Anything But Umno

— Ali Kadir

The Malaysian Insider

Sep 10, 2011

SEPT 10 — Raja Petra Kamarudin (RPK), the blogger, is right. We don’t know if Pakatan Rakyat will be able to govern our beloved country responsibly or walk the talk.

But we do know that they will not be worse than the plundering and blundering hordes of Umno. I say Umno and not BN because in reality the BN component parties such as the MCA, MIC, etc are subsidiaries of Umno. They may have a different flag, motto and even president but their mission statement is to be subservient to Umno.

The elections are around the corner. How do we know that? Simple, the clamour for allocations and funds is getting louder in Umno. Soon, we will be asked to make a choice and by my reckoning the choice is clear: Anything But Umno.

Just let us examine what these Umno types have done to our country. I have no doubt that the likes of Tunku Abdul Rahman, Tun Dr Ismail, Hussein Onn, Tan Siew Sin were men of integrity and served the rakyat.

But from the Mahathir era onwards it has been looting, corruption and using race and religion to divide Malaysians. We are sliding down a slippery slope in this country and we have a choice to either go with the flow and do nothing or change the direction of this country.

Please don’t expect Najib Razak and Umno to do anything. Najib is too weak-willed to ever be a reformer, and plus he seems to be caught by institutional paralysis. What he or any Umno president of late is doing is governing the country for the party and its crony capitalists.

It is an open secret that the biometric scanning system deal benefited an Umno minister, the son-in-law of a top Umno leader and businessmen close to Putrajaya.

And now we are told of the secret plan to privatise IWK by 1MDB and Puncak Niaga. So secret that even the minister in charge did not know about it.

As reported in The Malaysian Insider, this deal was given the greenlight by the Economic Council. Then you have the PM saying that a good portion of MRT contracts will be set aside for Bumiputera contractors.

This is an euphemism for Umno warlords and contractors connected to the party.

The plundering does not stop there. National Service camps are given to Umno politicians and their supporters and smaller contracts are farmed out to Class F contractors, nearly 90 per cent of them Umno members.

The government-sanctioned looting has reached such a crazy stage that members of the inner circle of PM and supporters linked to Muhyiddin Yassin are fighting over the economic largesse.

I have not even touched on the notoriety of the First Family and their friends and hangers-on. Some people may think that excesses are okay as long as the economy is growing.

Well, it is not and nothing can justify expensive shopping trips or diamond rings in a country where many still find it hard to make ends meet.

Malaysia must be the only country in the world besides Zimbabwe where a top government official can remain in his job despite facing countless allegations which strike at the core of the man’s honesty. The man in question is the Attorney-General Gani Patail.

He has been accused of fabricating evidence, of hiding corruption cases involving Umno politicians and every dastardly act by a former senior police officer.

The correct thing for the government to do would be to set up an inquiry and examine if the allegations are true. This man is after all the top legal officer. Instead the Najib administration just keeps silent and ignores all this incriminating evidence.

We can only surmise that Gani Patail has enough to sink Umno dulu, kini dan selamanya. Just like probably VK Lingam knew too much that he could not be charged with subverting justice by trying to influence in the appointing of judges and just like how Tajudin Ramli knows enough about the backroom deals to warrant the government asking GLCs to stop litigation against him.

Honestly, I can’t think of a period when race relations have been worse than now and a large part of blame has to be directed at Umno for its divide-and-rule policy.

When it feels threatened as it does now, it plays the Malay race card, warning of some imaginary threat to Malay political power. When the party is in this mode, everyone who is not of the same thinking and religion is an enemy. How do you build a united country with this thinking?

Like a number of Malaysians, I always thought that Abdullah Ahmad Badawi was a decent chap but who was ill-equipped to lead Malaysia. But the Wikileaks exposure on his sister-in-law’s US$400 million (RM1.2 billion) cargo aircraft deal and the report that Umno guys get 30 per cent commission on defence deals just tell us how systemic the rot is.

Given this track record, it has to be Anything But Umno.

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 10 September 2011, 12:46 pm and is filed under
Corruption
,
UMNO
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Constitutional question: Judges let natives down

by Hafiz Yatim

Malaysiakini

Sep 9, 11

A law professor said Chief Justice Zaki Azmi and Chief Judge of Sabah and Sarawak Justice Richard Malanjum, could have abdicated their oath of office by their refusal to interpret the question of law posed to them.

The question posed before the court was “whether section 5(3) and (4) of the Sarawak Land Code relating to the extinguishment of native customary rights are ultra vires Article 5 (Right to life) and Article 13 (right to property) of the Federal Constitution.”

Islamic International University professor Abdul Aziz Bari said by refusing to deal with the constitutionality issue, the Federal court has abdicated its duty.

“Under the Federal Constitution, the Federal Court which is the highest court of the land is essentially the constitutional court of the country; the main tribunal whose major duty is to take care of the constitution,” he said.

Abdul Aziz pointed out that their refusal meant that they had failed to fulfill their oath when taking office by saying “I will faithfully discharge my judicial duties in that office to the best ability, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to Malaysia, and will preserve, protect and defend its constitution.”

The don added that the court is the custodian of justice, so the judges have let the citizens down for the constitution is the supreme law of the land, one that protects them from arbitrariness whether in the form of laws passed by the legislature or through executive decisions.

“It is the duty of the judiciary to declare the rights of the citizens, being custodial of justice,” he said.

Yesterday Zaki and Malanjum refused to interpret the constitutional question affecting the Bato Bagi land case involving native customary right land in Sarawak which was seized to build the Bakun dam.

Zaki had cited the issue was not properly canvassed before the court to decide, while Malanjum said the lawyers had not fully assisted the court when the question posed was staring at the parties.

Cold feet at the bench?

Abdul Aziz said it is only the constitution which is left to protect the rights of poor indigenous Sarawakians.

“The decision, despite ruling that the deal was legal, did not base it on the constitution; something that the court was asked specifically by that aggrieved group of citizens. The court must decide, one way or the other, how it sees the issue. It cannot leave the matter open like it did today(yesterday),” he emphasised.

He noted the project itself is essentially “an environmental disaster”.

Abdul Aziz said the court has a history of being afflicted with cold feet when confronted with critical cases like these, this case not being the first.

“When the then Supreme Court was asked to decide on the constitutionality of Malaysia’s formation way back in 1963, the court at that time headed by Chief Justice Thomson (an expatriate), ruled in Tunku Abdul Rahman’s favour. A United States paper has also described the court as the least powerful of the three branches of executive, legislature and judiciary.”

“So the people have to decide what to do next; the battle in court is obviously over.”

‘Case cannot be good authority’

Abdul Aziz said from the law standpoint when the decision is not decided unanimously, then there is a loophole.

“Since there is only one judge who made a ruling (on the constitutional question) on it, this case cannot be a strong authority.

“In any case, one wonders why the two did not make up their mind? Is it a case of just wanting to let go this one and later the court can take a more restrictive approach?” he asked, adding that the bottom line is the same; that the land grab is now deemed legal and the citizens have lost.

The law expert said the right to property is guaranteed by the constitution under Article 13 of the supreme law of the nation.

“There seems to be a kind of politics or manoeuvring here,” observed Abdul Aziz.

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 10 September 2011, 12:58 pm and is filed under
Constitution
,
Judiciary
,
Sarawak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Judicial independence and justice

Lim Sue Goan

The Malaysian Insider

September 09, 2011

SEPT 9 — Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak’s recent visit to the Palace of Justice has triggered a dispute as some claimed that the visit could jeopardise the independence of the judiciary. However, I am more interested in the remarks made by retiring Chief Justice Tun Zaki Azmi.

He said that the government had allocated RM130 million to upgrade court facilities and it was normal for the prime minister to see how the money was spent. Also, the more people the more transparent it was and there was nothing to be kept in the dark. It would not affect judges’ independent judgment.

The judiciary needs money to operate and the bill is paid by the government. Then how could we be sure that the judiciary would not lose its independence for government funding?

Judiciary independence is a universal value. According to the Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary adopted by the Seventh United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders held in Milan from August 26 to September 6, 1985, “it is the duty of each Member State to provide adequate resources to enable the judiciary to properly perform its functions”.

Most countries and regions such as the US, Germany, Japan, Hong Kong, Macao and Taiwan separated the expenses of the judiciary and included it in the central budget. Many countries also have a court expense budget which is planned by a court expense budget committee formed by courts or judges. There are also judges who participate in a court expense budget team and the Finance Ministry has no right to delete or seize a court expense budget and funding.

In China, the judiciary is managed by local governments and naturally, the judiciary tends to safeguard the interests of local authorities, resulting in a miscarriage of justice and public resentment.

Most democratic countries and regions are very strict in the appointment of judges. According to the US Constitution, federal judges are appointed by the president of the US and confirmed by a simple majority vote of the Senate.

According to the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 of the United Kingdom, the Judicial Appointments Commission is responsible for the appointment of judges. The independent commission is formed by multi-commissioners and chaired by a lay member.

According to the Hong Kong Basic Law, judges are appointed by the chief executive on the recommendation of the Judicial Officers Recommendation Commission. The commission is an independent statutory body composed of the secretary for justice, judges, persons from the legal profession and eminent persons from other sectors.

Many countries and regions take great pains to ensure judicial independence and maintain the prestige of the judiciary as well as the democratic institution.

In Malaysia, however, the feature of independence seems to have been gradually neglected. Judges are appointed without going through Parliament and after the 1988 judicial crisis, the executive has overridden the judiciary. Judicial prestige has also further declined after the Lingam video clip and other judicial scandals.

The country must recover the long-lost independence, including the independence of the Attorney-General’s Chambers, the Election Commission and the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission, as only independence can defend social justice. — mysinchew.com

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 10 September 2011, 9:39 am and is filed under
Judiciary
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Penang’s economy buzzing again

By Carolyn Hong, Malaysia Bureau Chief

Sep 10, 2011
in
http://www.businesstimes.com.sg/

GEORGETOWN (Penang): On a small table in the office of Penang Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng sit half a dozen gold-coloured cats.

