Open Letter to Chua Soi Lek

By
Kee Thuan Chye

Wednesday, 12 January 2011

Malaysiandigest.com

Dear Soi Lek,

You are a highly educated person and one with the ability to think. As such, you are probably aware that the welfare of this nation rests on more than just the MCA winning its share of seats at the next general election and remaining in the coalition that holds the power to decide the fate of Malaysia.

You are probably aware that the way forward for Malaysia is renouncing the way of the Barisan Nasional, led by Umno, falling back on an outdated decades-old formula. And that if you and the MCA continue to collude with the other parties in BN to retain power, you are subscribing to practices that could lead the nation to racial rifts and economic ruin.

Would you not agree with me that at this point in our history, as we stand at this crucial crossroads deciding which is the best path to take, national politics should no longer be race-based?

If you do agree, what then is the rationale for the MCA to continue to exist as an ethnocentric party? What is the rationale for you and your party members to stick with Umno which avowedly fights for the Malays and the MIC which avowedly fights for the Indians?

How long more do you see this ethnocentric equation taking hold of the lives of Malaysians, causing strife from time to time when disputes arise over who should get what and how much? We’ve had 53 years of that; isn’t it enough?

Which is more important for you and your MCA colleagues: To stay on in BN in order to reap the rewards of being in government positions, or to do something that will ensure the honour and integrity of your party and of yourselves? I cannot tell you what that thing is which you could do to gain rectitude. You have to find it yourself.

But as you search for an answer, perhaps you would like to reflect on how strong the MCA’s position really is within the BN coalition for the party to achieve its aims. Are you, for instance, contributing to inter-racial understanding and harmony? How could that be when you have to speak up against any threat to the position of the Chinese? How could that be when Umno must speak up against any perceived threat against the Malays?

It’s a game full of contradictions, isn’t it? You can’t have one and the other, can you? In fact, your attempts over the past several months to speak up for the Chinese – indeed, for the country as a whole – clearly illustrate this.

Last August, after the Malaysian Chinese Economic Congress, when you called on the Government to gradually remove the 30 per cent Bumiputra equity in all sectors of the economy, you were immediately jumped upon by Umno deputy president Muhyiddin Yassin. He even warned you about May 13.

A few days later, in your interview with a Malay-language newspaper, you had to soften what you had said, clearly showing your vulnerability.

Even Umno vice-president Hishammuddin Hussein told you to “stick to the struggles of BN”. What are they? Do you know?

You were even a target of criticism at the Umno general assembly last October. A delegate slammed you for saying that the social contract should not be discussed openly.

Then at the BN convention last month, you called for a ban on the use of the term “Ketuanan Melayu”, and you told Umno it should not approve government policies during its supreme council meetings. But straight away, Hishammuddin said you had upset many BN leaders, including those in the MCA.

This boggles the mind. What you said was absolutely right – how could Umno take it upon itself to decide on government policies when it is only one of the component parties of BN? Does the MCA have no say? So how could MCA leaders be upset by what you said? Have they become Umnofied themselves? Have they become slaves of their masters? Or, as former Perak menteri besar Nizar Jamaluddin said, “running dogs”?

If so, what dignity is left in them? And in you, if you continue to serve the MCA within the BN fold?

Isn’t it obvious, too, that what you say doesn’t count for “doodley-squat”, as the American novelist Kurt Vonnegut would call it?

To be brutally honest, what good is your speaking up when you are still within the same cabal and your partners not only disagree with you, they don’t respect what you say?

As you have probably been informed, people outside don’t give much credence to your speaking up, anyway. They think it’s just a sandiwara act to merely give the impression that you are standing up for what is right. But it’s just an act.

I admit that going by the issues you have been bringing up recently, you are highlighting the fact that things are not being done right, and that your political partners should be held accountable. I might even hazard that you are at least concerned. What I fail to see, though, is your commitment.

