Resurrecting Kirby Is Fiscally Irresponsible

By
M. Bakri Musa

It is incomprehensible that with the Ministry of Education still in the midst of its review of our schools, the Minister and his Deputy saw fit to announce two decisions that could potentially have a profound impact on the system. The first, announced by the Minister, would resurrect the old Kirby/Brinsford Lodge program of the 1950s, and the second, announced by his Deputy, would remove the current quotas on local enrollment in international schools.

            Before analyzing the two decisions, it is worth pondering as to why they were made before the completion of this “exhaustive review.” A cynical interpretation would be that the current “review” is nothing more than a charade rather than a serious deliberative process. If that were to be so, then it would be a terrible insult to those distinguished Malaysians who have been co-opted or have volunteered to serve on the panel. On a moral level, it would also be an unconscionable fraud perpetrated upon citizens, especially parents who have been banking on the review to improve our schools.

            Another view, equally less charitable, is that the Minister and his Deputy are not fully aware of the potential for enormous consequences of their decisions. A more practical explanation is that both announcements reflect the seat-of-the-pants style of policymaking typical at the upper levels of our government. It would have been more reassuring had both proposals been first vetted by this review committee.

            In the absence of the panel’s analysis, I will examine the merits and demerits of the two initiatives, as well as offer my ideas on enhancing both.

Resurrecting Kirby

The old Kirby and Brinsford Lodge program was undeniably superb and successful. Thousands of students benefited from the tutelage and influence of those dedicated professional teachers who were trained at both institutions. Many of those teachers went on for their baccalaureate and graduate degrees to become distinguished Professors of Education at home and abroad, reflecting the high caliber of their talent.

            If we wish to resurrect the program it is important to elucidate the many contributing factors to its earlier success. We also have to remember that conditions today are vastly different from those of the 1950s. That may be obvious but is often overlooked. For example, to say that the current Form Five graduates – the potential trainees – are very different from those of the 1950s would be a vast understatement. Thus if we were to send those with Form Five qualifications to Kirby today, the results would also be vastly different if not disastrous.

            The success of Kirby and Brinsford Lodge had less to do with their being operated by the British or located in England, rather with the candidates selected to undergo the training. As mentioned earlier, they were simply superior to begin with. It is well to remember that in the 1950s only the top five percent of Fifth Formers could go on to Sixth Form and from there, to universities. The next level would be the potential Kirby candidates; they may not have been at the very top nonetheless they were still high up there above the 90th percentile. I knew a few who were qualified for the local university but instead opted for Kirby simply because of the opportunity to go to England, thus deliberately settling for a teacher’s diploma.

            Today however, the top 25 percent of our students are headed for universities. Those left for teacher training would be the next tier, those at the 75th percentile at best. Unless we get the top students – those above the 90th percentile – to go into teacher training, we will never get good, much less great teachers regardless where we train them or by whom.

            This is the crucial lesson from countries like Finland that have excellent schools. They get the best students to go into teaching, and the best students make the best teachers. If the lure of spending a few years at Kirby would attract the best and brightest to apply, then by all means resurrect the program. After all, many bright students change their career choices simply because of the opportunity to go abroad. I have met many who dreamed of becoming doctors but instead pursued accounting or engineering simply because of the chance to go abroad.

Economic Aspect of the Proposal

Kirby and Brinsford Lodge had a total of about 600 students at any one time. Let us assume that the cost today would be about RM100K per student per year (a reasonable estimate), for a total of about RM60 million annually. A hefty sum! That is the total outflow of foreign exchange from Malaysia. The money will be spent in Britain with zero multiplier effect in the local Malaysian economy.

            Imagine if we were to spend the money differently but for the same purpose and using the same personnel – those British lecturers. Using a faculty/student ratio of 1 to 15 as a guide (comparable to top universities), we would need about 40 professors. With a generous pay package of RM300K per year we would have no difficulty recruiting them. The total cost would then come to about RM12 million annually. With another RM3 million for non-academic support staff, the total payroll would be about RM15 million. We would still have RM45 million remaining!

            If we were to pay the trainees RM600 each per month, that would certainly interest top students, and the cost would be just over RM4 million. To entice them even more, incorporate elements of the major matriculation examinations into the curriculum so that these students could sit for their STM, GCE A Level, or SAT tests while in training. Then reward those who are successful with guarantees of scholarships to pursue their degrees in return for their committing to teaching.

            Having done all that, we would still have RM41 million left. Out of that I would spend RM6 million for soft costs (food, computers, library books), with RM35 million left over. Assume that to be the annual mortgage payments instead, and spread over 30 years (the typical amortization period for real estate loans) at 4 percent interest rates, you could build a campus costing about RM600 million. Even after accounting for the inevitable leakages through “negotiated tenders” and “facilitation fees” to local politicians, we could still build quite a fancy facility, almost luxurious and definitely far superior to the old barn-like and warehouse structures of old Kirby and Brinsford Lodge.

            Then think of the economic impact of RM60 million being spent locally, with the multiplier effect from the construction workers to the gardeners as well as the teh tarik peddlers to the hair dressers. About the only foreign exchange loss would be the remittance by those British professors. After paying for their housing and other living expenses, (which would be high for expatriates), as well as their hefty Malaysian income tax, they would be lucky to have RM40K at the end of the year to send home.

            Thus the total outflow of foreign exchange would be under RM2 million in a year. Contrast that to the outflow of RM60 million in cold cash if were to send 600 trainees to Britain; thirty times more expensive! And I have not included the multiplier economic benefits of the RM60 million being spent locally.

            There are also other non-economic benefits, the most important being academic and scholarly. Those professors would be interested in doing local research and be consultants to our schools, as well as conduct workshops for the continuing professional education of our teachers. Leading education journals would carry articles with the footnote, “From Kuantan Teachers’ College, Malaysia.”

            The Minister’s objective is still being achieved, that is to have Kirby-trained quality of teachers for our schools. The signal difference between my plan and Muhyyiddin’s is that I would import Kirby-quality professors to train our would-be teachers while he would export our students (and precious foreign exchange) to Britain.

            Of course Kirby would like us to send our trainees there and would lobby very hard to secure the contract. After all we have seen such august institutions as the London School of Economics engaging in shady deals with Third World dictators like Muammar Ghaddafi to secure lucrative contracts and endowments. Thus expect these Kirby folks to engage in intense lobbying to influence the Minister of Education.

            Muhyyiddin feels that the only effective way for our would-be teachers to learn English is to send them to an English-speaking country. I suggest that he visit Tuanku Jaafar College in rural Malay-speaking Mantin, Negri Sembilan. Not only do those students speak impeccable English, they also have acquired some of the finer Anglo Saxon habits. It would not surprise me that they prefer tea and crumpets for their afternoon snacks!

            Those students sent to Kirby in the 1950s were already well versed with matters English, at least in theory from their textbooks. They may be ignorant of the practical aspects as with using knives and forks, chewing with their mouths closed, and not burping after dinner, nonetheless their English fluency enabled them to learn and adapt quickly. Thus it did not take them long to appreciate Beethoven as much as dondang sayang, their tea and crumpets as much as teh tarik and pisang goreng! Sending our students to Kirby today would only aggravate their culture shock. Far from enjoying and benefiting from the English ambience, they would recoil and retreat to their little kampong on campus.

            It was unbelievably stupid and fiscally irresponsible for Muhyyiddin to put forth that proposal. I began by suggesting that he may be unaware of the potential consequences, monetary and otherwise, and that his announcement merely reflected the seat-of-the-pants modus operandi at upper levels of our government. Perhaps there is a more mundane explanation. Sending our trainees to Britain would be the perfect excuse for Ministry officials to make frequent “official” tours there. It that be the reason, it could easily be remedied; give those senior officers paid annual trips to Britain. That would be considerably cheaper.

Next week: Liberalization of International School Enrolment A Positive Development

                This entry was posted on Monday, 21 May 2012, 12:06 pm and is filed under
Bakri Musa
,
Education
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Umno and the captive Malay mind

By
Sakmongkol AK47
 | May 21, 2012

The Malaysian Insider

MAY 21 — When you travel along the Seremban highway you will see so many large posters of Najib exhorting the people with his usual sloganeering — Sejuta Impian, Seribu Keriangan. For slogans he got an A++ from Tun Daim. Translated loosely it says, “A Million Dreams, A Thousand Happiness”.

Where do these dreams and happiness come from? Look at the posters closer. The posters tell of the basic building block on how Umno sees itself. Umno sees itself as the omnipotent being from where all providence spring from. Hence Umno wants to be deified to whom the people, rakyat, owe complete loyalty and allegiance to. It therefore doesn’t understand why people, most notably Malays find Umno revolting.

This is what Najib doesn’t understand. People no longer accept ascriptive stature without demanding more than just your name and position. Beyond your name and position, people want to know what can be achieved. People look out for achieving qualities. What have you achieved and what policies can you offer to achieve the greater good. Otherwise, you can put all the behemoth-sized posters along highways, people will just regard them as another way the government spends money like it’s theirs.

The posters show they (dreams and happiness) emanate from the office of the PM. Everything comes from the government and Najib. His portraits make him look more and more like the Korean Kims by the day. He has certainly shown his dark side by unleashing the repressive forces during the recent Bersih 3.0. How can a leader of his country allow the police to fire tear gas and water cannons on his own people? What kind of PM can describe people as accursed bastards?

That is why Najib goes around saying “lu tolong gua, gua tolong lu” and “give me your nambikei”. This is the fundamental flaw which Najib commits every time he relates to people. He is pictured as the larger-than-life figure, the office of the PM is in the background hovering and towering over the mass of people depicted as the rakyat with the dreams and the hope for happiness. The rakyat, people, my fellow citizens, my fellow Malays are always depicted as smallish entities, numberless digits.