They were gifts, and a reminder of his much-cherished Cat principles – Competency, Accountability and Transparency.

Mr Lim, now in his fourth year leading one of Malaysia’s wealthiest states, is convinced that those principles have guided the recent revival of Penang’s fortunes.

He has much to shout about. Under the Pakatan Rakyat (PR) government, Penang received the lion’s share of foreign investments in Malaysia last year, for the first time in the country’s history. It also had the third-highest number of tourists, and raked in two-thirds of the country’s earnings in medical tourism.

‘Penang was in a graceful decline, but it’s now growing again. What has happened was the change of government. We refused to be tied down by the old conventional crony system,’ Mr Lim told The Straits Times in an interview.

Mr Lim, 50, became Penang’s chief minister after the opposition PR unexpectedly won five states in the 2008 General Election.

He touted his government’s emphasis on efficiency, pointing out that this had been acknowledged by the Malaysian Auditor-General’s Report and anti- graft organisation Transparency International.

‘We went back to the basics. We are running a government that is clean and efficient, and investors have seen the changes… and they like it,’ he said.

On the streets of Penang, the revitalisation is palpable. Its heritage enclave, covering a wide swathe of state capital Georgetown, is buzzing with life, with many decrepit shophouses now refurbished to their former beauty.

The Penaga Hotel, restored by famed Malaysian architect Hijjas Kasturi, has opened its doors to the well-heeled. Two old British department stores – Whiteaways and Logan – have gleaming coats of fresh paint, and have reopened as chic outlets.

Penang is drawing visitors by the hundreds of thousands, and its streets are often gridlocked with cars and tourists. The island’s property prices have soared to the level of Kuala Lumpur’s.

It is a lot cleaner too, and crime fell by 27 per cent last year.

But it is not just anecdotal evidence that points to Penang’s renewed success. Economic data tells the same story. The state drew RM12.2 billion (S$4.9 billion) in foreign direct investments last year, and its economy grew 7.9 per cent, compared with 7.2 per cent for the entire country.

Datuk Toh Kin Woon, a senior research fellow at the Socio-Economic and Environmental Research Institute, a state think-tank, said: ‘The sources of growth are sustaining their momentum, and overall, the picture is good.’

Penang’s recent success is a vindication for PR, often dismissed by the ruling Barisan Nasional as too inexperienced to rule, as well as for Mr Lim himself.

The son of opposition veteran Lim Kit Siang, he was detained for 18 months under the Internal Security Act during a crackdown in 1987, and jailed a year in 1998 for publishing a statement deemed to be false in a statutory rape case involving former Malacca chief minister Rahim Tamby Chik.

Mr Lim, an economics graduate from Monash University in Australia and a qualified accountant, said he wants Penang to be as competitive as Singapore, and has gone many times to the Republic to woo Singaporean investors.

He said he has also approached Singapore’s Housing Board to help build public housing in land-scarce Penang.

‘We want to learn from the masters,’ he added.

The state has allocated 81ha on the western side of the island to build up to 20,000 units of public housing.

Singaporeans, too, are being drawn to Penang’s shine: They invested RM4 billion last year in factories and businesses there, and consistently make up one of its largest proportions of visitors.

The turnaround comes after a tough decade for Penang. Its boom had been driven, since the 1970s, by the influx of electronics companies like Intel, which set up their assembly plants in its free trade zone.

But in the last 10 years, the island had lost its draw as a manufacturing hub, with foreign investors flocking to the cheaper destinations of China and Vietnam.

Tourism also waned, as its inner city areas became dilapidated and hollowed out after its residents were forced out by soaring costs following the repeal of rent controls in 2000.

The tourism revival began in 2008, when Georgetown was recognised by Unesco as a World Heritage Site. That was the same year that Mr Lim took office. Tourists started to return, and investors flooded the city, refurbishing heritage shophouses, turning them into stylish cafes, hotels and shops.

Its manufacturing revival, analysts say, came around the same time as costs began rising in China, especially in its coastal cities.

Penang was led by Gerakan chief Koh Tsu Koon from 1990 till he lost his seat in 2008. Tan Sri Koh has derided Mr Lim for unfairly taking credit for the successes that were due to the solid foundations laid by his administration.

The influx of investments has benefited the entire northern Malaysia, comprising the states of Perlis, Kedah, Penang and Perak, according to the federal Northern Corridor Economic Region chief executive Redza Rafiq.

Analysts and manufacturers say Mr Lim did not simply arrive at the right time. The boom, they say, was helped along by his new government’s policies.

Political analyst Andrew Aeria, a Penangite working at Universiti Malaysia Sarawak, noted that Penang’s success must be seen in the context of the solid base built over the last 20 to 30 years.

‘But at the same time, I think the Democratic Action Party-run state government is much better than the previous one, and this helps a lot,’ he said.

Mr Lim’s philosophy is simple: ‘We offer value for money.’

He said Penang cannot compete on costs, and does not want to be a sweatshop, anyway. It emphasises speed and efficiency, he explained, for instance by allowing investors to build their factories with conditional approval to speed up the process.

‘We are always on call,’ he said, recalling how he sorted out work permits for a large multinational while campaigning in the Sarawak state election in April. ‘This sort of news spreads, so we get a good reputation.’

Mr Lee Kah Choon, who heads the state’s investment agency InvestPenang, said once a deal is struck, it is usually implemented within 12 months.

The state has also begun moving into the higher end of the manufacturing process, such as product development, as it seeks to distance itself from the low-cost models.

‘We are focused only on investments that we want, and industries that are high-tech and knowledge-intensive,’ said Mr Lim. Priority sectors include those involving medical devices, aerospace, renewable energy and the higher end of electronics.

Companies like Flextronics International, a large electronics manufacturer, have begun to use Penang as a launchpad for products such as the parts for the world’s fastest central processing unit, said Mr Manny Marimuthu, Flextronics’ senior vice- president of finance in Asia.

He said its subsidiary Vista Point Technologies developed 85 per cent of its products locally.

As troubles in the global economy threaten future foreign investments, Penang has prepared itself to take up the slack by commissioning RM8 billion worth of infrastructure works.

Mr Lim is hopeful that the state’s renewed optimism and vibe will survive the storm.

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 10 September 2011, 9:30 pm and is filed under
Penang
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Lip service laced with poison

— Douglas Tan

The Malaysian Insider

Sep 11, 2011

SEPT 11 — Ever since I was young, my father has taught me that when you tell lies, it is far more difficult to remain consistent. You have to tell a lie to cover up the original lie, and you also have to remember what the original lie was in the first place.

I believe that once you enter into politics, you should know that the truth always catches up on you, and when you begin to flip-flop, people will hold it against you.

Right now, consumers across the nation using pre paid mobiles will experience a six per cent government tax now charged directly to them. The BN government cried out that the telcos should absorb the cost, but as a government supposedly committed to putting the people first, passing the buck back to the finance ministry agreement places their sincerity to actively manage our cost of living into serious question.

During the whole Bersih fiasco, Najib had promised a stadium for the rally to be held, despite the fact that Bersih is an outlawed entity that happened to have an audience with the Yang di-Pertuan Agong.

Without going into the legality of authorising an illegal organisation to have a rally at all, Najib went on to claim that he intended for Shah Alam stadium to be used AFTER the rally had taken place in Kuala Lumpur, defies all logic. If you wanted Bersih to hold the rally at Shah Alam stadium in the first place, would you not have announced this BEFORE the date of the rally?

Following Bersih, our Health Minister Liow Tiong Lai, comes out with the absurd statement that Tung Shin Hospital was not hit by tear gas or chemical laced water because he had ”confirmed” with the hospital board that the said incident did not transpire. The pile of evidence contrary to his statement failed to shake his stand, even to the point where he told reporters not to show him photos or footage to the contrary, as he trusted the board rather than his instincts.

When the doctors of Tung Shin came out to condemn his statement, he was left with a red face after being exposed. His promised enquiry never came about with a finding, and his has to live in the humiliation of being called a bare-faced liar for the rest of his political career.

Another issue which is still ongoing is to do with the reform of the electoral roll. Our Election Commission is guilty of saying that they are powerless to do anything, whilst their subsequent actions behind the scenes shows clearly that they do.

Out of everything they said they could not do, one of their major flip-flops was when they claimed that without parliamentary legislation, they were unable to extend postal voting to Malaysian citizens living abroad. Only a few weeks later, they announced that from the next elections, all Malaysians living overseas shall be able to cast their vote at the respective embassies.

The mainstream media screamed this from their front page headlines and there was mumbled praise from several factions. What happened to the requirement for parliamentary reform? How are they suddenly able to take their own initiative to make changes when parliament only reconvenes in October?

I believe the members of the public are tired of the constant stream of misinformation being published online, on blogs and in the mainstream media coming from the government and at times the opposition. Right now, the Rakyat are hungry for real leadership.

The incompetence and lack of integrity which is exhibited by some of our so-called leaders is beginning to strain the trust of even their staunchest followers. Pakatan would do well to remember this if they ever go into power that saying one thing and doing another would spell doom for their political future.

We would all do well to remember the saying “Trust is difficult to gain but easily lost”.

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 11 September 2011, 6:09 pm and is filed under
Bersih
,
Elections
,
Media
,
Najib Razak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Nazir: Transform or risk Middle East-style upheaval

By
Aidila Razak

Sep 10, 11 | Malaysiakini

The time for opaque deals and unflinching public support is over for Asian governments, and failing to realize this could lead the region down the path of the Middle East.

Saying this at the Malaysia-China Trade Investment International Conference 2011 in Serdang today, CIMB chief executive Nazir Abdul Razak said this is because today the world demands transparency from governments.