For instance, at the MCA general assembly last October, Umno president Najib Razak told your party right within your own premises to be less communal and less demanding. Did you have an answer to that? Did you tell him in return to ensure that Umno would be less communal too? Did you tell him that the MCA was not being more demanding, that it was merely asking for what is guaranteed all Malaysians?

You see, I believe you know what is right for the country, but you are not willing to go all the way to ensuring that what is right prevails. If you were, you would not continue with the current regime. You would press for reform.

Surely, you would not disagree with me if I said the judiciary needs to be independent, that it needs to regain the trust of the people? The same with the police, the mainstream media and the civil service?

Surely, you would not disagree with me if I said our education system needs to be totally revamped to institute quality and regard for merit?

Surely, you would not disagree with me if I said that the way we award government projects needs to be transparent to eliminate cronyism? Or is that too tough a call after your appointment as Penang Port Commission chairman, a move that raised many eyebrows?

Above all, surely you would not disagree with me if I said we need a government that is clean; tells the truth; follows the rule of law; uses public funds for the people’s sake rather than for its own; and upholds the country’s institutions rather than abuses them for its own advantage?

Do we have such a government today?

If we did, you would not have said what you said last Dec 5 – when you called for each BN component party to have an equal voice and to share power “genuinely”; when you said BN had to change to be inclusive, multi-racial and to put the people first.

I know how to read between the lines, Soi Lek, and what you said that time said a lot about the coalition your party is part of.

Do you think it is capable of responding to your calls for change? Right now, looking just at the Cabinet line-up, we can see what a far cry it is from the days of Tunku Abdul Rahman. Will we ever see an inclusive government that has non-Malay ministers for the portfolios of Finance, Trade and Industry, or Defence? That no longer looks at skin color but at ability, integrity and character?

I think you might better serve the people by taking the first step that leads away from race-based politics. If you choose to do that, you will be blazing a trail. And that could bring honor not only to you but your party as well. Unless, of course, you’re a politician first and a public servant last. Then all I’ve been saying here would be worth doodley-squat.

Sincerely,

Chye

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 12 January 2011, 9:12 pm and is filed under
Kee Thuan Chye
,
MCA
,
Najib Razak
,
nation building
,
UMNO
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


We have to speak up

by
P. Ramakrishnan

President of Aliran

12th January 2011

JAN 12 — We have every reason to be concerned. We wonder where this nation is heading for and what is in store for us.

From the civil servant to the Umno politician, it is the same story: The non-Malays are “pendatang” (immigrants) and don’t have any citizenship rights. The rights conferred by Article 8 of the Federal Constitution are not respected or protected.

When an extreme group like Perkasa questions the citizenship rights of the non-Malays, the national leadership does not take them to task.

When extreme elements in Umno berate and denigrate the non-Malays, the top Umno leadership does not chastise them.

When one Umno delegate at the recently concluded general assembly had the temerity to suggest that the non-Malays be given the right to do business but should be denied the right to vote, nobody pointed out that it was against the constitution and that he should not be talking through his nose!

It is this disturbing silence when atrocious things are said which affect our unity that is worrying. It is this unbecoming conduct that encourages the extreme elements amongst us to be outrageous in their conduct and prompt them to continue with their seditious remarks.

It is this vocal minority that is predominant in our society and influences the trend of policy. Our political leaders dare not condemn them outright.

Utusan Malaysia fans the race-baiting and gives the widest publicity without bothering to be responsible or sensible. When the powers-that-be that own and control this press do not force it to fall in line, what do we make of this?

A nation can make or break depending on the unity of its citizens. Today our unity is threatened. And if concerned voices and responsible leaders and caring Malaysians do not rise up and speak up, we will be a fragmented nation.

By our silence, we will contribute to the chaos that may ensue.

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 12 January 2011, 7:19 pm and is filed under
1Malaysia
,
Media
,
nation building
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Why Chinese Mothers Are Superior

The Wall Street Journal

The Saturday Essay

JANUARY 8, 2011

Can a regimen of no playdates, no TV, no computer games and hours of music practice create happy kids? And what happens when they fight back?