Najib is a leader of the government that sees the rakyat as digits to be manipulated and shaped at will. He might as well say “my fellow slaves, ask not we your masters can do for you, but ask what you can do to enrich and make us more powerful”. Najib’s government is that collection of individuals who exercise the rule of the government over its constituents. Who is that collection of individuals? They are that collective of the elite and powerful. What do they do, every day and time of their waking life? We can call Umno by any name now — kleptocracy, oligarchy, plutarchy.

Najib preys on the susceptibilities and gullibility of the rakyat. The rulers claim a compassionate kindred with the common workers (aka slaves) and simultaneously enjoy the fruits of the labour of these menial serfs, also known as “my fellow citizens, rakyat, people” etc. So Najib goes around claiming, it is people first, achievement this and that.

But the posters tell you a different thing. People are always second. Achievement is a distant objective. The immediate objective is to secure unquestioning loyalty because the leaders are who they are and not what they can do.

So when you look closer at the posters next time, you will see them coming alive and saying ask not what your country can do for you — ask what you can do for your country. You will see that Najib is really saying — ask not what the elite and powerful can do for you, ask what you can do for the elite and powerful. —
sakmongkol.blogspot.com

*
Sakmongkol AK47 is the nom de plume of Datuk Mohd Ariff Sabri Abdul Aziz. He was Pulau Manis assemblyman (2004-2008).

                This entry was posted on Monday, 21 May 2012, 10:38 am and is filed under
Najib Razak
,
UMNO
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Why the Hanif panel is getting stick

The Malaysian Insider
 | May 21, 2012

MAY 21 — It would appear strange that the panel investigating the Bersih 3.0 violence is getting criticised before they even start their work. Especially because it is helmed by Tan Sri Hanif Omar, the respected and longest-serving police chief in Malaysia.

Yet, it is because of him that the panel is getting stick.

Hanif did not do himself any favours by talking about Marxist elements in Bersih. This is akin to a judge commenting on a case before it is even heard. And no matter how much that judge can argue about his impartiality, his comments have already influenced people about his handling of the case. Just like what Hanif did.

The former IGP had reportedly made several anti-Bersih comments before the panel was set up, such as the coalition intended to “topple the government” and that it had been “infiltrated by communist sympathisers”.

His words have disqualified him from such a panel, let alone lead the panel. The government should have taken that into consideration when naming him to the panel and even making him the chairman.

Because his words have made a mockery of claims by Home Minister Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Hussein that the panel is independent. How can that be so if the chairman thinks poorly of Bersih?

Hishammuddin had said the personalities of the members in the independent panel to investigate violence during Bersih 3.0 do not matter as the mission is to find the truth of the incidents that occurred during the rally, but Hanif’s earlier remarks could colour the outcome of the panel’s investigations.

“The point is the panel is not about individuals, it is about finding truth and justice — not only for the police but also for the public, the media and whoever feels they need an avenue for them to relate to what actually happened,” said Hishammuddin.

If he was intent on getting the truth, why not ask the Human Rights Commission (Suhakam) to conduct the inquiry? They have the legal standing to compel evidence, unlike the panel, which the Bar Council pointed out would invalidate the legitimacy of any of its findings but Hishammuddin had dismissed.

So, who would respect such a panel, no matter all the good work that they intend to do? Would anyone even bother turning up to testify in front of a panel led by a man who has made up his mind about them?

Putrajaya should take heed of the objections. No one condones violence in Malaysia and any investigation into the April 28 rally must be done by those who have an open mind about the incidents that day. Perhaps it’s best that Suhakam conducts the inquiry and the guilty be identified and brought to court.

Because the Hanif panel has lost its credibility with Hanif as its chairman. And if they continue, the government itself will lose credibility for not ensuring an independent panel investigates the Bersih 3.0 violence. Why score an own goal so easily? Why shoot your own foot, Putrajaya?

                This entry was posted on Monday, 21 May 2012, 11:16 am and is filed under
Bersih
,
Hishammuddin
,
Human Rights
,
Police
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Act of utter bad faith to charge Anwar, Azmin and Badrul for breach of Dataran Merdeka barricades

It is an act of utter bad faith for the Najib administration to charge the Leader of the Opposition, Datuk Seri  Anwar Ibrahim and PKR leaders Azmin Ali and Badrul Hashim for breach of the Dataran Merdeka barricades during the Bersih 3.0 rally on April 28 when this should be one of the major terms of reference of a full and impartial inquiry into the Bersih 3.0 violence promised by the Prime Minister.

Did Anwar and Azmin give the signal for the crowd to breach the barricades, as the Home Minister Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Hussein maintained in his interview with Sunday Star
“The search for the real story”
 two days ago?

But the views of Hishammuddin (who has often confused his role between Home Minister responsible for security regardless of political party or persons and that of UMNO Vice President whose primary task is to demonise the Opposition however baseless and unprincipled) cannot be the basis or reason  for the prosecution of Anwar, Azmin and Badrul, especially as Hishammuddin has given the country the assurance that  an impartial and comprehensive inquiry into the Bersih 3.0 violence would be established to find out the truth of what happened on April 28.

The sudden and abrupt prosecution of Anwar, Azmin and Badrul in connection with the breach of the Dataran Merdeka barricades smack of mala fide on the part of the Najib premiership because it is clearly  designed to pre-empt and avoid  any independent, impartial and comprehensive inquiry into this important issue.  This is all the more deplorable when  the trio had strenuously denied giving the signal to breach the barricades, as borne out by video testimony.

The terms of reference of the Hanif Omar “independent advisory probe” have not been finalized, but clearly with the prosecution of Anwar, Azmin and Badrul, this important issue would be excluded on the ground that it would be sub judice as there is already a pending case specifically on the matter in the courts.

This is apart from the important consideration of the total unsuitability of having Tun Hanif Omar to head the “independent advisory panel” as it is like appointing Tun Dr. Mahathir to head a commission of inquiry into RM100 billion losses suffered by the country  from the various financial scandals during his 22-year premiership.

With the prosecution of Anwar, Azmin and Badrul, even the Suhakam probe into Bersih 3.0 violence could be prevented from inquiring and establishing whether anyone of them had given the signal for the breach of the Dataran Merdeka barricades.

This is because Section 12 (Part III) of the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia Act 1999 on “Powers of Inquiry of the Commission” states:

“12. Commission may inquire on own motion or on complaint

(1) The Commission may, on its own motion or on a complaint made to it by an aggrieved person or group of persons or a person acting on behalf of an aggrieved person or a group of persons, inquire into an allegation of the infringement of the human rights of such person or group of person.

(2) The Commission shall not inquire into any complaint relating to any allegation of the infringement of human rights which—

(a) is the subject matter of any proceedings pending in any court, including any appeals; or

(b) has been finally determined by any court.

(3) If the Commission inquires into an allegation under subsection 12(1) and

during the pendency of such inquiry the allegation becomes the subject matter of any proceedings in any court, the Commission shall immediately cease to do the inquiry.”

The Human Rights Commission (Suhakam) must be commended for its decision yesterday to conduct a public inquiry into the Bersih 3.0 rally, saying it could “no longer wait” for Putrajaya’s independent panel to release its terms of reference.

Was the sudden and abrupt decision by the Attorney-General to charge Anwar, Azmin and Badrul in connection with the breach of the Dataran Merdeka barricades caused by information received by the government that Suhakam was going to make such an announcement and a last-minute decision to oust and pre-empt any Suhakam inquiry from conducting an independent and impartial investigation into the  “breach” on the Dataran Merdeka barricades?

The Prime Minister, the Home Minister and the Attorney-General should not tie the hands of the Suhakam inquiry from carrying out an independent, impartial and comprehensive inquiry into the Bersih 3.0 violence, including whether Anwar and Azmin had given the signal for the breach of the barricades, as well as the following eight issues:

1.	Was there a coup d’etat attempt in Bersih 3.0 to topple the government?

2.	Why was there a police rampage of excessive, disproportionate and indiscriminate use of force, whether tear-gas, chemically-laced water cannon or physical violence and brutality against peaceful protestors after 3 pm and lasting some five hours that day?

3.	For those who broke through the “barricade”, why the police did not just take action against them instead of punishing the vast peaceful majority who had gathered in peace and wanted to disperse in peace?

4.	Why were some police personnel without name tags and numbers?

5.	Why were media and press representatives targeted and attacked by the police, with cameras smashed, memory cards removed?

6.	Why were some of the LRT stations ordered to close after the tear gas/water cannot rampage started? Was it the intention of the police to disperse the people or to “trap” them to “teach them a lesson”?

7.	Was it it true that the airwaves were purposely jammed so that communication was hindered causing further confusion in the midst of a stressful situation?

8.	Who in the police force or the Home Ministry who were responsible in giving the greenlight for these human rights violations and disregard of principles for the use of force and firearms by police personnel?

To establish the bona fides of the government in wanting to establish the truth of what happened on April 28, the Attorney-General should withdraw and put on hold all prosecutions in connection with Bersih 3.0 rally until the outcome of an independent, impartial and comprehensive inquiry.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 22 May 2012, 7:20 am and is filed under
Anwar Ibrahim
,
Bersih
,
Elections
,
Police
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


BN refusing to accept calls by Opposition and Bersih for reforming the Electoral Rolls

By Dr Chen Man Hin, DAP life advisor

22nd May 2012

Yesterday, Anwar, Azmin and Badrul were served with charges by police claiming that they incited the crowd to crash the Dataran barricade.

Unable to counter the rising tide of dissatisfaction of the people, and scared by the gigantic crowds at Bersih 3 demonstration, they are resorting to police harassment and fabricating baseless charges, like the ones against Anwar, Azmin and Badrul.

Najib and UMNO are refusing to listen to the demands of Bersih 3 and the Opposition.