“Faced with such an awesome game-changer, governments, especially in the East find that they can no longer operate under the hierarchal paradigms of the past, where decisions are made behind closed doors and executed with unquestioning public support.

“Governments here will have to adopt greater openness, more debate and increased transparency,” he said.

Nazir, who Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak’s (right) brother, added that failing to do so would not only threaten a government’s hold on power, but a Middle-east style upheaval could also bring Asian economies to their knees.

“Such transitions will have to be managed carefully to avoid the kind of upheavals that bring at least massive temporary, if not permanent, economic hardships.

“At the extreme, political upheavals could derail the Asian century,” he said.

Conversely, he said, Western government are finding that the systems placed to provide checks and balance are stopping them from being “quickfooted” in the face of the economic crisis.

Additionally, political opponents in the West have become “more Machiavellian”, proving that they would prefer their country fail than support an leader from an opposing political party.

“East is meeting West as it were, and I hope that where they meet, politicians place country ahead of self, long-term ahead of short-term interest,” he said.

Nationalism exploited for political interest

One of the areas, which the top CEO believes could fall prey to political self-interest is Asean cooperation.

“Nationalism is such an easy sentiment to exploit, and increasingly as Asean Economic Cooperation gets closer, it will become more pronounced.

“Indeed, across Asia I fear that politicians will put self versus national and regional interests in the very ways that are undermining efforts to revive economies in the West,” he said.

For instance, he said, Indonesia’s Capital Investment-Coordinating Board yesterday suggested that products of foreign investors exported to Indonesia from Asean countries be taxed.

The suggestion came over disappointment that Blackberry smart phone maker RIM chose to set up its factory in Penang , not Indonesia.

“To me, this is a sign that Asean leaders have not agreed on AEC in substance. It is easy for prime ministers to hold hands and talk about a great future.

“But down the line will people believe it? Will government agencies allow it?” he said drawing thunderous applause from the audience of over 1,000 people.

He added that failing to realise the need to cooperate as a region will only mean that Asean will be “ignored and marginalised” despite representing a collective market of 600 million people.

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 11 September 2011, 2:05 pm and is filed under
Good Governance
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


PM’s blame game

—
The Malaysian Insider

Sep 10, 2011

SEPT 10 — So far the only people not blamed for the mishandling of the Bersih 2.0 rally are Al-Qaeda, Chin Peng, Kermit the Frog and Ayah Pin.

You get the drift, right. It seems that the order to turn Kuala Lumpur into a war zone and treat ordinary Malaysians like criminals was everybody’s fault but that of Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak.

In the short time following the rally on July 9, Najib’s operatives and aides spent considerable time convincing journalists and pundits that he was all for offering Bersih organisers the use of a stadium but was persuaded otherwise by

a) Home Minister Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Hussein;

b) Information Minister Datuk Seri Rais Yatim;

c) Deputy IGP Datuk Seri Khalid Abu Bakar;

d) Datuk Ibrahim Ali and Perkasa; and

e) Deputy Prime Minister Tan Sri Muhiyiddin Yassin

Basically, Najib’s people wanted to create a moat between him and the fallout from the mishandling of Bersih. So he was the good guy who was wrongly advised by the hardliners. In essence, the PM, they argued, is a reformer and a centrist.

But it is all these hawks who convinced him that the rally goers would take over Stadium Merdeka and squat there for weeks and force his government down.

Tan Sri Koh Tsu Koon’s decision to blame the police for the mishandling of July 9 should be seen as an expansion of this blame game. Now, it is the police alone who acted unilaterally in using force to crack down on Bersih rally goers, including arresting six Parti Sosialis Malaysia party officials on trumped up charges of waging war against the King.

What Najib’s spin-doctors and Tsu Koon don’t realise is that blaming everyone for the mistakes on July 9 only serves to weaken Najib in the eyes of Malaysians.

We want our leaders to be decisive, to be principled and not to be easily persuaded by scaremongers or right-wing elements.

We also don’t mind if our leaders make a few mistakes along the way but be honest enough to offer a mea culpa.

But what is distasteful is to either leave important decisions such as the use of force to the whims and fancies of the police or be easily persuaded by right-wing ministers and the police on the crackdown and then turn around after everything goes awry and point fingers elsewhere.

This blame game is hurting Najib more than anyone else. The buck should stop with the PM.

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 11 September 2011, 11:38 pm and is filed under
Bersih
,
Elections
,
Najib Razak
,
Police
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Religious issues hurting Najib’s chances

The Malaysian Insider

Sep 11, 2011

KUALA LUMPUR, Sept 11 — A raid on a church by Muslim authorities has raised religious tension in Malaysia and could cost Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak votes in an election set for 2013 but which many expect to come much earlier.

The raid has sparked an angry verbal battle between Christians and the majority Muslims, forcing Najib to seek what may be an elusive peace between the ethnic Malays and minorities, both of which believe the government isn’t doing enough to safeguard their rights.

Conservative Muslims want the government to crack down on what they say is growing boldness by Christians to try to convert Muslims, which is an offence in Malaysia, while ethnic minorities worry their rights are being eroded.

Analysts say Najib is caught in a bind and will have to tread extremely carefully to avoid being seen as favouring either side in his efforts to mediate.

“Najib is caught between wanting to secure a conservative Malay-Muslim electorate and a political reality where he is losing ground among minorities who are more mobilised and politically aware,” said Bridget Welsh, a Malaysia specialist at Singapore Management University.

The next general election is not due until 2013 but there is increasing speculation that it could take place by early 2012.

Analysts see little chance of the ruling National Front coalition losing the next general election but caution that Najib needs to win a convincing two-thirds majority if he wants to avoid a revolt within his Umno party, long accustomed to majorities by that margin.

Race and religion have always been touchy subjects in a country split between ethnic Malays, Chinese and Indians but analysts say the latest quarrel is coming at a delicate time for Najib, whose popularity has been sliding since May 2010.

“The religious discord will cause the ruling coalition to lose some Chinese majority seats while concerns over inflation may allow the opposition to hang on to the rest of their urban and suburban seats,” said Ibrahim Suffian, director of the independent opinion polling outfit Merdeka Center.

“All this will be on the back of a much strengthened and better-resourced opposition. So in short, it’s not going to be easy for Najib.”

Islamic enforcement officers raided a Methodist church near the capital last month on suspicion that a meeting was being held to evangelise Muslims. The meeting’s organisers, a non-governmental organisation, denied the allegations and said the gathering was a charity affair. The authorities are still investigating the matter.

Damned if I do, damned if I don’t

Traditionally, Malaysian leaders have trod a careful line in dealing with religious issues after violent race riots in 1969 redefined the Southeast Asian country’s ethnic and economic landscape.

Still, race and religion are often the strongest tools for politicians to win support on pledges to distribute economic opportunities along ethnic lines.

Ethnic Malays, who are by birth Muslims in Malaysia, make up about 60 percent of the population of 28 million. Ethnic Chinese and Indians, many of whom are Buddhist, Christian and Hindu, account for most of the rest.

Last month’s church raid is the latest in a series of rows between the Malays and the minority Chinese and Indians.

In recent years, a spate of church bombings, the government’s seizure of a shipment of bibles, a legal battle by Catholics to use the word “Allah” and complaints of marginalisation by Indians have cast a cloud over the government’s attempts to build racial harmony.

Racial unity is a cornerstone of Najib’s plans but many Malaysians have derided his efforts to create a “1 Malaysia” that is not drawn along racial lines. Recently, Najib also extended an olive branch to unhappy Christians by establishing official ties with the Vatican but the gesture has been largely dismissed as no more than a symbolic measure.

“In recent times, we have witnessed an increase in incidents where Christians have been singled out and targeted with unjustified accusations and prejudice,” the Christian Federation of Malaysia, which represents 90 per cent of churches in the country, said in a statement.

A survey last month by the Merdeka Center polling outfit found the percentage of respondents agreeing that Malaysians of differing ethnic groups were growing closer to each other had fallen by nearly half to 36 percent compared to 64 percent in 2006. — Reuters

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 11 September 2011, 6:16 pm and is filed under
Elections
,
Najib Razak
,
Religion
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Freeing the Malays and Muslims from religious mind control

—
Pak Sako

The Malaysian Insider

Sep 12, 2011

SEPT 12 — There appears to be a Malay-Islamic Inquisition in Malaysia.

It does not involve burnings at the stake.

It comes as ostracism at school, the workplace and in the community for failing to comply with rigid parameters. Not wearing a headscarf is frowned upon. Transgenders are institutional pariahs.

Religious arrogance and zealotry are norms. Muslim leaders can assuredly rebuff equal partnership on inter-religious discussion panels. The Islamic moral police is free to raid churches and insult the Malay person’s dignity and autonomy.

Refusal to play along with another community’s passion for its customs is condemned as chauvinistic or unconstitutional — the fate of elected representatives in Sarawak who chose the customary suit and tie over expensive uniforms and songkoks for a state assembly opening.

Closing the gap with South Korea or Singapore at the top of quality-of-life indicators such as the UN Human Development Index is a minor national concern.

We are prouder to have been ranked by the Pew Forum’s Government Restriction Index alongside Saudi Arabia and Iran as world champions in constricting religious freedoms and other civil rights.

The time has come to face the facts. “Moderate Malaysia” and “moderate Islam” are as good as dead. If our interest is to revive moderateness, we do not flog dead hypes. We must address the causes of death.

The problem

Two pervasive mentalities stand out among the chief culprits. They are racial and religious supremacy.

Racial supremacy expects non-Malay citizens to be eternally grateful to the Malay race for granting their forefathers citizenship at Independence. It demands from the non-Malays unquestionable deference to the Malays, their culture and arbitrary declarations of Malay rights or privileges.

Religious supremacy is the conviction that the Islamic belief is superior to all other beliefs and that it is the only path to true spirituality. Its adherents must not compromise on officially stipulated Islamic ideas and practices and cannot opt-out of the religion. Non-believers are fodder for conversion.