By
AMY CHUA

A lot of people wonder how Chinese parents raise such stereotypically successful kids. They wonder what these parents do to produce so many math whizzes and music prodigies, what it’s like inside the family, and whether they could do it too. Well, I can tell them, because I’ve done it. Here are some things my daughters, Sophia and Louisa, were never allowed to do:

• attend a sleepover

• have a playdate

• be in a school play

• complain about not being in a school play

• watch TV or play computer games

• choose their own extracurricular activities

• get any grade less than an A

• not be the No. 1 student in every subject except gym and drama

• play any instrument other than the piano or violin

• not play the piano or violin.

I’m using the term “Chinese mother” loosely. I know some Korean, Indian, Jamaican, Irish and Ghanaian parents who qualify too. Conversely, I know some mothers of Chinese heritage, almost always born in the West, who are not Chinese mothers, by choice or otherwise. I’m also using the term “Western parents” loosely. Western parents come in all varieties.

All the same, even when Western parents think they’re being strict, they usually don’t come close to being Chinese mothers. For example, my Western friends who consider themselves strict make their children practice their instruments 30 minutes every day. An hour at most. For a Chinese mother, the first hour is the easy part. It’s hours two and three that get tough.

Despite our squeamishness about cultural stereotypes, there are tons of studies out there showing marked and quantifiable differences between Chinese and Westerners when it comes to parenting. In one study of 50 Western American mothers and 48 Chinese immigrant mothers, almost 70% of the Western mothers said either that “stressing academic success is not good for children” or that “parents need to foster the idea that learning is fun.” By contrast, roughly 0% of the Chinese mothers felt the same way. Instead, the vast majority of the Chinese mothers said that they believe their children can be “the best” students, that “academic achievement reflects successful parenting,” and that if children did not excel at school then there was “a problem” and parents “were not doing their job.” Other studies indicate that compared to Western parents, Chinese parents spend approximately 10 times as long every day drilling academic activities with their children. By contrast, Western kids are more likely to participate in sports teams.

What Chinese parents understand is that nothing is fun until you’re good at it. To get good at anything you have to work, and children on their own never want to work, which is why it is crucial to override their preferences. This often requires fortitude on the part of the parents because the child will resist; things are always hardest at the beginning, which is where Western parents tend to give up. But if done properly, the Chinese strategy produces a virtuous circle. Tenacious practice, practice, practice is crucial for excellence; rote repetition is underrated in America. Once a child starts to excel at something—whether it’s math, piano, pitching or ballet—he or she gets praise, admiration and satisfaction. This builds confidence and makes the once not-fun activity fun. This in turn makes it easier for the parent to get the child to work even more.

Chinese parents can get away with things that Western parents can’t. Once when I was young—maybe more than once—when I was extremely disrespectful to my mother, my father angrily called me “garbage” in our native Hokkien dialect. It worked really well. I felt terrible and deeply ashamed of what I had done. But it didn’t damage my self-esteem or anything like that. I knew exactly how highly he thought of me. I didn’t actually think I was worthless or feel like a piece of garbage.

As an adult, I once did the same thing to Sophia, calling her garbage in English when she acted extremely disrespectfully toward me. When I mentioned that I had done this at a dinner party, I was immediately ostracized. One guest named Marcy got so upset she broke down in tears and had to leave early. My friend Susan, the host, tried to rehabilitate me with the remaining guests.

The fact is that Chinese parents can do things that would seem unimaginable—even legally actionable—to Westerners. Chinese mothers can say to their daughters, “Hey fatty—lose some weight.” By contrast, Western parents have to tiptoe around the issue, talking in terms of “health” and never ever mentioning the f-word, and their kids still end up in therapy for eating disorders and negative self-image. (I also once heard a Western father toast his adult daughter by calling her “beautiful and incredibly competent.” She later told me that made her feel like garbage.)

Chinese parents can order their kids to get straight As. Western parents can only ask their kids to try their best. Chinese parents can say, “You’re lazy. All your classmates are getting ahead of you.” By contrast, Western parents have to struggle with their own conflicted feelings about achievement, and try to persuade themselves that they’re not disappointed about how their kids turned out.