They refuse to admit that the Malaysian Spring has erupted as shown by the gigantic gathering of some 300,000 demonstrators in the streets around Dataran Merdeka. The demonstrators were represented by all the races of this country, by young and old and by friendly smiling youths and the common people who are honest, simple Malaysians who want to show that they love their country, and they want clean and free elections at the coming elections.

PM Najib is best advised to listen to the voices of the Malaysian Spring. Arrests and fabricating false charges will not quell the unrest and dissatisfaction in the country.

PM Najib should sit down with Ambiga and the Bersih committee and listen to their demands and advice.

PR leaders have called for a Commission of Enquiry to study and analyse the Bersih demonstration gather photo graphic evidence of police brutality and to propose reforms to the Election Commission in order to have clean, fair and free elections.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 22 May 2012, 1:46 pm and is filed under
Bersih
,
Najib Razak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Dr Mahathir and the selling of oxymoronicracy

— Sakmongkol AK47

The Malaysian Insider

May 22, 2012

MAY 22 — Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad has reiterated his advice for Umno leaders to discard self-interest and acts of sabotage to ensure a Barisan Nasional (BN) victory in the next general election.

There are two things that stuck out as very sore thumbs in the above statement. Both are never the hallmarks of Umno. Indeed if they are practised, Umno ceases to be Umno. They are the elimination of self-interest and absence of acts of sabotage. Asking Umno people not to sabotage and to disown personal interest is like asking a camel to go through the eye of a needle.

Dr Mahathir does not only walk on water, he is also the chief spokesman for oxymoronicracy.

Since the creation of Umno Baru in 1988, every Umno leader who has assumed the mantle of leadership has been motivated by self-interests. What’s more, they are motivated by the desire to perpetuate the self-interests, where self-preservation is top of the list. It will be interesting to investigate these fellers’ bank account when they are no longer in power.

Sabotaging is second nature to Umno people, by incumbents who are no longer chosen to stand or by aspiring candidates scheming and plotting to overthrow incumbents. What is absent from Umno? A sense of purpose and a cause to fight for. So if we want an example of oxymoronicracy, Dr Mahathir is its foremost spokesman.

Let’s dissect the substance behind the statement by Dr Mahathir in Jitra the other day. What do we make of this statement?

This is a clear sign that all is not well in Umno. He has to reiterate. He has to remind. Someone asked me the same question I posed some time ago: if Umno is in dire straits, doesn’t that mean easy defeat of them? So why bother writing about Umno? Just ignore them. Let them destroy themselves by their won devices.

No can do. We write about Umno to speed up its demise. To hasten its exit from the seat of power so that the real interests of the people are taken care of. We bash Umno because it has something that we want. Power to do good as opposed power having done evil. We are not power crazy, but we want to take away power from crazy people. All Umno leaders and ministers are replaceable. Who can do worse than them? If Najib can become PM, this means anyone can too.

Now, Mahathir the man who I described as one who can walk on water is giving out unsolicited advice. I am not sure if anyone cares to listen to him nowadays. He has contradicted himself so many times. During an interview with BBC, the interviewer read from a speech Dr Mahathir once spoke from, quoting passages from that speech. Dr Mahathir can cavalierly deny he said that. He said that with a straight face. Dr Mahathir is utterly honest even when he is lying. Now that is an oxymoron.

The polygraph machine doesn’t work on Dr Mahathir. Wasn’t he the one who was the chief saboteur to Umno, doing whatever he could to unseat Pak Lah? He even left Umno as it was preparing for elections.

Other than Dr Siti Hasmah, his constant companion is Ibrahim Ali. But then Ibrahim Ali’s most noticeable personal trait is his sycophancy. Ibrahim is a perennial rival to PAS’s Mat Sabu. The latter says while it’s true he isn’t good looking as Shahrukh Khan, he is a little handsomer than Ibrahim Ali. But Mat Sabu doesn’t know Ibrahim’s portrait is a best seller with padi farmers. His portrait, when placed at strategic points in padi fields, scares the living daylights out of pesky birds, rodents and other pests.

Just a little diversion folks. Let’s get back to the main issue.

Dr Mahathir is back to the scare tactics for which he is an accomplished master. The intent of his exhortations and pleadings are clear — Malaysia is finished without Umno and Malays are finished without Umno. Nothing can be farther from the truth.

When the Congress Party of India was defeated, that didn’t stop India from growing further, when the LDP (Japan’s Umno) lost the Japanese rushed forward without missing a heartbeat. When Indonesia’s Umno (Golkar) lost, Indonesia appeared to be placed on a better footing. Umno and Malaysia are no exception. Malaysia does not depend on Umno to survive and Malays can dispense with Umno.

We can’t depend on a party whose very future in turn depends on another person. We can’t depend on a party whose survival depends on the continued peddling of pornographic material in the media. We can’t stake our future on a party led by a Larry Flynt. (He is the owner of Hustler magazine). A most memorable quote from Larry Flynt: wherever there is a scandal, we try to get involved. That’s Umno for you.

Now you have people like Ustazah Umi Hafilda, Ezam Mat Nor, Hasan Aqidah Ali and Zul Nordin fighting for Umno’s cause. A dirty job by dirty people.

He just doesn’t get it; people don’t want the continuation of BN administration in the country. People see BN as the perpetrator of empty promises, people see BN as the abuser of power. BN especially Umno is the embodiment of corruption and deceit. Umno is no longer the preferred choice as the political platform to advance the cause of the greater good.

And his scariest statement of all, defeat of Umno would be akin to the Malays losing power in their own country. How can Malays lose power? If Umno loses, the people replacing them will be other Malays. If Najib loses in Pekan, the person who defeats him is Malay. So how can a Malay lose power when it’s another Malay replacing the Umno reject?

Let’s take on Dr Mahathir in what he says? What are the elements that make up the constitution of the Malay? His religion? No one disturbs his religion. It’s enshrined in the Malaysian Constitution. It’s therefore protected by the laws of the land which no one challenges. The DAP accepts that. Islam is the official religion. The position of Islam doesn’t therefore depend on the existence of Umno. It’s protected not by Umno but by the Constitution of Malaysia.

Is there anyone threatening the use of Malay language? It’s accepted as the official language. We know language is an integral part of the Malay people. No one in their right frame of mind is against the use of the Malay language.

The main ingredients that constitute the Malay — his language, his religion and his cultural make-up including the institution of the Malay Rulers — are protected by the laws of the land. They are not protected by Umno. Whoever comes after Umno are not going to disturb the provisions of the laws of the land.

Just remember this — in 2004 when Malaysians gave Abdullah Ahmad Badawi Umno’s greatest victory, the people were actually rejoicing at the exit of Mahathir. It’s downhill for Umno ever since. That victory has proven to be the pride before the inevitable fall. — sakmongkol.blogspot.com

* Sakmongkol AK47 is the nom de plume of Datuk Mohd Ariff Sabri Abdul Aziz. He was Pulau Manis assemblyman (2004-2008).

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 22 May 2012, 11:06 am and is filed under
Mahathir
,
UMNO
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Fallacies spun by critics of the Bar

— LoyarBurokkers (loyarburok.com)

The Malaysian Insider

May 22, 2012

MAY 22 — The Bar Council and the Malaysian Bar (“the Bar”) have been criticised recently as being pro-opposition. This is because of the Bar’s press statements and its extraordinary general meeting resolution regarding the police brutality shown at the Bersih 3.0 sit-down rally. The common theme adopted by critics of the Bar is that the Bar was not fair, or even-handed, as the Bar were more critical of the police than it was of the other parties involved.

Some of the more popular criticisms were summarised in Roger Tan’s article “Unswayed by fear or favour” which was also published in the Sunday Star on May 20, 2012. In summary, he says the following:

1. The Bar in condemning the police brutality must be equally aggressive in its condemnation against the protestors who “behaved like rioters and anarchists”.

2. The Bar had prejudged the issues by passing the resolution because by doing so “the Bar had already come to a conclusion that all those acts listed therein had been committed by the police”.

3. The Bar should have demanded an apology from Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim because “it was his men who were reportedly the ones who removed the barrier” which was “the trigger point”.

This statement is written immediately in response to Roger Tan’s article, but also addresses others who have been critical of the Bar on this issue. We intend to address the second criticism first, then the third and first criticisms. Our reason for this will become apparent as our reply develops.

The Bar did not prejudge the issues

In his second criticism, Roger says that the Bar should only pass the resolution condemning police brutality after a finding has been made by an independent body such as Suhakam. However, Suhakam relies on the evidence of witnesses, and often conducts a hearing several months after the event. The Bar based its stance and resolution on the observations of 80 lawyers who formed a team of observers of events during Bersih 3.0. The purpose of assembling and mobilising this monitoring team was precisely so that the Bar would be able to rely on their eyewitness accounts, and not those of friends, media, the police, or post-event photos or videos. The observations of the monitoring team were recorded and compiled within hours on the day itself, and thereafter fine-tuned and completed. We have no reason to doubt the credibility and observations of the team, and neither have we heard of substantiated allegations about them.

Aside from the Bar monitoring team and its report, since that day many other eyewitness accounts have emerged, including photos and videos that speak for themselves. Significantly, on this occasion, even media members were not spared. We even had the embarrassing incident where Al-Jazeera’s reporter Harry Fawcett had to report via Skype from his iPad as his team’s video camera was smashed by police while they were recording police brutality against protestors.

Most importantly, many previous Suhakam inquiries — the November 5, 2001 Kesas Highway Incident, the June 17, 2003 Kundasang Incident, the May 28, 2006 KLCC Incident, the May 27, 2008 Persiaran Bandar Mahkota Cheras 1 Incident, the July 9, 2011 Bersih 2.0 Incident — found that there was excessive use of force by the police, and evidence of police brutality. Numerous complaints by victims led to the said inquiries, the findings of which thereafter vindicated the complaints leading to damning conclusions about police conduct. These many reports do not just show isolated instances of police brutality: Bersih 3.0 was not a one-off. There is a pattern of regular use of excessive force and brutality in violation of human rights by the Royal Malaysian Police Force. Despite these many reports by Suhakam, and despite the findings of the Royal Commission to Enhance the Operation and Management of the Royal Malaysia Police, the police have not made any serious attempts to school themselves in the prevention of human rights violations.