A set of underlying reasons drive these mentalities. Political motives aside, there is a historical fear of disenfranchisement; a concept of entitlement as an exclusive birthright; envy; low self-esteem; a craving for a source of self-pride; a fear of the new or alien; meekness; and narrow-mindedness.

Supremacism is sold as the cure-all. But it only adds to the problem.

The projection of cultural or religious might becomes a pretext for the powerful to impose conformity and thereby control upon a majority. Behind the false security of religious dogma or ethnic nationalism, it is spiritually and psychologically defeating. It turns what should be a happy bazaar of exchange between cultures into a cautious tightrope walk. It sabotages nation-building, whatever the unifying slogan or initiative devised.

Consider how this plays out in Malay-non-Malay relations.

The ordinary Malay in Malaysia is kept at a near constant state of anxiety by the tirade about the non-Malays seeking to usurp Malay political and economic rights. The Malays are repeatedly called on to be united in the name of race and religion to fend off this imagined strike. To alleviate his insecurities the Malay is offered:

• A political guarantee that national policy will be dictated by the Malays (or Muslims) and economic concessions in the form of government jobs for the unemployable etc. These are promised in exchange for support for certain political parties and obedience to hierarchy;

• Supposed spiritual salvation by thorough religious submission. This is codified in law, taught in religious education, enforced by religious bodies and reinforced by social and peer pressure; and

• Financial incentives such as easy loans and credit for material intoxication by retail therapy and a temporary relative wealth effect vis-à-vis the non-Malays.

There is no commensurate effort to unleash the Malay mind and encourage the Malay person to seize the day, excel, question, take charge, propose or dissent. Political leaders and the religious bureaucracy do not favour this; an empowered people puts at stake their political influence and economic privilege.

The outcome is a large class of Malays that is averse to thinking, recoils from taking responsibility and content with following instructions. Ennui, the deep weariness and dissatisfaction stemming from mindless satiety and boredom, is a common affliction.

It is to this oppressive vacuity that the non-Malays are portrayed as “threats”. It is also implied that the non-Malay cultures and attitudes can weaken Malay religiosity or morals (see, for example, Jakim’s “Guidelines for Muslims celebrating religious festivals of non-Muslims”).

The Malays, for their part, are seen by the non-Malays as being exclusive and hegemonic with their loudspeakers and educational and economic quotas.

The result is isolation between the communities, the straining of social ties under the slightest provocation and the successful thwarting of real solidarity between the races.

The usual prescription is for the non-Malays to toe the line, to adapt without protest, or— told more gently by a prominent Malay DAP member— to be “responsive” to the Malays’ “primordial sentiments of culture and religion”.

This misguided paradigm must go.

A proposal

Since the primary point of attack is the Malay psyche, the remedy must as a matter of course focus on the Malays. Liberating the Malays from mind control is key to improving the Malay lot and normalising race relations.

There is however a limited window of opportunity for action. This window is closing with the increasing Islamisation of Malaysia. A new way of seeing and doing is therefore urgent.

It must culminate in new rules of engagement that redefine the attitudes of the Malays and non-Malays, the relations between these communities and the institutional setup encompassing these.

A blueprint would read as follows:

1. For the Malay individual:

(a) To do what is necessary to be confident. Self-esteem must arise primarily from character and ability, not from external sources such as racial and religious hubris.

(b) To be outgoing and socially inclusive. To expand one’s company beyond just one racial or religious community in as many settings as possible.

(c) To take action instead of simply reacting. To not restrict oneself to old activities or ways of doing.

(d) To be able to evaluate and decide a personal response to matters of custom and religion. To not capitulate under coercion and social pressure to conform to a fixed way or idea.

(e) To be receptive to new information, ideas and values. To be able to reflect on them critically, and fairly (to give equal consideration to the pros and cons).

(f) To be able to be critical of one’s own cherished ideas and beliefs. To be able to accept outside criticisms and see them as opportunities for learning and improvement, not as a call to war.

(g) To be above viewing the world purely in black and white. To acquire the vantage that enables one to see that a diversity of ideas and beliefs can and do co-exist, and that this is natural and not wrong.

2. For the Malay community:

(a) To boldly review customs and belief systems that might function to enslave or disadvantage the community or its members. This would involve beliefs and practices that condone blind faith in an idea or decree and blind allegiance in a leader or a scholar.

(b) To cultivate amongst its members the habit of questioning norms and authority. To not accept rules or statements out of fear or mere confidence in an authority. To be able to verify the rationales behind rules and remarks and judge whether they are just or not.

(c) To accept the individual’s right to consider his practice of customs and religion as a personal matter; that advice or guidance may be provided by religious bodies for a community, but that these beliefs and practices should not be forced upon any member of the community. To encourage individuals to evaluate religious precepts and advice by reference to their intellect and own sense of what is right or wrong.

3. For both the Malay and non-Malay communities:

(a) The non-Malays must treat the Malays as fellow brothers and sisters, with dignity, understanding and compassion. Effort should be made to communicate and interact with, not shun, the Malay community.

(b) The Malays must reciprocate. In addition, the Malays must rightfully regard their non-Malay brothers and sisters as equal citizens.

(c) To overcome cultural hypersensitivity. To be tactful in making suggestions or be gracious in receiving suggestions pertaining to the so-called “sensitive issues” (for example, matters relating to places of worship).

(d) To cease to see the preferences or cultural particulars of another community as slights or threats. To cultivate instead an appreciation for the value of diversity. To be able to partake in the festivities of any community without excessive anxieties or scruples.

4. For the progressive and liberal Malays:

(a) To inspire their fellow Malays to break out of restrictive thinking and habits.

(b) To take the initiative to speak out against policies, laws and actions which inhibit their people’s material and mental progress.

(c) To support Malay or Islamic organisations and movements that are progressive.

5. For political leaders, institutions and other authorities:

(a) To refrain from speech and action that sow suspicion and division between the Malays and non-Malays or cause a community to feel excluded.

(b) Religious bodies and leaders in particular may educate the public but should never engage in actions that humiliate their targets or compel them to do what is not in their hearts.

(c) To ensure that religious laws and regulations do not discriminate against people by gender, sexual orientation or religious denomination. To disapprove biased interpretations of these laws and regulations.

6. For political parties:

(a) To resolutely uphold and espouse progressive living and thinking. To favour inclusive values and ideologies over narrow and exclusive ones.

(b) To cease from propagating or condoning any form of religious chauvinism (the act of putting one religion ahead of or above all others) because of the political expediency of securing votes.

7. The social environment:

(a) To create an environment that allows cultural, intellectual and physical interaction between the races that is free from fear, prejudice and other obstructions.

The foregoing is by no means complete, but it indicates the general spirit that any such “social contract” must have.

It must in essence motivate the Malays to take control of the wheels of their destiny. The immediate implications are for the Malays to free themselves from religious programming and assert their authority from the grassroots upward.

The prospect may be scary. But the old way of being led by the nose is destructive. The Malays should no longer remain as feudalistic subjects of the political and religious elite. The elite owe the Malays that dignity. — cpiasia.net

                This entry was posted on Monday, 12 September 2011, 6:21 pm and is filed under
Islam
,
nation building
,
Religion
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Malaysia in the Era of Globalization #82

By
M. Bakri Musa

Chapter 9: Islam in Malay Life

Reform in Islam

Educating Ulamas on Modern Economics

            By educating Muslims generally and the ulama in particular on such modern and useful concepts of economics, and replacing such loaded terms as interest and insurance with the morally neutral terms as rewards on savings and risk sharing, we would channel the natural propensity for Malays to save even more. This in turn would encourage other productivity-enhancing economic activities.

            Western financial institutions have done a remarkably efficient job in contributing to the economy. It is difficult for a country to advance unless it has a well developed and sound banking system. Western financial institutions have done an equally credible job of democratizing financial services. When I started my practice over two decades ago, I could not get a line of credit, as that was available only for major corporations. Thus I had to borrow the whole lump sum right away and began paying interest on funds I did not need immediately. Today lines of credit are common even for ordinary retail customers. Similarly, new entities like money market and mutual funds enable average consumers to participate in more productive investments that were previously reserved for rich clients. Average Americans, thanks to such innovative financial instruments, can now invest their funds in foreign companies and other ventures besides the traditional stocks and bonds through the convenience of their unit trust and mutual funds.

            Modern banks are by no means perfect. In times of crises, as documented by the Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz, banks can behave just as irrationally. Indeed the common wisdom that banks willingly lend money when you do not need it, and then quickly withdraw it when you really need the funds, is not without foundation. As an ancient Malay saying would have it, it is akin to lending someone an umbrella, but when it rains take it back! Banks are also not averse to shirking their community responsibilities. In the past it was common for bank to come to a community only to collect the deposits, and then invest the funds elsewhere. Today in America, with the Community Reinvestment Act, banks are required to invest a percentage of their deposits within the community. Banks have also been known to “redline” neighborhoods, and discriminating against poor and minority borrowers. Again with civil lawsuits and better auditing, banks are doing less of that now.

            The rigid rules governing loan-loss provisions and the strict definition and enforcement of non-performing loans (NPLs) that are internationally accepted may be harsh. Indeed Malaysian leaders severely criticized the IMF for insisting that Asian banks use the widely accepted “non-activity-for-three-months” rule for NPLs while Malaysia has been using the more lax (kinder?) six-month rule. When banks classify loans as “non performing,” it means more than just calling in the loans and making the necessary “loan loss” provisions as mandated by law. It means that factories and companies are being shuttered and workers laid off. There are significant human and social costs associated. When Enron, the giant electricity company, was forced into bankruptcy, thousands of its workers were stranded and its hometown Houston was thrown into a tailspin. Cruel as that may seem, consider the alternative of keeping such companies alive. For one, its creditors and banks would have to continue to pour their precious depositors’ money to support the ailing company. Indeed had this continued, Enron would not only have driven itself into the ground but also would have taken along other healthy companies.