I’ve thought long and hard about how Chinese parents can get away with what they do. I think there are three big differences between the Chinese and Western parental mind-sets.

First, I’ve noticed that Western parents are extremely anxious about their children’s self-esteem. They worry about how their children will feel if they fail at something, and they constantly try to reassure their children about how good they are notwithstanding a mediocre performance on a test or at a recital. In other words, Western parents are concerned about their children’s psyches. Chinese parents aren’t. They assume strength, not fragility, and as a result they behave very differently.

For example, if a child comes home with an A-minus on a test, a Western parent will most likely praise the child. The Chinese mother will gasp in horror and ask what went wrong. If the child comes home with a B on the test, some Western parents will still praise the child. Other Western parents will sit their child down and express disapproval, but they will be careful not to make their child feel inadequate or insecure, and they will not call their child “stupid,” “worthless” or “a disgrace.” Privately, the Western parents may worry that their child does not test well or have aptitude in the subject or that there is something wrong with the curriculum and possibly the whole school. If the child’s grades do not improve, they may eventually schedule a meeting with the school principal to challenge the way the subject is being taught or to call into question the teacher’s credentials.

If a Chinese child gets a B—which would never happen—there would first be a screaming, hair-tearing explosion. The devastated Chinese mother would then get dozens, maybe hundreds of practice tests and work through them with her child for as long as it takes to get the grade up to an A.

Chinese parents demand perfect grades because they believe that their child can get them. If their child doesn’t get them, the Chinese parent assumes it’s because the child didn’t work hard enough. That’s why the solution to substandard performance is always to excoriate, punish and shame the child. The Chinese parent believes that their child will be strong enough to take the shaming and to improve from it. (And when Chinese kids do excel, there is plenty of ego-inflating parental praise lavished in the privacy of the home.)

Second, Chinese parents believe that their kids owe them everything. The reason for this is a little unclear, but it’s probably a combination of Confucian filial piety and the fact that the parents have sacrificed and done so much for their children. (And it’s true that Chinese mothers get in the trenches, putting in long grueling hours personally tutoring, training, interrogating and spying on their kids.) Anyway, the understanding is that Chinese children must spend their lives repaying their parents by obeying them and making them proud.

By contrast, I don’t think most Westerners have the same view of children being permanently indebted to their parents. My husband, Jed, actually has the opposite view. “Children don’t choose their parents,” he once said to me. “They don’t even choose to be born. It’s parents who foist life on their kids, so it’s the parents’ responsibility to provide for them. Kids don’t owe their parents anything. Their duty will be to their own kids.” This strikes me as a terrible deal for the Western parent.

Third, Chinese parents believe that they know what is best for their children and therefore override all of their children’s own desires and preferences. That’s why Chinese daughters can’t have boyfriends in high school and why Chinese kids can’t go to sleepaway camp. It’s also why no Chinese kid would ever dare say to their mother, “I got a part in the school play! I’m Villager Number Six. I’ll have to stay after school for rehearsal every day from 3:00 to 7:00, and I’ll also need a ride on weekends.” God help any Chinese kid who tried that one.

Don’t get me wrong: It’s not that Chinese parents don’t care about their children. Just the opposite. They would give up anything for their children. It’s just an entirely different parenting model.

Here’s a story in favor of coercion, Chinese-style. Lulu was about 7, still playing two instruments, and working on a piano piece called “The Little White Donkey” by the French composer Jacques Ibert. The piece is really cute—you can just imagine a little donkey ambling along a country road with its master—but it’s also incredibly difficult for young players because the two hands have to keep schizophrenically different rhythms.

Lulu couldn’t do it. We worked on it nonstop for a week, drilling each of her hands separately, over and over. But whenever we tried putting the hands together, one always morphed into the other, and everything fell apart. Finally, the day before her lesson, Lulu announced in exasperation that she was giving up and stomped off.

“Get back to the piano now,” I ordered.