Regrettably, Roger is sceptical of the 80 monitors appointed by the Bar Council because they are not named, as he “would certainly like to know their political inclinations” to satisfy himself that they “were independent-minded in their conclusions”. Firstly, five widely-respected senior members of the Bar, who were a part of a “roving” team of monitors, were named and had their observations separately documented: Christopher Leong (vice-president of the Malaysian Bar), Steven Thiru (treasurer of the Bar Council), Datuk Ramachelvam Manimuthu, Ramdas Tikamdas, and Roger Chan Weng Keng. Apparently it is not enough that lawyers of this calibre verify and endorse the report.

More importantly, what does one’s political inclination have to do with stating a fact about whether Malaysian citizens were assaulted and battered by the police, and whether there was excessive use of force in accordance with international human rights standards?

Whilst Roger Tan has left the Bar Council, it is unfair to assume that the Bar Council would not have trained these monitors properly bearing in mind this is not the first assembly monitoring mission dispatched by the council. His flippant remarks greatly disparage those members of the Bar who volunteered to serve on the monitoring team, implying as it does that they would allow their personal prejudice to influence their professional duties. It is part of our job as lawyers to put aside our personal prejudice in order to advance the cause of justice.

Rather conveniently, whilst casting these aspersions on others, Roger himself does not reveal his strong affiliations to a particular political party. Employing Roger’s logic, one wonders, perhaps, whether commentators in The Star, for example, should also be required to divulge their political affiliations and leanings before their opinion pieces are published. But we will not venture into the realm of the fallacy of argumentum ad hominem to discredit the views of others, as Roger disappointingly has.

Roger’s comments suggest that we should not immediately make conclusions even if we see a group of uniformed policemen beating up an unarmed citizen who lies helpless on the ground because there were extenuating circumstances. And even if numerous members of the Bar, members of the public and journalists documented such incidents of brutality. The fact is, the police are supposed to treat each person they arrest as if they are innocent until proven guilty. The police should only use reasonable force in arresting someone. If they have to resort to force, they should only use force that is proportionate to the threat faced, and only enough to ensure the person’s arrest.

Roger cites the example of the Bar postponing its EGM with regards to the VK Lingam video clip scandal while it waited for the Royal Commission of Inquiry to complete its task. Roger however seems to overlook the fact that the video clip sparked the groundbreaking Walk for Justice in September 2007 which saw about 2,000 lawyers marching to the PM’s office. The other difference with that example is that with Bersih 3.0, the Bar monitoring team saw police brutality with their own eyes, and not through a video clip. It is obvious that this is not a comparable precedent.

What is this obsession with Anwar Ibrahim?

In his third criticism, Roger insists that the Bar should similarly demand an apology from Anwar because he was reported to have instigated the removal of the barrier. But Roger must understand that one must distinguish between credible first-hand reports by Bar monitors, and accusations by obviously partisan members of Barisan Nasional and its media.

This is where Roger shows an obvious inconsistency — whilst saying that the eyewitness accounts of the Bar’s monitoring team are insufficient to be relied upon, he says that the Bar should demand an apology from Anwar for an incident that no one on the Bar’s monitoring team witnessed. Despite the many eyewitness blog entries, photos and videos, there has been no compelling evidence either way to show who removed the barriers, or whether their removal was facilitated by the police, public or opposition members. On what basis is Roger suggesting that the Bar demand an apology from Anwar?

Let us for one moment set aside the question whether the court order prohibiting entry into Dataran Merdeka was unnecessary, wrong in law and unconstitutional. Let us also assume the barriers in question were covered by the court order. Even assuming that the order was validly executed by the police, did it necessitate the extreme use of non-lethal force to arrest and disperse the small group of people who breached the barrier? Bearing in mind that the Bar’s resolution was on police misconduct, and not about who removed the barrier, it is even more disconcerting that Roger implies that the police may excessively and disproportionally tear-gas and beat the innocent just to get at those who did breach the barrier.

The Bar need not have condemned the protestors

Finally, Roger develops the basis of the criticism that the Bar is not “independent” by stating the Bar failed to condemn with equal vigour lay members of the public who he says acted “like rioters and anarchists”. Many labour under the misapprehension that to be “independent” an organisation must always be even handed and restrained in one’s remarks. But that is a fallacy. And it is an even greater fallacy when it concerns injustice.

Police brutality is a violation of a human right. A violation of any human right is manifest injustice. Police brutality per se is an injustice. The presence of police brutality has tainted the Royal Malaysian Police as surely as a drop of blood stains a uniform. An injustice perpetrated by even one from an institution set up to serve the cause of justice deserves the harshest condemnation. There cannot be any restraint in condemning abuse of power. As a police force meant to be independent and professional, the Royal Malaysian Police are kept to higher standards than lay members of the public. So the Bar cannot be swayed by fear or favour; it cannot be hesitant or even handed in condemning an injustice that is police brutality. Here is an Executive institution that is well-funded and well-staffed with wide powers taking action against unarmed people. It is state against the individual person, and the Bar stands — must stand — for the latter.

What Roger and many who adopt this line of criticism fail to explain is how the condemnation of police brutality amounts to an endorsement of the opposition. This criticism reveals more of their own political prejudice than that of the Bar. Their criticism strongly suggests a belief that criticism of the police is the equivalent of criticism against the political party in government. Their criticism also reveals that they are the sort who think that perception is reality.

It is only those who are so immersed and drenched in politics that adopt such a worldview. The Bar’s criticism and the facts it relies on are an inconvenience to their perception. Ultimately these popular criticisms against the Bar are not borne of logic or facts, but a need to feel good.

There is one further reason why we would not have voted for a resolution that condemned those members of the public who turned violent. The fact is that most thinking Malaysians who have access to the alternative media — and therefore do not rely solely on the bare-faced propaganda of our mainstream print and broadcast media — are not convinced that these so-called “rioters” are as blameworthy as the police.

The police put razor wire across our city roads, turning Kuala Lumpur into a war zone before any violence had ensued. The police obtained a totally unnecessary court order prohibiting entry for four days into Dataran Merdeka, without any notice or opportunity to the organisers of Bersih 3.0 to present their case despite ample time for them to do this. Then, when the disturbance started, it was the police who shot tear gas behind and in front of retreating protestors so that they were boxed in rather than allowed to disperse. Who ordered the closure of the nearby LRT stations so as to prevent people from dispersing? Who ordered the destruction of cameras belonging to journalists, and the reported censorship of Al Jazeera and the BBC? What justified the four hours of continued attacks on people who were already dispersing or having dinner? All this done against fellow Malaysians, who until the very end had taken part in an almost perfect rally.

As pointed out by Roger, the Bar’s resolution did expressly state that the Bar is concerned with and does not countenance acts of violence by rally participants, and are concerned by reports that police barriers were breached. In our view, that says enough. We did not hear any suggestions made at the EGM to amend the resolution. All the dissenters at the EGM agreed in principle that they were against police brutality. What more needs to be said really, seeing as the police were already actively identifying and hunting down those whom they say committed offences during the rally? The police had even stated that they would conduct a house-to-house search for these individuals. Compare this with the lack of action in identifying, let alone condemning and punishing, the police officers who committed violations of duty and human rights.

The Bar’s resolution was proper

The Bar was entitled and correct to issue the statements it did, and to pass the resolution it did. The resolution is fair in all the circumstances and was carefully worded throughout. The facts that it had gathered itself through the Bar’s own members were set forth frankly and properly, and the urgent action that was needed due to the unprecedented police brutality seen on that day was set out in an appropriate and immediate manner.

We are proud to have supported the Bar’s resolution and have no qualms about the Bar’s continued independence. We believe the vast majority of the Bar are totally in support of the resolution, and the comments against the resolution are the isolated voices of a few in the wilderness given undue prominence by propaganda organisations posing as the mass media.

It is telling that Roger states that “removing the barrier was the trigger point” and adds that it is “common sense” that “whoever first raises his hand against the other is the most blameworthy”. Words do not suffice to describe the disingenuous nature of the suggestion that the removal of the barrier is even remotely comparable to the brutal actions of the police. In any case, there have been no reports of barriers being “breached” in front of the Bar Council, on Leboh Pasar Besar — yet even then, water cannons and tear gas were fired there. Roger fails to acknowledge the clear reality that police reaction was not localised to Dataran Merdeka or to the participants there, and that other than at the Jalan Raja/Tun Perak junction, it was the police who struck first.

The actions of some members of the police force on that day were incidences of injustice that were so blatant that it should be impossible for anyone who purports to stand up for justice to remain silent. We have already seen concerted efforts — by the ruling coalition, the police, and those who are too politically partisan to distinguish clear acts of injustice from their political posturing — to distract from the injustice highlighted by the Bar’s resolution by attacking the Bar and casting aspersions on those who are doing no more than reporting what they saw with their own eyes.

The Bar must continue to fight for those who cannot speak up for themselves, and whose rights are oppressed by the might of the state. That is our duty, and one that we hope members of the Bar will continue to discharge without fear or favour. – loyarburok.com

* This response is jointly endorsed by Edmund Bon, Fahri Azzat, Janet Chai, K Shanmuga, Mahaletchumy Balakrishnan, Marcus van Geyzel, Seira Sacha Abu Bakar, and Sharmila Sekaran.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 22 May 2012, 11:28 am and is filed under
Bersih
,
Elections
,
Police
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Najib will be biggest loser in prosecution of Anwar, Azmin and Badrul, first case to be charged under Peaceful Assembly Act, as it will totally discredit his various transformation programmes

(Speech at the opening of the new Triang DAP branch building in Triang, Pahang on Tuesday, 22nd May 2012 at 3 pm)

I was in the Kuala Lumpur court complex this morning where the Parliamentary Opposition Leader, Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim and PKR leaders Azmin Ali and Badrul Hisham were charged in connection with the
Bersih 3.0 rally on April 28 which could result in their five-year disqualification from elective office and disenfranchisement in losing the civic right to stand for elective office whether as MP or State Assembly member if fined over RM2,000.

The Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak will be the biggest loser in the prosecution of Anwar, Azmin and Badrul, the first case to be charged under the Peaceful Assembly Act (PAA), as it will totally discredit his various transformation programmes, in particular his Political Transformation Programme.

Pakatan Rakyat MPs have warned in Parliament that Najib’s promises to amend or repeal undemocratic and draconian laws and provisions contain the seeds of greater repression as the new laws and replacements provide for even more repressive measures – as in the case of the prosecution of Anwar, Azmin and Badrul under the PAA.

The prosecution also sends out a very clear message to Malaysians, and in particular to the hundreds of thousands of Malaysians, regardless of race, religion, region, class, gender or age who had gathered peacefully in Kuala Lumpur on April 28, armed at most with salt and water bottles to protect themselves from indiscriminate police shooting of tear gas and chemically-laced water cannon, with the unmistakable message to the Najib administration that they want clean elections for a clean Malaysia.

Najib’s message to them is one of utter contempt for their message to want to have clean elections and a clean Malaysia!

Najib should realise that he will have to pay a very heavy political price in the forthcoming general elections with such arrogance of power and contempt for the legitimate and ordinary aspirations of Malaysians transcending race, religion, region, class, gender or age.

Najib should take note that the former Solicitor-General II who headed the prosecution team against Anwar in the Sodomy II trial, Datuk Mohd Yusuf Zainal Abiden, has joined Anwar’s defence team headed by Karpal Singh.

If the Prime Minister cannot read and understand the implications of Yusuf’s joining the Anwar defence team, then he is not as politically astute as he should be.

The prosecution of Anwar, Azmin and Badrul is in fact the latest in the BN demonisation campaign against Bersih 3.0, polarising the ground instead of starting a process of national healing. I would reiterate my call to Najib to end the demonisation campaign of Bersih 3.0 to reagain public confidence and credibility or be prepared to pay a heavy political price in the forthcoming general elections.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 22 May 2012, 5:19 pm and is filed under
Anwar Ibrahim
,
Bersih
,
Police
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


We will not be cowed, says Bersih

S Pathmawathy | May 21, 2012

Malaysiakini

Bersih, the coalition for clean and fair elections, will continue with its nationwide roadshow despite a recent threat, co-chairperson Ambiga Sreenevasan said today.

“It was targeted at me, but nothing will change. Our campaign is about voter education and it will go on,” she said when contacted today.

Ambiga had been told to stay away from an event in Merlimau, Malacca, last Saturday after a number of local pressure groups lodged police reports objecting to her presence.

A group of angry individuals later pelted two DAP state assemblypersons and supporters with eggs and stones.

“In fact, acts like this are also part and parcel of voter education – it allows voters to make decisions as to whether this is the kind of Malaysia they want to live in. (It) allows them to decide if this is the kind of institution they want to vote for.”

Ambiga, a former Bar Council head, has been repeatedly admonished for having led two mass rallies – on July 9, 2011 and on April 28 this year – calling for a revamp of the election system.

On May 10, a group of petty traders set up a burger stall outside her house, in protest of the Bersih 3.0 rally on April 28 which, they claimed, had caused them financial losses.

Last week, members of the Malaysian Armed Forces Veterans Association bent over and shook their buttocks in the direction of Ambiga’s house, saying she had smeared Malaysia’s good name.

When Ambiga condemned this as an invasion of privacy and called on the police to act, deputy police federal chief Khalid Abu Bakar said it was not an offence and that the police need not interfere.

‘Losses yet to be quantified’

Ambiga also chided some 60 petty traders who plan to set up stalls in front of her house on Thursday and Friday, describing this as “intimidation”.

The Kuala Lumpur Petty Traders Action Council announced yesterday that the traders had suffered severe losses during the rally.

“The most interesting thing is – they (the traders) have yet to state their claims on their losses and their details,” said Ambiga, who had told the earlier group to take their claim to court.

She urged members of the public not to be distracted from Bersih’s goals to achieve clean and fair elections.

“The question remains whether we are going into the 13th general election without meaningful reforms to the system,” she said.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 22 May 2012, 5:38 am and is filed under
Bersih
,
Elections
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Lim Guan Eng was only eight years old in 1969 but he has been accused in the “dirtiest” pre-election campaign in country’s history of being responsible for May 13 riots in Kuala Lumpur as  DAPSY leader at the time

Two days ago, former Prime Minister Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad warned in Kedah that Malays would lose political power in the country if UMNO is defeated in the next general elections.

This is a lie, for if UMNO is defeated in the next general elections, UMNO would be replaced in Putrajaya not by DAP but by the Pakatan Rakyat  coalition comprising PKR, PAS and DAP which is committed to a common policy framework to uphold the cardinal features of the Malaysian Constitution, including defending  the role and responsibility of the institution of Constitutional Monarchy; Islam as the religion of the Federation while other religions can be practiced in peace and harmony in any part of the country; the position of the  Malay language as the National Language while protecting and strengthening the use of mother tongue languages for all races; and  the special position of the Malays and the indigenous peoples including Sabah and Sarawak and the legitimate interests of other races.

Mahathir knows that his warning  that if UMNO is defeated, the Malays would lose political power was totally untrue and baseless – which was why Mahathir had campaigned actively for the defeat of UMNO led by former Prime Minister and UMNO President, Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi in the 2008 general elections.

In fact, if it was true as alleged by some UMNO leaders  that 47 out of 191 UMNO divisions were sabotaged during the last general election,  a lot of thanks must go to Mahathir.

But what  should interest  all  Malaysians  is what made Mahathir to issue such a catastrophic and irresponsible prognosis about the next general election to arouse fear among the Malays?

There can only be one answer – Mahathir’s increasing sense of desperation because of a growing feeling and conviction that the defeat of UMNO and the end of UMNO rule in Putrajaya in the next general election are  eminently on the cards.

It is in fact this realization  that despite all the “freebies”  politics of money involving tens of billions of ringgit of public funds and the media/publicity blitzkrieg campaign polishing the image of the Prime Minister with high-sounding slogans and policy proposals, the possibility that UMNO/Barisan Nasional can lose national power in the next general election is haunting the corridors of Putrajaya and  has caused Najib sleepless nights in his agony over when to dissolve Parliament and  return the mandate to the voters for the 13th general election in the country.

This is also why one of the Eight Demands of Bersih 2.0 for clean, free and fair elections – to “Stop Dirty Politics”  – will never be agreed or met by UMNO/BN.

In fact, we are already shaping up to have the dirtiest general election in the 54 year history of the country.

All sorts of lies and falsehoods are being hurled against Pakatan Rakyat parties and leaders. And this is only the beginning.

For instance, among the terrible and atrocious lies told about the DAP on the Internet and social media when there is no ounce of truth whatsoever include:

•	DAP wants  to create a Christian Malaysia and make Christianity the official religion;

•	Appoint a Christian Prime Minister; and

•	Abolish the Sultanate system and establish a republic.

Through the Internet, UMNO/BN cybertroopers spread the vicious lie that I was responsible for the May 13 riots in 1969 and that I had roamed the streets of Kuala Lumpur after the 1969 general elections results,  hurling anti-Malay abuses resulting in the May 13 riots.

In actual fact, I was never in Kuala Lumpur on May 10, 11, 12 and 13, 1969, something which could be easily verified in the media at the time and by the police records.

I was standing for parliamentary election in Bandar Melaka in 1969 and on the  morning of May 13, 1969, I had taken the morning flight to Kota Kinabalu to help in the election campaign of Sabah Independent candidates as polling for  Sabah/Sarawak in the 1969 general elections was scheduled a week after that in Peninsular Malaysia.

But what is even more monstrous is the accusation by these UMNO/BN cybertroopers  that Lim Guan Eng was also responsible for the May 13 riots of 1969  on the ground that Guan Eng was the DAP Youth leader at the time and was in the forefront of anti-Malay attacks.

This is a triple lie.

Firstly, the DAP was never anti-Malay but was fully committed since our formation in 1966  to be a Malaysian party representing the legitimate rights and interests of all races in the country.

In fact, in 1969 DAP fielded several Malay candidates for parliamentary and state assembly elections and two Malay State Assemblymen were elected on DAP tickets, one in Perak and the other in Negri Sembilan.

Secondly, there was no DAP Youth in l969 as DAPSY (DAP Socialist Youth) was only formed in 1973, and the late P.Patto was the first DAPSY leader.

Thirdly, Guan Eng was only eight years old in May 1969 – and it illustrates how dirty and unprincipled  politics has degenerated in Malaysia in the run up to the next general elections that such a despicable and contemptible accusation could be leveled against an eight-year-old child!

Is it any wonder why Bersih’s Demands for clean, free and fair elections, in particular in its Bersih 2.0  Eight Demands to  “Stop dirty politics”, “Stop corruption”, “Strengthen public institutions” and “Free and fair access to media” find so little traction with UMNO/BN leaders?

(Speech at the DAP Triang Thousand-People Dinner on the occasion of  the  official opening of Triang DAP Branch Building on Tuesday, 22nd May 2012)

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 23 May 2012, 4:42 pm and is filed under
Bersih
,
DAP
,
Elections
,
Lim Guan Eng
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Malaysia General Election: Will there be a 13 GE?

by Richard Loh

Tuesday, May 22, 2012

I had posted an article in 2010 that He will win solidly if GE 13 is called any month within that year and I still hold my believe till the eve of Bersih 3.0. Even with His statement of ‘crushed bodies & lost lives’ and rumors that His special team reporting to Him that He may lose the 13 GE, I still believe He will win solidly.