            Thus while we may sympathize with Enron’s fate, we should also be considering the fate of the depositors who put their hard-earned cash into Enron’s banks. It is better that one company fails rather than a major bank. With the former only that company’s shareholders, employees, and other stakeholders are affected, but when a major bank fails, the ripple would be felt throughout the economy. Had Bank Bumiputra followed international guidelines and been aggressive with its delinquent borrowers in the very beginning, it would not have folded, taking with it billions in taxpayers’ precious funds and even more importantly, the people’s (especially Malays’) confidence in the system. Bank Bumiputra’s failure did all that and then some. It did untold damage to the Malay psyche by reinforcing ugly stereotypes about our talent (or lack of it) for commerce.

            To reinforce my main points, yes, there are weaknesses in the present Western banking system. It is being continuously improved and strengthened. The present complex set of internationally-accepted banking rules and regulations have been fine-tuned over decades; Third World regulators ignore them only at their own peril. My biggest concern is that because of its novel business arrangements, these Islamic banks cannot be adequately scrutinized by present banking regulations.

            The purported advantage, if not prime selling point, is that Islamic banks are not lending out their depositors’ funds, rather the customers and bank have a “profit and loss” partnership arrangement. This is ingenious if not specious at best. First, such “partnerships” are so lopsided that they cannot be fair to the customer. If a particular venture were to lose money, who is to check the bank’s accounting? Second, if the bank were to fail, who has first claim on the assets? The customer, who are theoretically part owner of the asset, or the shareholders or owners of the bank? Clearly there is a potential for a serious conflict of interest that has yet to be resolved.

            I consider myself a sophisticated consumer of financial services yet I find it difficult to evaluate and compare the costs and risks of the various products and services offered by Islamic banks. Hence I have not used them. My late sister had a home “mortgage” with an Islamic bank that supposedly charged no interest. But when I compare the actual “costs” of her mortgage and calculated the imputed interest rate, hers was at least two hundred basis points above that offered by conventional banks. Worse, when interest rates rose, her payments went up with them and there was no limit to the increase. America has variable mortgage rates too, but those loans have caps to protect consumers. No such protections exist with Islamic banks. The end result is that Islamic banks are taking advantage of their customers. No wonder there is a headlong rush by Western banks to enter the Islamic market. They have successfully transferred all the risks to the customers while raking in all the rewards! A rip off, even if done in the name of Islam, is still a rip off. Sadly, many consumers in Malaysia and other Muslim countries are woefully uninformed in economic and business matters and are easily swayed by the Islamic label.

            In the final analysis credit, which is the flip side of lending, is like any other modern instrument. Used properly and it would bring untold benefits to individuals as well as society; abused and it will exact a stiff price. To a skillful surgeon, a scalpel is a lifesaving tool; to an idiot, a killing kit. To Muhamamd Yunus, the founder of Grameen Bank and who has done so much to uplift the lives of millions of Bangladeshi peasants, credit is an effective instrument to reduce poverty. To him, access to credit is basic human rights.

            Nations are like individuals. If they borrow millions to build palatial mansions for their leaders and fancy headquarters for their civil servants, it is the equivalent of my earlier example of borrowing money to buy a Mercedes just to show off. But if nations borrow to invest in their schools and infrastructures, then it is like my buying my own taxi. I fear that the current obsession with whether certain forms of “returns on investments” (interests) are halal or haram is counterproductive. They discourage Muslims from productively managing their idle funds. Savings and borrowings (or credit) are vital ingredients for economic development. No country can progress unless its people save (capital formation) and credit readily available to its entrepreneurs and producers. Credit made possible the spanking new North-South freeway and the new Kuala Lumpur International Airport. Credit enables Americans to have the highest standard of living and helps push Japan, Taiwan, and South Korea into the First World. At the same time, credit (or more accurately, excessive and imprudent borrowings) was the downfall of Argentina and hosts of Third World countries.

            Through practical experience economists and bankers have come up with useful guidelines on the prudent use of credit. The priority should be to educate the masses on these guidelines so they can become better informed and therefore safer and more prudent users of credits. Today I have more debt than I ever had but I do not feel overwhelmed or threatened. For one I have put my credit to productive use by buying appreciable and revenue-producing assets, and not to finance my vacations or daughter’s wedding (the equivalent of buying taxis instead of limousines). Two, my debt payments are comfortable relative to my income and other assets. Should my income drop I would of course have to dispose some of those debts, but since I have used them to buy productive or at least appreciating assets, I do hope to come out ahead.

            Muslim theologians and economists should quit quibbling over what some ancient Arabic texts may or may not mean in the context of the 21st Century, but instead educate the ummah on the prudent and productive use of credit. Perhaps they can find in their study of those same ancient texts something to support the contention that there are indeed qualitative differences between productive and consumptive loans. But before they can find those theological justifications, these scholars must first understand and be convinced that there are indeed real and significant differences between the two and that they are not merely involved in semantic gymnastics. It is difficult to find or discern something if one does not know what one is looking for. Even if we do not find that theological basis, we still must train Muslims to use credit wisely.

            To revert to my earlier analogy of the knife, the objective is to train Muslims to use that instrument to good purpose like sculpturing and surgery, and not to use it for evil deeds like killing. Muslims must stop this endless puerile argument on whether the knife is intrinsically a halal or haram implement.

            Many Muslim are sincerely trying to lead a pious life and are susceptible to the Islamic cachet. They implicitly trust everything that has an Islamic label and those who proclaim their Islamic credentials and trust in Allah. Thus they readily suspend their critical faculties when evaluating Islamic products and services. We should teach our fellow Muslims not to do that. We should use President Reagan’s notorious phrase to express his opinion of the Russians – trust but verify – into its comparable Muslim version. Yes, trust in Allah, but we must verify everyone else, even if they swear by the Almighty!

            As an aside, in content as well as sequence, this chapter should rightly be a subsection of the previous chapter on culture. But because of its length and unity of thought, I have made it into a separate chapter. After examining culture generally and of Islam in some depth, I will now examine in the next chapter the role of the other social institutions in Malaysia, primarily the judicial system and the laws.

Next:   Chapter 10: Freedom, Justice, and the Law

                This entry was posted on Monday, 12 September 2011, 10:21 am and is filed under
Bakri Musa
,
globalisation
,
Islam
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Mat Zain: Musa, Gani duped Dr M into sacking Anwar

By
Shannon Teoh

The Malaysia Insider

Sep 12, 2011

KUALA LUMPUR, Sept 12 — A former senior police officer today claimed that Tan Sri Musa Hassan and Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail had fabricated evidence against Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim, leading to his sacking from government by Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad in 1998.

Former city criminal investigation chief Datuk Mat Zain Ibrahim claimed in an open letter to the Inspector-General of Police today that Musa, who was then Bukit Aman’s assistant criminal investigation chief, had stolen Anwar’s DNA to ensure that the sacked deputy prime minister would be convicted of sodomy.

“I believe this happened because Tun was given information or a briefing that was manipulated and misleading,” said the policeman who led the 1998 probe into the black eye inflicted on Anwar by then police chief Tan Sri Rahim Noor.

Mat Zain based his claim on “documentary evidence and statements that I have and are within my knowledge” as well as Dr Mahathir’s memoirs that were released earlier this year.

The former prime minister had said that although he doubted claims that Anwar had committed sodomy, Rahim and Musa, who was the investigating officer, had told him that they had evidence and confessions from those involved.

But Mat Zain noted that according to testimony by Hospital Kuala Lumpur doctor Dr Zahari Noor, Musa, who later rose through the ranks to become Inspector-General of Police, had “stolen” Anwar’s blood samples on October 15, 1998.

“But at that point, Anwar was already charged in court and waiting for a hearing date. The process of gathering evidence should have been completed by then.

“Musa owes the public an explanation as to what he briefed Tun Mahathir on, to the point the former prime minister was convinced that Anwar was involved in adultery and homosexuality,” he wrote.

Mat Zain also pointed out that as current Attorney-General Abdul Gani was the prosecuting officer in the sodomy case, Musa’s actions “were under the orders and/or supervision of Gani Patail.”

He also accused Musa and Abdul Gani of fabricating the case for their joint benefit but insisted that Dr Mahathir himself was not involved as he had repeatedly told the police, including Mat Zain during his investigations into the black eye incident, that there should be no cover up.

The former police officer has repeatedly attacked Abdul Gani in recent months, calling on Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak to sack the A-G for failing to initiate charges in high-profile cases such as the death of DAP aide Teoh Beng Hock while being held by the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission.

He has also called for a royal panel to investigate Abdul Gani’s role in destroying public confidence in the police.

                This entry was posted on Monday, 12 September 2011, 5:42 pm and is filed under
Anwar Ibrahim
,
Court
,
Mahathir
,
Police
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Revision of M’sian history should not be one-sided

By
Sulok Tawie
 | 11 September 2011

The Sun Daily

KUCHING (Sept 11, 2011): Sarawak Teachers’ Union president William Ghani Bina said today that any revision of the school’s history textbook must be to correct the one-sided history on the formation of Malaysia.

“It is important that the new history textbook highlight the correct version of the formation of Malaysia,” he said when commenting on a statement by Higher Education Minister Datuk Seri Khaled Nordin that the history syllabus for schools was to be revised following a disclosure of new findings.

Ghani noted that the formation of Malaysia had not been put into the right perspective as it did not indicate clearly how Malaysia was formed.

“We agree on the history syllabus to be revised, and this must include how the country was formed in 1963,” he said.

“The present history about Malaysia is one-sided. It is only about Tanah Melayu, but Sarawak and Sabah are omitted and how Malaysia came into being was not properly explained,” he said.