“You can’t make me.”

“Oh yes, I can.”

Back at the piano, Lulu made me pay. She punched, thrashed and kicked. She grabbed the music score and tore it to shreds. I taped the score back together and encased it in a plastic shield so that it could never be destroyed again. Then I hauled Lulu’s dollhouse to the car and told her I’d donate it to the Salvation Army piece by piece if she didn’t have “The Little White Donkey” perfect by the next day. When Lulu said, “I thought you were going to the Salvation Army, why are you still here?” I threatened her with no lunch, no dinner, no Christmas or Hanukkah presents, no birthday parties for two, three, four years. When she still kept playing it wrong, I told her she was purposely working herself into a frenzy because she was secretly afraid she couldn’t do it. I told her to stop being lazy, cowardly, self-indulgent and pathetic.

Jed took me aside. He told me to stop insulting Lulu—which I wasn’t even doing, I was just motivating her—and that he didn’t think threatening Lulu was helpful. Also, he said, maybe Lulu really just couldn’t do the technique—perhaps she didn’t have the coordination yet—had I considered that possibility?

“You just don’t believe in her,” I accused.

“That’s ridiculous,” Jed said scornfully. “Of course I do.”

“Sophia could play the piece when she was this age.”

“But Lulu and Sophia are different people,” Jed pointed out.

“Oh no, not this,” I said, rolling my eyes. “Everyone is special in their special own way,” I mimicked sarcastically. “Even losers are special in their own special way. Well don’t worry, you don’t have to lift a finger. I’m willing to put in as long as it takes, and I’m happy to be the one hated. And you can be the one they adore because you make them pancakes and take them to Yankees games.”

I rolled up my sleeves and went back to Lulu. I used every weapon and tactic I could think of. We worked right through dinner into the night, and I wouldn’t let Lulu get up, not for water, not even to go to the bathroom. The house became a war zone, and I lost my voice yelling, but still there seemed to be only negative progress, and even I began to have doubts.

Then, out of the blue, Lulu did it. Her hands suddenly came together—her right and left hands each doing their own imperturbable thing—just like that.

Lulu realized it the same time I did. I held my breath. She tried it tentatively again. Then she played it more confidently and faster, and still the rhythm held. A moment later, she was beaming.

“Mommy, look—it’s easy!” After that, she wanted to play the piece over and over and wouldn’t leave the piano. That night, she came to sleep in my bed, and we snuggled and hugged, cracking each other up. When she performed “The Little White Donkey” at a recital a few weeks later, parents came up to me and said, “What a perfect piece for Lulu—it’s so spunky and so her.”

Even Jed gave me credit for that one. Western parents worry a lot about their children’s self-esteem. But as a parent, one of the worst things you can do for your child’s self-esteem is to let them give up. On the flip side, there’s nothing better for building confidence than learning you can do something you thought you couldn’t.

There are all these new books out there portraying Asian mothers as scheming, callous, overdriven people indifferent to their kids’ true interests. For their part, many Chinese secretly believe that they care more about their children and are willing to sacrifice much more for them than Westerners, who seem perfectly content to let their children turn out badly. I think it’s a misunderstanding on both sides. All decent parents want to do what’s best for their children. The Chinese just have a totally different idea of how to do that.

Western parents try to respect their children’s individuality, encouraging them to pursue their true passions, supporting their choices, and providing positive reinforcement and a nurturing environment. By contrast, the Chinese believe that the best way to protect their children is by preparing them for the future, letting them see what they’re capable of, and arming them with skills, work habits and inner confidence that no one can ever take away.

—Amy Chua is a professor at Yale Law School and author of “Day of Empire” and “World on Fire: How Exporting Free Market Democracy Breeds Ethnic Hatred and Global Instability.”

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 12 January 2011, 8:34 pm and is filed under
culture
,
Education
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Why did Beng Hock die? Who are his killers?

by
P Ramakrishnan | Aliran President

We don’t need experts or eminent persons to tell us if Teoh Beng Hock’s human rights have been violated. Ask the common man in the street and he will tell you right away that Beng Hock’s rights have been blatantly and violently abused and violated. This fact is as plain as daylight.