But everything seems to fall into place post Bersih 3.0 indicating that He is indeed fearful of losing the 13 GE.

Surveys after surveys giving the same results that His popularity is gaining traction and many voters are returning to His stable. This is true but what we understand is that most surveys were carried out via telephone. I still accept the results and reading from political expert opinion I believe He will win solidly and that is up till the eve of Bersih 3.0

A Fluid Situation

I stop wasting my time on twitter after seeing how those cybertroopers armchair critics can spin, distort and lie to get into His good book and strongly supported by the MSM, even crowning them as ‘sensational twitterer’.

When and where do you go to get the most accurate political survey? Let me tell you where I went. Pasar malam (night markets) and early morning wet markets, these are the people who are seldom interested in politics but still are aware whats happening around them.

Talking to them face to face can somehow tell you what were inside their minds even if they lied. Of course not all those you approached are willing to share their political views but you still get a decent 6 out of 10 people willing.

It is true that He is gaining popularity and the various surveys confirmed that. It is also true that those who voted the opposition in 308 are now considering voting Him. But, there are also those who voted the ruling government in 308 that will not be voting them again.

Generally, most were taken in by His disbursement of CASH but many do not believe or understand His never-ending alphabet soup – GTP, ETP, PTP, NEM, NKEA, NKRA, NEAC, EPP,….Sadly for Him He can’t contest in every seats in the country and majority of the voters are waiting to see who their candidates will be in their respective constituency before deciding which party to vote.

So, by being popular individually with a high of 69% may reap in a few extra votes and this conclude that He is a few points ahead but the overall situation is fluid. I believe that this fluidness is the cause of concern for Him and interpreted by His special team as ‘may lose’.

Creating And Finding Excuses To Avoid GE 13?

The only way to call off GE 13 is when the country is in turmoil!

Is He planning to avoid GE 13 in as early as 2010 when calling for ‘crushed bodies and lost lives’? Initially my thought was that He was just instilling fear but subsequent happenings that followed indicated that not only fear but a message to carry it out when necessary.

Later on, His speech with racial tone at Pekida to rile up more Malay support and His silence over Perkasa and MSM, especially Utusan irresponsible racist and religious reports and statements.

While He kept silence, on the ground, gangsterism & hooliganism provocations were at work with the latest report of riot at Merlimau. All these are to create tension among the rakyat and they are just waiting for the rakyat to get impatient and retaliate back when all hell will break loose. Luckily the rakyat are not responding back physically but waiting patiently to vent their anger at the ballot box, is He willing to let this happen?

One salvo after another to get the rakyat to response to their gangsterism & hooliganism provocations but  to their dismay the rakyat are smart enough.

The best opportunity came when Bersih 3.0 was held. There is no reason to stop Bersih from holding the rally at Dataran Merdeka but they went ahead to get the court order banning anyone from entering. WHY?

The chaos that ensued after 3pm that day is now under investigation. The statement from various authorities were that ‘rioters’ breached the barricade and they are doing a great job to contain the ‘rioters’. But if you were there on that day or reading from other reliable news reports and those who wrote their experiences facing the tear gas and water cannon, journalists attacked and the way they rampaged through the city trying to catch as many as possible, you will realised that the authorities claim were incomplete.

The way they handled the supposedly called rioters who breached the barricade was indeed trying to create more chaos. I could not leave after the rally when the LRT stations were closed, no buses and taxis. I call it an ‘entrapment’. You can read my Bersih 3.0 story
here
 .

The best opportunity they had was Bersih 3.0 but failed again because the rakyat do not have any intention at all to start a riot nor overthrowing the government.

Seeing that failure they changed their script with ex IGPs claiming of communist presence and mimicking His statement that Bersih 3.0 rally was trying to overthrow the government. The bombarding and demonisation campaign against Bersih 3.0 continue till today while His people are hard at work trying to link all sorts of bad things that Bersih 3.0 were, in order to find it guilty and getting the rakyat to hate and reject it.

Next, He tried using His party anniversary to show He can gather a bigger crowd but failed yet again. Now He has no choice but to target individuals. Ambiga is now being harassed, opposition leader Anwar charged together with Azmin and Badrul hoping that their supporters will rise in anger. We can expect more gangsterism & hooliganism provocations and He will continue to remain silent.

Lastly, do you see what He meant when He compared the coca cola secret recipe in not revealing the polling date? Coca cola recipe has been kept secret for over a century and will never be revealed. Is He trying to hint that GE 13 will never happened?

Whatever He may try to do, the rakyat must remain calm and not retaliate to whatever provocation physically. Be patient, just leave the scene of any provocation, nobody is calling you a coward. We only have less than a year when the 5 years term is up and if we remain tolerant and ride through their gangsterism & hooliganism provocations He will have no choice but to dissolve parliament and call for GE 13.

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 23 May 2012, 9:44 am and is filed under
Bersih
,
Elections
,
Najib Razak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Truth Will Out in Suhakam Inquiry

by Kee Thuan Chye

Malaysian Digest

Tuesday, 22 May 2012

We have witnessed much madness and asininity displayed in the aftermath of the Bersih 3.0 rally of April 28, especially exemplified in the laughable antics of anti-Bersih groups, such as hawkers’ group Ikhlas, the army veterans who shook their buttocks in front of Bersih chairperson Ambiga Sreenevasen’s home, and the Kuala Lumpur Petty Traders Action Council.

Some of it can also be seen in the comments on the rally made by government leaders, including Information, Communications and Culture Minister Rais Yatim’s incredulous declaration that only 22,270 people took part in it. But most risible of all is the Government’s appointment of ex-Inspector General of Police Hanif Omar as chairperson of the so-called independent panel to investigate the violence that occurred on April 28.

So it is with considerable relief that we now welcome the decision of the Malaysian Human Rights Commission (Suhakam) to conduct its own public inquiry into the violence when earlier it had said it would wait for the Government’s panel. Suhakam decided to go ahead because the panel has yet to come out with its terms of reference, and also because it has received numerous complaints from the public about the police brutality committed during the rally.

This is a show of good sense amidst the show of puerile emotionalism by the anti-Bersih groups and anti-Bersih ministers. It restores faith in the belief that rationality still rules okay in our current tragicomic state.

Critics may aver that a Suhakam inquiry will not amount to much and that it will not result in action. Suhakam’s findings on Bersih 2.0, in which it concluded that the police used excessive force during that rally of July 9, 2011, has apparently not been taken much notice of by the authorities.

After releasing the findings three weeks ago, all Suhakam could say was: “It is now up to the police to act according to the recommendations as Suhakam does not have enforcement power.” It has, however, not elicited a positive response from the police or the Home Ministry. They know Suhakam is a toothless tiger.

Even so, an inquiry into Bersih 3.0 conducted by Suhakam would still not be a futile exercise. First, it will give those who allegedly received brutal treatment by the police the opportunity to be heard. This is important because it gives them hope. It also provides a healing balm.

Second, it will galvanize the voiceless and instill in the Malaysian psyche that in a democracy, the downtrodden can speak up.

Third, as evidence is presented during the inquiry, it will be made known to the public how the police conducted themselves during the rally. The truth, in as far as it can be ascertained, will be made known. People who have been skeptical of Bersih and people who don’t read online news media will get a side of the story different from that spun by the mainstream media. If they are ignorant of what the police did during the rally, the inquiry will help enlighten them.

Above all, in choosing to go ahead with its own inquiry, Suhakam is making a significant symbolic gesture. It is standing up to the Government and implying that the Government’s own panel does not inspire public confidence.

Indeed, one wonders if the Government itself, after having been lambasted for its appointment of Hanif and one or two other members, still has confidence in its own panel. If it did, why is it taking so long to formulate the terms of reference? It has been nearly two weeks since the panel was announced.

Has the Government realized that it did indeed make a mistake in appointing Hanif as the chairperson?

First, how could an ex-policeman be head of a panel that is investigating, presumably among other things, the possibility of police brutality? How neutral could he be?

Second, how could Hanif be the head when prior to his appointment, he had made the biased remarks that there were Communist sympathizers among the Bersih 3.0 rally participants, and that the movement was aimed at toppling the Government?

That he was wrong on the second point and obviously snatching at straws in invoking the long-dead Communist bogey shows thinking reflective of an insensible Malaysian. Can we, therefore, trust an investigative panel headed by such a person?

In any case, inquiry or no, informed members of the public have already delivered their verdict on what happened on April 28.

Many are the photographs and videos circulating in cyberspace of what the police did – beyond the parameters of responsible policing.

Their biggest mistake was attacking media personnel even after the latter had identified who they were.

What they did to reporter Mohd Radzi Abdul Razak of theSun was a severe indictment of their conduct. He was merely sitting down and having a cigarette when a group of seven to eight policemen charged him. He told them he was a reporter and showed them his media accreditation card. But they punched and kicked him, and he landed in hospital with injuries to his ribs, jaw and neck.

Photographer Muhammad Arif Kartono of The Malay Mail also showed his media accreditation card but it didn’t stop the cops from kicking him in the face and on the legs, and stomping him on his back.

Another mistake the police made was confiscating the memory cards of people taking photographs. It reinforced the idea that we are living in a police state.

This was exacerbated by Home Minister Hishammuddin Hussein’s explanation that confiscating memory cards was part of the police’s standard operating procedures. It had many people laughing till they had tears in their eyes. More comedy followed when the IGP, Ismail Omar, corrected Hishammuddin the next day.