Ghani insisted that without Sarawak and Sabah and also Singapore, Malaysia would never have existed, although Singapore pulled out in 1965.

“Sarawak, Sabah and Singapore helped to form Malaysia at that time, not just the Malay states as suggested in the history syllabus,” he said.

“It is important to highlight that Sarawak and Sabah never joined the Federation of Malaysia as claimed in the history textbook, and we want this to be highlighted in the new syllabus,” he added.

He said the country’s history cannot be one-sided.

He also said there is a need to explain Malaysia Day which falls on Sept 16.

“It is on this day that the Federation of Malaysia was officially formed by Malaya, Sarawak, Sabah and Singapore,” he added.

He noted that they formed the federation as equal partners.

“Sarawak and Sabah did not join as states, but as equal partners to Malaya and Singapore,” he said.

                This entry was posted on Monday, 12 September 2011, 2:01 pm and is filed under
History
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Slide began before Bersih

—
Lucius Goon

The Malaysian Insider

Sep 12, 2011

SEPT 12 — Sorry but I don’t buy this attempt to blame the slide in the prime minister’s rating to his mishandling of Bersih 2.0 rally.

What happened on July 9 and the twisting and turning of words after that by the PM (I offered the stadium and no I didn’t and yes I did) is just symptomatic of an administration which lost its direction and a leader who is afraid of his own shadow.

Long before Bersih happened, the country was in a drift towards worsening race ties, upsurge in the power of the right wing and flip-flops in policy reforms. Sad to say but Najib has become Abdullah Ahmad Badawi: good with slogans and rhetoric but very elastic with implementation.

Abdullah had Islam Hadhari and Najib has 1 Malaysia but under the umbrella of those two “concepts” is the same rubbish which has been stinking up Malaysia since the Mahathir administration: corruption by politicians, worsening race relations, abuse of powers, widening gap between the haves and have-nots, talent drain, inflated privatisation contracts, cronyism and nepotism and a complete hijacking of the Bumiputera agenda by Umno politicians and the decaying state of institutions.

But in Najib’s case, the problem of grabbing seems more acute because Umno politicians, concerned that their time on the gravy train is ending, are becoming more avaricious.

And if we believe even a fraction of what is being said about those related to the PM, then it is easy to understand why there is such cynicism among urban Malaysians about the administration.

Of course, not all ills can be laid at Najib’s door. He inherited a Cabinet which can best be described as unqualified to chart out policies for a multiracial Malaysia. Defence Minister Zahid Hamidi has urged all Malays to unite under the Umno/BN banner for the coming polls.

I am willing to support Zahid on two conditions: that he will be transparent and allow public scrutiny of all defence deals.

Secondly, that he and other ministers explain to an audit committee of eminent Malaysians their wealth. For example, how are they able to send their children to swanky boarding schools in the UK on a minister’s salary?

In my opinion, Najib’s rating dip, according to a survey by Merdeka Center, was not the result of the Bersih rally. It was the result of a growing segment of Malaysians growing disenchanted with weak leadership, flip-flops and realisation that many of us ordinary Malaysians are better qualified and more principled than the people leading us.

                This entry was posted on Monday, 12 September 2011, 5:48 pm and is filed under
1Malaysia
,
Abdullah Ahmad Badawi
,
Bersih
,
Elections
,
Najib Razak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Toying with history again in Malaysia

-Farish A. Noor

The Malaysian Insider

Sep 12, 2011

SEPT 12 — In all honesty, I really have many other things to do than waste my time commenting on what has to be one of the most inane and counter-productive debates in Malaysian politics today. Yet as the tide of silliness gains strength all around us, I feel it necessary to add my two-sen’s worth to this debate before I get back to my real work which happens to be teaching and research, so here it goes…

It appears that some academics in Malaysia now claim that Malaya (as it was then called) was never colonised by the British after all — or at least that the Malay kingdoms were never colonies in the fullest sense of the word, but rather protectorates. This is, literally, correct and it has to be said that the legal-political status of these states was precisely that: protectorates rather than colonies. But we need to raise some crucial questions at this point in order to flesh out the debate a little further, and try to understand how and why such an arrangement came about in the first place.

Firstly, it ought to be noted that the use of the term “protectorate” rather than “colony” offered (then, in the 19th century) a fig-leaf of respectability to what can only be described as a mad scramble for power and domination by the British who were not satisfied with the acquisition of their outright colonies in Penang, Dindings, Malacca and Singapore.
 By the 1870s, members of the British mercantile community in the colonies were demanding more British intervention into the Malay kingdoms so that the British could have direct access to the tin ore and fertile land for rubber and palm oil production. Simply put, Penang, Malacca and Singapore were too small for their own capital investment and market concerns, and they wished to have more control over resources in the Malay kingdoms. To this end, the so-called “Forward Movement” policy was devised to facilitate British colonial intervention into the Malay lands.

By the time the British — through means both fair and foul — gained control over the kingdoms of Perak, Selangor, Negri Sembilan and Pahang, they instituted new treaties that placed the Malay Rulers at a tremendous disadvantage. It has to be remembered that before this the Malay kingdoms were independent sovereign states in their own right, and each kingdom was in fact its own country with its own government, economy, courts of law, etc. All of this was eroded by the British whose mode of indirect rule meant the introduction of the office of the colonial Resident, whose role and status was that of the de facto administrator of the states; and the Malay Rulers were coerced (often at the point of a gun or cannon) to concede control to the British in matters political and economic.

With the arrival of the British in Pahang and the installation of a Resident (John Pickersgill Rodger[1]) at the court in Pekan in 1888, Pahang was “opened up” to the outside world — though the only foreign capital that was henceforth welcomed in the state was British, and not other European capital. British ships began to dock at the ports of Pahang and a bi-weekly ferry service was introduced that brought with it a regular mail service as well. British commercial investments were initially focused on gold and tin mining — both of which required the mapping of the territory as well as the importation of manual labour. Coming just a year after the British had installed Sultan Idris Shah as the new British-backed Ruler of Perak (after having defeated Sultan Abdullah and sent him into exile), the turn of events in Pahang in 1888 signalled that Sultan Ahmad Shah’s days as the Ruler of Pahang were effectively over.

As in the Pangkor Treaty that was signed by Sultan Abdullah of Perak with the British, the 1888 treaty between Pahang and the British meant that henceforth Sultan Ahmad al-Mu’azzam Shah would be forced to accept the presence of a colonial Resident appointed to the court of Pekan, and Pahang’s affairs would come under the auspices of the colonial office based in Singapore. Pahang was forced to open itself up to foreign capital and to accept the currency of the Straits Settlements as well, according to the terms of the Pahang treaty — which also stipulated that henceforth the Sultan of Pahang was not even allowed to enter into diplomatic relations with any other state without prior approval from the British government

The terms of the 1888 treaty between Pahang and the British made it abundantly clear that the latter were about to gain command over the territory and economy of the former. Act 1 of the treaty bound Pahang to the other British states, compelling it to come to their defence when requested to do so. Act 2 of the treaty stated that “His Highness the Raja of Pahang undertakes if requested by the government of the Straits Settlements to co-operate in making arrangements for facilitating trade and transit communication overland through the state of Pahang with the state of Johore and other neighbouring states”, while Act 3 stated that “if the government of the Straits Settlements shall at any time desire to appoint a British officer as Agent to live within the state of Pahang having functions similar to those of a Consular Officer, His Highness the Raja will be prepared to provide free of cost a suitable site within his territory whereon a residence may be erected for occupation by such officer”.

Act 4 stipulated that the currency of the Straits Settlements will be in use in Pahang, and that henceforth the mint of Pahang would not be allowed to produce coinage and other currency without following the limitations set by the government of the Straits Settlements, while Act 5 noted that “the Governor of the Straits Settlements will at all times to the utmost of his power take whatever steps necessary to protect the government and territory of Pahang from external hostile attacks”, and in so doing demanded the same co-operation from the Ruler of Pahang.

Crucially, Act 6 of the treaty made it clear that “the Raja of Pahang undertakes on his part that he will not, without the knowledge and consent of Her Majesty’s government, negotiate any treaty or enter into any engagement with any foreign state”, or “interfere in the politics of administration of any native state”. The same Act further added that “it is further agreed that if occasion should arise for political correspondence between His Highness the Raja and any foreign state, such correspondence shall be conducted through Her Majesty’s government, to whom His Highness makes over the guidance and control of his foreign relations”.

Act 6 thus effectively robbed Sultan Ahmad and any of the future Rulers of Pahang of the right to engage in any diplomatic relations with any other Malay or European kingdom. [Re:Treaties and Other Papers connected with the Native states of the Malay Peninsula,Government Printing House, Singapore, 1888. pp. 42-55.]

The terms of the Pahang Treaty of 1888 and the Pangkor Treaty of 1874 were more or less the same, and they implied that henceforth the Malay Rulers of Pahang, Perak and the other Malay protectorates would be under the coercive “advice” of the British Resident who was in turn backed by British arms and military power. So while the Malay Rulers were allowed to keep their flags and banners, the real power — political and economic — was robbed of them by the British. Now tell me, how is this any different from outright colonialism? Or are we to give lip service to British colonial propaganda that claimed that this sort of intervention was done “for the good of the natives” and to bring development for the Malays?

I am baffled by the recent turn of events in Malaysia where all sorts of characters are now claiming that this charade of colonial intervention was something less than outright colonisation. To aid them in their memory (some of them are close to retirement I think, or should have retired a long time ago.), I end with a quote from Tun Dr Mahathir’s “The Malay Dilemma” (1969/1970) where Mahathir describes the reality of colonial governmentality then:

“Practically all the import-export houses were British or at least European. These firms were protected by the (colonial) government without any need for legislation. The exclusive European clubs all over the country were the places where these protective laws were made and implemented …

“This protectionism was equally comprehensive on the export side. Markets in rubber and tin for example were established by these firms in their own countries, and the markets were not open to any local (Asian) firms.

