamic State!

On the occasion of Malaysia’s 50th Merdeka anniversary, the question that must be asked and answered by all Malaysians is:  Malaysia — Quo Vadis!

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 31 May 2007, 4:04 pm and is filed under
Constitution
,
Human Rights
,
Religion
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.