Fortunately, many people escaped with their memory cards intact. Some of their photos show policemen kicking people who were already down on the ground and helpless. In many instances, they attacked in a gang – with several cops pouncing on a lone target.

The videos are even more convincing because they record live action. Apart from those showing policemen behaving like mobsters, there is one of a policeman who pointed a gun at a crowd. Was brandishing a dangerous weapon necessary? Should he not be hauled up?

Running around in our minds are these questions: Why did the police chase after the rally participants when their job should be to merely disperse them? Why did they allegedly enter restaurants and mosques to drag people out? Why did they allegedly beat up people who were not even taking part in the rally?

And why did many of them not wear their badge or identification numbers?

Let’s hope the Suhakam inquiry will help answer these questions.

Meanwhile, the police should prove that they are capable of doing the right thing by arresting anyone who sets up stall outside Ambiga’s house if they don’t have a trading permit from Dewan Bandaraya Kuala Lumpur. As the mayor of KL, Ahmad Fuad Ismail, has said, it would contravene the Street, Drainage and Building Act 1974. That is surely very clear.

So let’s see what the police do about it.

* Kee Thuan Chye is the author of No More Bullshit, Please, We’re All Malaysians, available in major bookstores.

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 23 May 2012, 9:05 am and is filed under
Bersih
,
Elections
,
Hishammuddin
,
Kee Thuan Chye
,
Police
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


When pseudo-Malays seek control

By
Mariam Mokhtar
 | 4:49PM May 21, 2012

Malaysiakini

Umno believes that it represents all the Malays. It doesn’t. Millions of Malays have rejected Umno and without Malay support, Umno will become extinct. Bersih has awoken the Malays and therefore Bersih is Umno’s biggest threat.

The Bersih 3.0 rally forced the worst out of the Umno Malays last week: there were supposedly Malay traders who offered free burgers despite bitterly complaining about loss of income; ex-soldiers flashing their flabby posteriors, making us glad they had left the service; a senior police officer who mocked the law by condoning protests opposite private homes; a defence minister who believes he is above the law and has probably planned his escape in a submarine which cannot submerge, and a formerly ‘respected’ senator who resigned from his party and now tells us to accept corrupt politicians.

The traders protesting in front of Bersih co-chairperson Ambiga Sreenevasan’s house must be well to do. No food vendor gives away food. Giving away freebies is like cutting off a limb.

Despite the traders’ claims of business losses, some Bersih 3.0 protesters were sceptical: “I was at the rally and ate at a mamak restaurant in Jalan Masjid India.  I was lucky to get a seat and had my usual fare which normally costs RM3.20. That day, the bill was a whopping RM5.80. Traders losing money?”

Real traders would not compound the problem by wasting more resources on a publicity stunt. As every entrepreneur knows, time is money. When Malay traders play politics, one wonders why the NEP target is difficult to achieve.

The racial undertone is another worrying aspect of the attacks on Ambiga. If the co-chairperson of Bersih, the poet laureate A Samad Said, were also to be targeted, many placid Malays would be enraged. Malays fighting each other would destroy former prime minister Dr Mahathir Mohamed’s insinuation that Bersih is a battle between Malays and non-Malays.

In fact, the same selective harassment was evident at last month’s anti-Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) rally at the Universiti Putra Malaysia campus in Serdang. There were chants of “Reject Ambiga, Reject LGBT” in a mass bout of hysteria led by Gabungan NGO Malaysia’s Radzi Daud. He labelled the LGBT as those “who are insane” and said “Anyone who is LGBT is one who has had their souls taken by Satan”.

People like Radzi fail to question the high levels of adultery, promiscuity and incest amongst Malays, or the dumping of newly-born infants in front of suraus.

At the same anti-LGBT rally, Alam Warisan president Azam Moktar blamed the “immigrant ethnicities” for trying to change Malaysian social values and for “trying to set fire in Malaysia”.

The apoplectic Azam, clad in traditional Malay garb, declared: “Today I withhold this keris. But if one day I can’t tolerate anymore, I will use the keris against the enemy of this land!”

The irony is that many immigrants from India and Indonesia who were, or are, in the cabinet claim to speak for the Malays.

Moral high ground

In Malaysia, it is not what you know but who you know that is more important. The anti-LGBT people wouldn’t dare attack Marina Mahathir, who condemned Ambiga’s treatment prior to the Seksualiti Merdeka Festival last November. Marina was livid with TV3 for reporting the event as a “free sex festival”.

“……..two years ago, I officiated Seksualiti Merdeka without any incident. It is an event to explain and educate them of their rights within the laws, and not outside.……there are no words to describe, at certain parties calling this a free sex festival,” she had said.

“I have been defending the LGBT community’s rights for over 20 years now. In fact, I defend the rights of all who have been discriminated against…..”

Next week, 60 petty traders have threatened to disrupt the peace in front of Ambiga’s house. We should uncover who controls the slush fund assisting these traders. Government agencies including the police and health inspectors appear to condone their acts. There is also an apparent relaxation of the normally cumbersome bureaucratic red-tape.

You can arrive at your own conclusions just by plain observation. Most of the petty traders who have appeared in front of Ambiga’s house appear to be Muslim Indians. People who frequent street markets in Kuala Lumpur are aware that many stalls are manned by foreigners, mainly Indonesians. These pseudo-Malays have claimed the moral high ground, whilst Umno Malays have besmirched the character of the ordinary Malay.

Two days after the burger protest, some people purporting to be ex-soldiers disgraced their former units and indirectly, the Agong, to whom our armed forces swear allegiance.

An army veteran alleged: “These ex-soldiers cannot be true soldiers. Servicemen are proud of their traditions and their brigade. These men have no shame. I am told they were Rela members who were paid to do the ‘dance’. The going fee was RM50. The paymaster had expected a much larger crowd. Unfortunately, only a handful turned up.”

His criticism was endorsed by a former soldier who had written to the newspapers: “What they did was not just crude, it was rude……..like all officers of the Malaysian Armed Forces from the Army, Navy and the Air Force, we were trained as officers as well as gentlemen and we were, and still are, expected to conduct ourselves in an exemplary manner at all times, even after we have retired or left the service.”

The recent unpleasant scenes have been stage-managed by Umno. For Umno Malays, Islam is not their religion, Umno is their new religion. Sadly, ordinary Malays are too timid to stand up to Umno and are fearful of questioning our Umno-appointed religious scholars. How ironic that a Canadian Muslim woman had to address Malay shortcomings because we were too afraid to confront our fears.

Why should the pseudo-Malays hide behind the cloak of the ordinary Malay and press their divisive agenda to the forefront? Until Malays start using their intellect and speak out on things that matter, Malaysia will always be a place where there are Malay, Chinese, Indian and ‘bangsa lain-lain’ issues but never, Malaysian issues.

____

MARIAM MOKHTAR is a non-conformist traditionalist from Perak, a bucket chemist and an armchair eco-warrior. In ‘real-speak’, this translates into that she comes from Ipoh, values change but respects culture, is a petroleum chemist and also an environmental pollution-control scientist.

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 23 May 2012, 2:03 pm and is filed under
UMNO
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


When Umno types prevaricate

— Othman Wahab

The Malaysian Insider

May 23, 2012

MAY 23 — This is what Umno politicians do when they get caught out: they huff and puff, spin some yarn and blow smoke all over the place.

Several months ago when websites reported that the government had instructed the Umno lawyer Hafarizam Harun (the same chap with the RM2.2 billion highway project with former Umno lawyer Tun Zaki Azmi) to seek an out-of-court settlement on Tajudin Ramli’s massive RM589 million debt to Danaharta, Nazri Aziz denied any such endeavour.

The de facto Law Minister dismissed all such reports. And then it happened, there was a secretive out-of-court settlement where the man associated with the fall of the national icon got a sweet deal.

Till today, no one knows whether he paid anything or if he received a free pass but the fact that the government has not been willing to disclose the terms of the settlement suggests he got a great deal.

After all, Tajuddin had enough ammunition to sink Dr Mahathir Mohamad and Umno.

But last night, Khairy Jamaluddin said that Tajuddin had paid something and even suggested that the former Malaysia Airlines boss gave Danaharta a suitable compensation.

Really? Is that why the terms of the settlement are still secret? Is that why the case was taken away from private sector lawyers and tasked to the Umno lawyer to handle?

The problem with the likes of Nazri, Khairy and for that matter Umno politicians in general is that they are so used to stupidity and mediocrity that they believe that all Malaysians are like them.

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 23 May 2012, 7:41 pm and is filed under
Good Governance
,
Mahathir
,
UMNO
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


‘BN’s clear and present danger’

Syed Jaymal Zahiid | May 23, 2012

Free Malaysia Today

Barisan Nasional leaders say they may lose out in the election if internal sabotage is not contained.

KUALA LUMPUR: A divided Barisan Nasional may spell the end of Prime Minister’s Najib Tun Razak reign in Putrajaya.

And this warning to the Barisan Nasional comes from non-other than Umno-owned Utusan Malaysia.

The paper quoting party leaders says sabotage is a very clear and present danger and could lead to the BN losing more seats than in 2008.

At the Umno’s 66th anniversary two weeks ago, Najib put on a brave face and touched on the gathering as a show of support that the party is not divided and that they are ready to face the elections.

Some 60,000 members had congregated at the Bukit Jalil National Stadium here in the gathering which party sources said was meant as a “loyalty test” apart from propping up the party’s machinery and mobilisation strength.

Najib joked that the display of unity gave him enough confidence to hold elections sooner than expected.

Threat real

But Abdul Aziz Rahman, the president of the former BN Lawmakers Council, said the threat of internal sabotages is real and the ruling coalition could see itself battered if the problem is not contained.

“This election is momentous time for BN. If party members are not united then we will see the black episode (of 2008) repeating itself.

“BN’s victory will depend on the unity of all members and component party members,” he was quoted by Utusan Malaysia today.