“… As if government protection was not enough, the British controlled the whole of the banking business, especially the portion of it that was concerned with the financing of the import-export sector. …

“… Contracts with supplies were almost exclusively through the (British) Crown agents. Local supplies, even when needed, were by contract with British firms. British officials and businessmen formed a close-knit community usually presided over by a local British Adviser or Resident.” (from: Mahathir Mohamad, “The Malay Dilemma”, 1970, pp. 48-49)

To our esteemed dons and doyens of the ivory towers who claim that British Malaya was never truly a colonial construct, I would serious advise a trip to the library, or even a conversation with Tun Dr Mahathir to sort out some of the lingering doubts about the past of the country. Malaysia’s youth may be confused enough today; the least that we — teachers — can and ought to do is to help clarify their understanding a little further; rather than muddy the already murky waters of the past with revisionist obfuscation even further.

Notes:

[1] John Pickersgill Rodget was the first Resident appointed to Pahang in October 1888. (Gopinath, 1996, pg. 103)

* Dr Farish A. Noor is a Senior Fellow at the Nanyang Technological University, Singapore.

                This entry was posted on Monday, 12 September 2011, 5:54 pm and is filed under
Farish Noor
,
History
,
Mahathir
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


And the pretending goes on …

— The Malaysian Insider

Sep 13, 2011

SEPT 13 — Presumably, if you keep on message all the time, you must hope that fiction turns into fact. Let’s take the issue of the six per cent service tax on users of prepaid mobile services.

It was introduced by this government (included somewhere in the last budget by the Finance Minister) and yet Malaysians have had to go through this painful sandiwara by Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak (who urged the telcos to reconsider passing on the tax to consumers), Information Minister Datuk Seri Rais Yatim, who was keen to paint the telcos as the bad guys, and now DPM Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin.

The country’s number two, like his Cabinet and Umno colleagues, is keen to show that the government is compassionate and mindful of the pain felt by the rakyat. He, like his friends, speaks as if it was some third party who suddenly imposed this tax out of thin air and the BN fairy came along, waved a wand and took away the pain of the rakyat.

Fact is that it was this administration that imposed the tax on the telcos and the telcos passed it on to the consumers as they are because their agreements (again agreed to by the BN government) allow them to do so. It is ridiculous to say that they are making too much money and make it seem that they are alien bodies because two of the major telcos are owned substantially by the government through Khazanah Nasional Berhad!

Fact also is that this idea of passing on the six per cent to consumers did not happen overnight. Much like the Astro price hike, it was discussed and brought to the attention of the authorities but obviously some people were sleeping on the job.

Or maybe the notion of a drama is better and it comes across like the government is “prihatin” or concerned when it moves speedily and prevents something from happening at the eleventh hour.

It is obvious that the government is in election mode and does not want any type of price increase to upset workers. Fair enough, that is the prerogative of the government.

But to carry on as if the telcos were the crooks and the government the knight in shining armour in this whole episode is just plain dishonest.

It facilitated the tax and now is pretending as if it just found out about it. It knew about the intention of the telcos to pass it since a daily highlighted it in May and feigned ignorance when it actually happened.

Will the government act the same when it widens the Goods and Services Tax (GST) to other sectors? After all, it did that for Astro this year and no amount of noise could get the government to review the tax. Will it only listen when it affects more people like the prepaid mobile phone service which currently has some 27 million users?

But Malaysians are used to this drama. The government is always good. The others are bad. It’s a tired, clichéd script but it works.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 13 September 2011, 8:25 pm and is filed under
Elections
,
Finance
,
Najib Razak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Continuity and discontinuity: Prof Zainal Kling and Malaysian history

—
Clive Kessler

The Malaysian Insider

Sept 13, 2011

SEPT 13 — It is not my objective to argue the historical facts of this issue, to take sides.

On the facts, Farish Noor and Art Harun are clearly right and Prof Zainal Kling, however ingenious the hair-splitting technicalities that he invokes, is wrong.

But that is not the end, or even the heart, of the matter.

We must ask, what is the purpose, and what are the practical effects, of Prof Zainal now making his seemingly fanciful argument?

Prof Zainal’s argument is simply wrong, marvellously eccentric and absurdly counterfactual historically. But it is wonderfully clever, cunning and “very strategic”, politically.

By denying that Malaya, meaning the Malay states, was ever colonised by the British, Prof Zainal opens yet another front for struggle over the now increasingly contested question of Malaysian national sovereignty.

There is no doubt that, as one of the world’s nations, Malaysia exists. So it has sovereignty. But the grounding of its modern national sovereignty is a contested, and now ever increasingly inflamed, question.

Where does Malaysia’s national sovereignty lie, on what foundation is the sovereignty of the modern nation-state grounded?

In the people themselves, who are the nation, and upon whom, under the doctrine of popular sovereignty, all modern democratic nations are founded?

Or in the Federal Constitution, which is the self-declared basis of the nation’s common character, legal order and political life?

Or in the Sultans and Malay Rulers? And if so, by virtue of their recognised standing in the Federal and state constitutions?

Or on some other grounds?

With Prof Zainal’s recent comment, we are drawn back to this aspect, understanding, or (as some would have it) attempted revisionist redefinition of the national sovereignty question.

From 1986 and throughout the 1990s until 2008, the notion of Ketuanan Melayu, the idea or assertion that Malay political ascendancy had somehow been written into the constitutional foundations of the nation as part of an originating “social contract”, took shape and grew in strength.

The results of the 2008 elections came as a surprise, even shock, to many. To those determined to uphold the notion of Malay ascendancy, they were a threat and a challenge.

Was the primacy, as they saw it, of the Malay stake in the nation now, and henceforth, at risk?

From that time, and with the growth of new Malay political pressure groups such as Perkasa, a new determination to assert Malay primacy and national political ascendancy was voiced.

As part of that response, some new understandings of the ideas of Ketuanan Melayu and national sovereignty began to be developed and promoted.

Ketuanan Melayu, some now ventured to suggest, was not the crude “ethnosupremacist” idea (that, to some, the NEP seemed to suggest and underwrite) of the categorical superiority, or greater national entitlement, of Malays over non-Malays among the state’s citizens.

It had to do with the historical foundations and “public personality” of the national political order, of the nation.

It had to do with the origins of the independent federation of Malaya and later Malaysia as the direct lineal descendant, by a clear line of succession, from the various Malay states of the pre-British phase of the peninsula’s and region’s history.

This line of argument was further developed by, or at least on behalf of, the Malay Rulers and royal houses themselves by YM the Raja Muda of Perak Raja Nazrin, in a pre-Merdeka Day address at the Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka in 2009.

On that occasion Raja Nazrin recalled the Wasiat Raja-Raja Melayu of August 5, 1957. Through that solemn declaration the nine Malay Rulers signified their assent to the constitutional arrangements of the new nation that was about to be born.

Their Wasiat, as they understood it, was not just a legal will or testament — the last political testament of the old political order, the ancien régime on the Malay peninsula.

It had, for them, an older historical meaning and also looked forward to newer times.

For them the term was not just a technical legal or constitutional instrument; it also had powerful connotations suggesting a sacred heirloom or legacy.

By their Wasiat their Rulers affirmed their consent to Merdeka and gave it their blessing. The new nation born of the “Merdeka moment” was in that way stamped with their great prestige.

Yet their action, in their royal eyes, implied something more than simply a stamp of kingly approval.

The daulat that the Rulers embodied, they implied, was not merely sacred royal prestige. Their royal consent and blessing suggested — or has subsequently been read to suggest — that the daulat of the Rulers was in fact sovereignty, in the technical jurisprudential sense.

This view, whether held at the time or retrospectively asserted, holds, or again further implies, that from pre-colonial times and throughout the years of British control, the sovereignty of the Malay Rulers, or “Malay sovereignty”, had continued: uninterrupted and unbroken, unimpaired and undiminished.

Those who wish to maintain this position can, it seems, do so in either of two ways. They may argue that there was never any diminution of effective Malay royal sovereignty, understood as ultimately authenticating power and “reality-creating” authority, under British rule. That is a difficult position to sustain.

Or they may argue that, while the Malay Rulers and their quasi-sacred political position had in fact been eclipsed under the British, that diminution was entirely without force or meaning, since British rule was itself fundamentally illegitimate. Hence its effects and implications for Malay royal sovereignty can be ignored, or set aside as if they had never been.

In either case, throughout the years of British administration and control, Malay royal sovereignty, some suggest, had continued: either in full force but hidden or else dormant and, so to speak, “underground”, only to awake and surface again at the moment of national independence.

However bizarre and counterfactual they may seem to some, Prof Zainal’s recent comments on Malayan history do not come from nowhere. They are not simply an individual eccentricity or folly.

Prof Zainal, with his recent intervention, is simply the latest Malay political commentator, activist and practical ideologist who has sought to affirm this notion of the continuity of Malay sovereignty.

His position seems to be an artful combination of the two possibilities noted above. He seems to hold that British colonial rule was illegitimate and therefore not entitled to be of any ultimate consequence; and that pre-colonial Malay sovereignty therefore persisted — was never interrupted, severed or broken — throughout the illegitimate British interlude.

Prof Zainal’s position, and that of those who are of the same mind in these matters, is that not merely Malay sacred royal daulat but “sovereignty” in the modern technical jurisprudential sense had survived in the hands of the Malay Rulers, unimpaired and undiminished, throughout the “British years” from 1874 to 1957.

More than that, having remained with them, in their traditional custodianship, this sovereignty could be, and in historical fact was, passed on by the Malay Rulers (as they asserted in their Wasiat of August 5, 1957) to the new independent nation.

In that way, a new nation was born, but born as the vehicle and instrument of a continuing sovereignty that was far older. It embodied a moral authority and sovereignty of far greater political and cultural authenticity than anything that the departing British might have managed through its Colonial Office to fabricate.