So why do we need a Royal Commission of Inquiry to find out “whether it (MACC) had violated human rights”. Beng Hock’s family is not interested in this. Malaysians don’t want a RCI to waste its time in investigating procedures adopted by the MACC with regard to his death. That’s not the issue, dear Prime Minister.

All that everyone is dying to find out is how did Beng Hock die? Why did he die?

Who caused his death?

The inquest has clearly stated that it wasn’t a suicide. How then did he drop from the 14th floor and land on the 5th floor of the MACC building? Who was responsible for this fall from the 14th floor, dear Prime Minister?

The inquest has confirmed that there were pre-fall neck injuries. Who caused these injuries on Beng Hock’s neck? Why were these injuries caused? What damage did these injuries do to Beng Hock? Did he die as a result of these injuries?

This is what Beng Hock’s family is demanding to know, dear Prime Minister. Why are you wasting everybody’s time setting up a RCI to carry out irrelevant investigations that will not throw any light as to how Beng Hock died – and why.

This is what the whole country is interested in, dear Prime Minister.

Beng Hock was interrogated for nearly 11 hours from 5.00 pm right up to 3.45 am the next day in the most inhuman way. He was deprived of food, denied sleep and rest and subjected to intense questioning. What does that suggest, dear Prime Minister?

Before 5.00pm on that day – 15 July 2009 – it was a working day for Beng Hock. Assuming that he got up for work at 7.00 am, it would add another 10 hours to his non-stop questioning for nearly 11 hours. That would mean he was on his feet for almost 21 hours. Doesn’t it strike you as an extreme form of torture that he was subjected to in a barbaric manner, dear Prime Minister?

Under the circumstance, do we really need a RCI to tell us that Beng Hock’s human rights were indeed violated? Isn’t it very apparent? Isn’t it rather obvious?

What is not apparent and what is not obvious is: How did Beng Hock die? Who caused his death? Who are his killers? That is all Beng Hock’s family is dying to know in order to bring closure to this human tragedy, dear Prime Minister.

The purpose of the RCI should simply be to establish why and how Beng Hock died.

Any other investigation will not do justice to Beng Hock’s family, dear Prime Minister.

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 12 January 2011, 11:25 am and is filed under
Crime
,
Najib Razak
,
Teoh Beng Hock
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


MRSM schools obstacle to national unity?

by
Azly Rahman

As hypermodernising societies such as Malaysia progresses in syncrony with the advancement of capitalism, and as race and religion becomes the foundation for decision-making in education, especially in elitist well-funded schools, Malaysia is faced with another dilemma of education and national development.

Is this country creating sophisticated ethnocentrists that will continue to sustain race-based ideologies?

Maktab Rendah Sains Mara (Mara Junior Science College) schools, well-funded, well-staffed with advanced degree faculties, and well-taken care of by the Malay-centric government may be one example of a phenomena of a successful failure in the system’s 40-year evolution.

The school system prides itself in innovative curricular experimentation drawn from best practice of schools, particularly those of the United States; as its original template was based upon.

What educationists will see in the list of innovations are merely aspects of the formal curriculum; upon further analysis lies the hidden and informal curriculum as perceived from curricular theory; hidden is the deeply racial socialisation aspect.

The overall picture lies in the impact of politics and education in the socialisaton of MRSM students. they parrot the teachers, the teachers parrot the politicians, politicians kowtow to money and power – that’s an example of successful failure.

We are all economic beings, homo economicus undoubtedly but it is education and only education that is the best means to re-engineer, restructure, re-level, and redesign society.

It is the only means to sustain individual and social progress, as philosophers Dewey and Freire would argue.

Valueless ideologies

While the advanced nations are prioritising multiculturalism, honoring cosmopolitanism, and globalising education, Malaysians, through their endless fights over education are making many steps backwards. MRSM has produced a breed of sophisticated professionals to sustain ethnocentric valueless ideologies out of touch with current cultural realities.