Internal power tussle was one of the major factors that led to the ruling coalition’s loss of its customary two-thirds Parliamentary majority in the 12th general election. It also lost five states to the opposition.

Then premier Abdullah Ahmad Badawi’s effort to consolidate his position by replacing majority of the candidates with his men, sidelining powerful “warlords” along the way, saw Umno members protesting by voting for the opposition.

Abdul Aziz said BN could see a similar recurrence where candidates left out by Najib may sabotage the ruling coalition’s campaign .

Umno vice-president Ahmad Zahid Hamidi had warned yesterday that the prospect of a repeat is there.

BN may not only see a repeat but could also see more states falling into opposition hands, Zahid added. The Defence Minister also did not discount the possibility of losing federal power.

Meanwhile Umno veteran Aziz Shamsuddin told Utusan Malaysia that the party leadership must be quick to act and contain the division.

A repeat of 2008 will see Najib’s future in Umno hanging by a thread, observers predict.

He is now facing stiff opposition to his economic liberalisation plans and political reforms from within his own party.

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 24 May 2012, 12:16 am and is filed under
Abdullah Ahmad Badawi
,
Elections
,
Mahathir
,
Najib Razak
,
UMNO
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Don’t trust a party which doesn’t trust us

By
Sakmongkol AK47
 | May 24, 2012

The Malaysian Insider

MAY 24 — Why can’t Umno carry the Malays to greater progress? Because it’s a low trust organisation. It doesn’t trust the majority of Malays and it doesn’t trust the rakyat in general. It has ceased to become a political party. It has morphed into an organisation of black hands composed of three million members. It puts its trust on the three million members NOT on the rakyat. This is the principal reason why we must reject Umno.

It fears the rakyat and their judgment. The leader of Umno who calls others accursed bastards is willing to unleash the instruments of suppression on the rakyat, firing water cannons and spraying tear gas that immobilise people instantly. Where did the Umno government buy the new variety of tear gas? From Israel?

Umno is not trusted nor does it trust those outside itself. This is a hallmark of a backward organisation composed, like Dr Mahathir says, of a half-past six leadership belonging to an organisation which is rotten to the core, corrupt from top to bottom and made up of dullards. Mahathir said all that.

We have a simple proposition then. Can we bank our future on such an organisation? Why should we trust Umno with our future if it doesn’t trust us? We must reject Umno because we want to bequeath a better country to our future generation. We owe it to the next generation who are now struggling to cope up with the increasing cost of living, who can’t find jobs because the country is mismanaged economically, or managed by sub-standard leaders. We owe it to those who can’t afford a decent house because a house near where they work now costs RM700,000 per unit.

This coming election is for us to lose, NOT for Umno to win. We lose if we let our guard down and be complacent. We must continue to raise the people’s consciousness and reject the deceit and lies perpetrated by Umno. We must reject the Umno-controlled media instruments such as Utusex Malaysia, Berita Hairan and TV¾.

The only other organisation that operates like Umno by trusting people within an organisation and who has recently adopted the act of oath taking or bai’ah is the Cosa Nostra aka the Mafia.

Because of this, Umno can never stimulate or induce voluntary co-operation and sacrifice from others. Umno can only get co-operation and sacrifice by paying others. This ability of creating trust between social groupings which leads to co-operation is known among social scientists as social capital. The concept of social capital was developed famously by Francis Fukuyama.

The basic idea behind the concept of social capital is this. A society with high trust (trusting others beyond just its organisation or its own grouping) is able to develop and prosper better. A society with low trust will always remain low on the scale of progress, being able to prosper on the fringes and like the Mafia outside normal society.

Now, apply that concept to Umno. Umno trusts only its members. That is why it is obsessed about having three million members. If the rakyat doesn’t trust it, it hopes it can do it alone by trusting only its own members. It’s therefore a low trust organisation. Just as a low trust society occupies the lower end of the scale of progress, so does Umno.

Therefore, how can a low trust organisation that nowadays manages to invite only distrust and revulsion carry us forward? —
sakmongkol.blogspot.com

*
Sakmongkol AK47 is the nom de plume of Datuk Mohd Ariff Sabri Abdul Aziz. He was Pulau Manis assemblyman (2004-2008).

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 24 May 2012, 12:23 pm and is filed under
UMNO
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


It’s time to police the police force

Jeswan Kaur | May 24, 2012

Free Malaysia Today

The cry for an Independent Police Complaints and Misconduct Commission is long overdue and yet the Home Ministry feigns ignorance each time police brutality makes the news.

COMMENT

This country desperately needs to get rid of cops who in fact are thugs at work, abusing the rakyat at their whims and fancies. The episode where a Bersih 3.0 participant was whacked for voluntarily confessing that he had participated in the April 28 protest has brought irrevocable shame and damage to the force .

Mohd Safuan Mamat, 24, a Bersih supporter turned up at the Dangi Wangi police station on May 14 to give a statement concerning his involvement in Bersih 3.0. Instead, he ended up fearing for dear life when the cops there turned violent when Mohd Safuan refused to “colloborate” with the cops that he had smashed a police car during the riot.

The manner in which Mohd Safuan was treated by the police is worrying. After giving his statement, he was taken to the lock-up behind the station, handcuffed and detained for the night.

When he refused to be party to a lie, he was allegedly beaten up, first by the cops, and then by the prisoners.

It seems that the Royal Malaysian Police (PDRM) has no intention of serving and protecting the rakyat in the right sense of the word. This is contrary to former prime minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad’s comments that the police would only turn aggressive if provoked.

And what does the Inspector-General of Police Ismail Omar has to say about the “we can whack anyone we want” modus operandi adopted by the police?

On May 14, Ismail said the resolution passed by the Bar Council in an extraordinary general meeting (EGM) on May 11 was prejudiced and had punished the police force.

He said the Bar Council had to be more transparent in making conclusion on the Bersih 3.0 rally held in Kuala Lumpur on April 28.

But then looking at the far from impressive track record of the PDRM and the beating meted out to a Bersih 3.0 participant, what prejudice is Ismail talking about?

The cry for an Independent Police Complaints and Misconduct Commission (IPCMC) is long overdue and yet the Home Ministry feigns ignorance each time police brutality makes the news.

For how long will Home Minister Hishammuddin Hussein delude himself that the country’s police force is one to be reckoned with?

Despite the police having the rakyat’s blood on their hands, the federal government is not perturbed and seems to be “supporting” the PDRM in not “sparing the rod”. Is this the hallmark of a democratic nation, where its people have no recourse to their fundamental rights?

Cannot bully rakyat

It is becoming a fashion with the PDRM to bully those who dare challenge authority in the pursuit of truth.

Take, for instance, the May 10 nuisance created by an NGO called Malaysia Small and Medium Entrepreneurs Alliance (Ikhlas) when it set up a stall outside Bersih co-chairperson S Ambiga’s house to protest the April 28 Bersih rally.

Ikhlas claimed the rally affected their livelihood, making a rather far-fetched allegation that burger stall owners had suffered losses amounting to RM200,000 due to the rally, concentrated in certain parts of the federal capital.

To Deputy Inspector-General of Police Khalid Abu Bakar, that is hardly any reason for Ambiga to get upset. His defence has added to the shame the PDRM has earned for itself.

Khalid had said it was not wrong to sit in front of anyone’s house provided they did not disturb the occupants of the dwelling. He added that there was nothing wrong with protesting outside a person’s house as long as the occupants are not disturbed.

“What offence? If you want to sit in front of her [Ambiga’s] house without disrupting other people, there is no offence.

“As long as they don’t commit any offence such as trespassing on private property, we will not take action,” Khalid had said.

Then came a bunch of 15 ill-mannered and rowdy men, believed to be retired army veterans, who staged vulgar aerobics by showing their bottoms – protesting the April 28 rally – in front of Ambiga’s house.

They also chanted “Hidup Polis dan Hidup BN” and dared her to sue them, or else they would return in bigger numbers.

The group of veterans then resorted to performing a strange form of aerobics by showing their bottoms.

While the police were present near Ambiga’s house, they decided to play by-standers, displaying their illiterateness over laws that being were flouted.

PDRM needs ‘cleansing’

Looks like it is not only the electoral system that needs a shake-up. The PDRM, too, badly requires a “cleansing”, inside out. The high-handedness of the police has to end and should the Home Ministry refute or show no interest in doing so, it would be in the best interest of the rakyat to decide the next best move.

As the situation stands, there is little hope the people can place in the Home Ministry in doing what is right. The May 9 announcement by Hishammuddin that a six-man panel headed by former Inspector-General of Police Hanif Omar will investigate allegations of police violence during the Bersih 3.0 rally is far from assuring.

To electoral reform activist Bersih, the panel is powerless and lacks regulations that will allow it to serve its purpose.

Over and above that, putting Hanif in charge has confirmed suspicions that the panel is a gimmick by the ruling Barisan Nasional government to win the people’s confidence in view of the looming 13th general electiom.

Bersih 2.0 steering committee has a very valid reason to “question” Hanif’s appointment. Hanif had previously issued statements that were biased against Bersih rally protesters.

“He has claimed that communist sympathisers who were active demonstrators in the 1970s were involved in the Bersih 3.0 assembly and utilised tactics learnt from past pro-communist demonstrations.

“He has also agreed with Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak’s allegation that Bersih 3.0 was an attempt to topple the government.

“By so doing he has shown that he is biased and has already pre-judged the outcome of the investigation,” the steering committee had said.

Still, does the Najib-administration care? Obviously not. Having fooled the rakyat for over five decades, the BN thinks it can once again pull a fast one and appear a “hero” in the eyes of the people.

Hopefully, post-2008, the rakyat is more discerning in separating the wheat from the chaff.

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 24 May 2012, 9:05 am and is filed under
Bersih
,
Police
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.