This view, which seems to be that of Prof Zainal’s, or to underlie it, has profound implications for the continuing nature, now and well into the future, of the Malaysian nation, for its political character and the underlying foundations of its sovereignty.

The idea that the British never ruled, or governed, in Malaya may seem absurd.

But it is a very inventive and resourceful way, in the political context suddenly created by the national elections of March 2008, to argue — whatever those results may have been, and whatever outcome future elections may yet disclose — that the nation’s sovereignty, both in its historical origins and its contemporary character, is a distinctively Malay sovereignty.

The argument is one that seeks to assert, and place beyond any partisan dispute or political challenge, the notion that Malaysia is still Tanah Melayu, a nation embodying Malay sovereignty, and a nation inscribed in whose innermost nature is the principle of Malay primacy.

This, like it or not, is the new post-NEP and post-2008 notion of Ketuanan Melayu.

That, at all events, seems to be, either explicitly or by implication, the position of Prof Zainal and those who are of the same mind.

As for the controversy that his views have prompted, the central question is not whether they are historically correct (which is contestable) but whether they can be made to prevail politically.

That too is perhaps contestable. That is a matter for all the people of Malaysia to determine. There is no other way, no basis other than common and ever renewed consent, to found and sustain a nation.

* Clive Kessler is Emeritus Professor of Sociology & Anthropology at The University of New South Wales, Sydney Australia.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 13 September 2011, 11:23 pm and is filed under
History
,
nation building
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


DAP causing a ‘Riot’ in Serian

Joseph Tawie | September 12, 2011

Free Malaysia Today

The five-term incumbent MP Richard Riot is having sleepless nights because of the opposition party’s attack on his constituency.

KUCHING: The centre set up by Sarawak DAP in Serian has not only set in motion its determination to wrest the parliamentary seat from the Sarawak United People’s Party (SUPP) in the coming general election but also caused ripples among the Bidayuh community as well as in the Barisan Nasional camp.

Weekly education programmes are organised by the party to instil political awareness among the Bidayuh community, so that they know their rights as voters as well as their rights and privileges to development, scholarships, business opportunities and so on.

With all these activities going on, Michael Manyin, the state assemblyman for Tebedu and state minister as well as Martin Ben, state assemblyman for Kedup, have expressed concern.

The two constituencies (Tebedu and Kedup) form the Serian parliamentary constituency.

Peter Minos, who is deputy information chief of Parti Pesaka Bumiputera Bersatu (PBB), accused DAP of being too “ambitious and greedy” in eyeing Bidayuh parliamentary seats.

“The urbanites may love DAP but not the Bidayuhs who still need many basic things like treated water, electricity and roads from the BN government,” he said.

Besides the Serian seat, DAP is also interested in contestesting other Bidayuh majority seats of Mambong and Mas Gading.

Riot feeling the heat

Five-term Serian MP Richard Riot, who is deputy minister of foreign affairs, is also feeling the heat coming from DAP that he has never missed any weekend to be with his constituents.

He has to counter and contain not only the increasing influence of DAP but also appease the growing discontentment of the community against his leadership.

His victory in the last election was mainly due to the strong support given by the Bidayuh community which comprises 23,540 voters. But now the community appears to be split, and this is his main concern.

And as far as the 3,200 Chinese voters in the constituency are concerned, their votes will go for DAP.

Many Bidayuhs question Riot’s effectiveness as a MP as there has been no significant development in the Serian constituency over the past 21 years under his leadership and SUPP.

Some even suggest that the seat should be contested by PBB, arguing that the state seats of Tebedu and Kedup are now held by PBB representatives.

And there are Bidayuhs like Ik Pahon Joyik, president of the influential Dayak Bidayuh National Association (DBNA), who want Riot to step down and give way to a much younger person.

They also want other Bidayuh MPs, James Dawos (Mambong) and Tiki Lafe (Mas Gading), to do the same.

“We want younger, effective, robust and vibrant MPs,” Ik said.

‘Don’t blame him’

According to Riot, Prime Minster Najib Tun Razak knows how serious the problems affecting the community are, so he wants the former to defend the seat for a sixth term.

As in any Dayak area, native customary rights (NCR) land is a major issue.

Five hundred villagers from 10 villages in Riot’s constituency took matters into their hands by burning seven heavy machinery, four lorries and five logging camps after their elected reps and the authorities did not help them.

When timber companies continued to encroach into their NCR land and communal forest, the villagers protested and lodged police reports and complaints to Riot and Manyin (state assemblyman for Tebedu).

The politicians however accused the villagers of being “anti-development” and claimed that they were instigated by the opposition.

The other hot issue is the ongoing perimeter survey which is not making the Bidayuhs happy as only the land surrounding their villages and temuda (farm land) are surveyed. The rest of the land becomes state land.

There are other problems as well such lack of good roads, treated water, electricity and medical care facilities.

But Riot’s supporters argued that the MP should not be blamed.

As a MP from SUPP, Riot knows how much he can do to help his people; in fact some of the requests he made appeared to fall on deaf ears.

Angry and unhappy for being sidelined over the years, Riot was one of the five MPs identified to have agreed to join Anwar Ibrahim’s coup bid on Sept 16, 2009.

The coming election may see Riot facing one of his schoolmates, Edward Andrew Luak, a senior employee of Sarawak Shell.

As chairman of the Serian DAP branch, Edward and his key men have been conducting nightly visits to all the villages in the constituency to explain DAP’s policy of “ubah” (change).

“Although the response from the villagers is good, we still need to work harder,” he said

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 13 September 2011, 12:06 pm and is filed under
DAP
,
Sarawak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


‘Evidence fabricated in Anwar’s corruption trial’

Malaysiakini

Sep 12, 11

Anwar Ibrahim’s 1999 conviction for abuse of power was wrong as the prosecution had concocted evidence and cheated through the actions of then investigating officer Musa Hassan and then lead prosecutor Abdul Gani Patail.

This was revealed in another open letter, sent to Inspector-General of Police Ismail Omar today, by former Kuala Lumpur CID chief Mat Zain Ibrahim.

Mat Zain states that Musa and Gani had done this for their joint benefit. Both had risen in ranks, with Musa becoming the police chief and Gani, the attorney-general. Musa retired recently.

“It is not wrong to say the jail term Anwar faced is an injustice to him as a result of both their (Musa’s and Gani’s) actions. I am basing this argument on documentary evidence and statements that I have and are within my knowledge,” he said in the letter.

“I am also saying this because there are important statements made by (former prime minister) Dr Mahathir Mohamad in Chapter 53 of his memoirs ‘Doctor in the House’ on the black eye incident, and the actions by the public prosecutor are different from what I have in the official case files of 1998.

“I believe that Mahathir was given a wrong briefing and he had been manipulated.”

Mat Zain was directly involved in issues regarding Anwar in 1998.

“I have confronted and interacted with the main players in this matter, including Mahathir, Gani, Musa, and Anwar, besides the commissioners in the Royal Commission of Inquiry in the black eye incident,” he said.

‘Blood sample was stolen’

Mat Zain explained how Musa and former Malacca police chief Mohd Rodwan Yusof (left) had in 1998 “stolen” Anwar’s blood sample from Hospital Kuala Lumpur (HKL) doctor Dr Zahari Noor following the black eye incident.

“Zahari had also testified to that effect in Anwar’s abuse of power trial before the late Justice Augustine Paul on Dec 30, 1998,” he said.

“Musa still owes a public explanation as to what he had briefed Mahathir on, resulting in the then prime minister believing Anwar was involved in unnatural sex and non-matrimonial sex. Musa was pressed (or pressured) to gather DNA evidence, resulting in him stealing the blood sample.

“At that time, Anwar had already been charged in court and was awaiting his trial. By right, the process of gathering the initial evidence should have been completed.”

He also said Mahathir had no role in the fabrication of evidence as this was done by Musa and Gani.

“Mahathir had advised, and warned, in my meeting with him at the Prime Minister’s Department on Oct 8, 1998, to brief him on the police investigations (regarding the black-eye incident).

“He warned that there should be no cover up. I noted that in my diary and I extended the advice and directive to other senior police officers that same day, and also to Gani two days later.

“Hence, based on the evidence before me, I would like to state and stress that Gani (right) and Musa had cheated and fabricated evidence on Anwar for their own benefit, unless they can both prove the involvement of a third party.”

Mat Zain said he wants Musa to explain whether his action of “stealing” Anwar’s blood sample was within the law and sanctioned by Mahathir or whether he (Musa) had done it on his own initiative to justify the case in the briefing he had with the former premier.

He explained that the fact that Musa went to meet Zahari on Anwar’s blood sample for DNA testing on Oct 10, 1998, was sufficient for the people to conclude that the senior investigating officer did not have complete evidence when he briefed Mahathir.

‘Najib knows about abuses by Gani and Musa’

Mat Zain also stated that the “theft” of Anwar’s blood sample for DNA testing by Musa and Rodwan was done on Oct 15, 1998.

The two had also allegedly fabricated the forensic evidence gathered by Dr Abdul Rahman Yusof on Oct 26, 1998, to produce three other medical reports to show that Anwar “injured himself” (in the black eye incident).

Both episodes, he said, were carried out under the orders and supervision of Gani before the start of Anwar’s ‘abuse of power’ trial, which began on Nov 11, 1998.

Mat Zain said he has also received information that two persons met with current premier Najib Abdul Razak to suggest that action be taken against Gani and Musa.

This, he said, was because their “crimes” were affecting the country and had also diminished the trust of the people in government institutions.

“However Najib is seen as not prepared to take action against them and he (Najib) is the only person who knows why. Maybe he is waiting for the right time,” Mat Zain added.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 13 September 2011, 1:47 pm and is filed under
Anwar Ibrahim
,
Court
,
Judiciary
,
Mahathir
,
Najib Razak
,
Police
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.