Consider, in a similar vein, how much is spent and attention paid to on yet another high-priced elitist project such as the Pintar Permata at the expense of other schools in dire needs of even basic amenities such as those in Sabah and Sarawak or in many poor states – is that equity and equality for all races? Or is it a showcase based on ignorance of the meaning of equality and education?

With all due respect to the administrators, teachers, parents, and students, I must say about the MRSM school system.

With its insistence on being a Malay-centric, MRSM these days are not preparing children to survive in a multicultural, cosmopolitan, and ever-changing world that requires English as an important skill, and an outlook that is more open to learning about other cultures especially in the context of a rapidly changing Malaysia.

Those specialisations in each MRSM school are merely cliches filled with educational terminologies that are not fully understood but fully acceptable as a platform to appease the needs of the current regime.

Regimentation is necessary it seems to tune the mind of the monolithic mono-cultural students to accept governmental dictates making them in turn, one-dimensional beings.

Are any of those MRSMs suitable for Malaysian children? Or are they merely training and indoctrinating grounds to prop up yet another breed of leaders that will sustain the culture of blind following neo-feudalism of Ketuanan Melayu that itself is a dying specie?

Do parents know what goes on in the culture of the MRSM boarding schools and what goes on in the minds of your children?

In this context, we must look at the difference between education, schooling, indoctrination, mind-control, and liberation in thinking. I would say that the MRSM system is a successful failure.

Retrogressive ideologies

In MRSM, that predominantly Malay-elite secondary institution for the best and brightest young Malays, Malay-centric indoctrination work have been happening since the 1980s. Courses such as Kursus Kesedaran (Self Awareness Courses) are conducted to instill the questionable idea of Ketuanan Melayu, making the children afraid of “Malaysian bogeymen and bogeywomen” and their own shadows.

Open-mindedness is rarely encouraged and students take control over each others’ lives transplanting retrogressive ideologies into each other’s head, with the help of ultra-nationalist and anti-multiculturalist teachers.

Even if these children survive the ideological ordeal and experience ‘tough love’ and go on to get their degrees from top American and British universities, they will still be Malays with a shallow understanding of multiculturalism or become more sophisticated Malays with more complex arguments on Ketuanan Melayu.

They will then design policies to affect the needed sustenance of ideology in order to protect the interests of the few. Neo-feudalistic cybernetic Malays are then the new creations of the political-economic ruling class. They run the country and many are now running it down.

As an educator wishing to see Malays progress alongside in peace and prosperity with other races, I call upon us all to put a stop to all forms of indoctrination held especially by the BTN (Biro Tata Negara); an organisation that is of no value to the advancement of the Malays they claim to want to liberate.

It should be taken over by progressive Malaysians and replaced with a systematic effort to promote not only racial understanding through teaching respect and deep reflection on the cultures of the peoples of Malaysia, but also teach conflict resolution and mediation through cross-cultural perspectives. All must question the presence of BTN on campuses. All must reject BTN’s programme for indoctrination.

Let us no longer allow any government body of that sort to set foot on our campuses or our schools. As Malaysians we have to demand an end to the further dissemination of racist ideologies.

Open up, not only institutions such as UiTM (Universiti Teknologi Mara) and MRSM but also Umno to more students of the major cultures. We will then have a great celebration of diversity and respect for human dignity in the decades to come.

We need to turn succesful failures such as MRSM into truly successful Malaysian educational ventures; an organic system able to prepare young Malaysian citizens for a diverse, multicultural, and rapidly challenging world – minus the cliches of educational innovation and blind nationalism that will be anti-national in character.

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 13 January 2011, 1:11 pm and is filed under
Azly Rahman
,
Education
,
nation building
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Playing Survivor every day

by
HIMANSHU BHATT
 | The Sun

Almost three years after taking over the Penang government, Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng is firmly in the seat. On New Year’s Eve, Lim spoke to HIMANSHU BHATT of his experiences as a selfconfessed “Survivor” and about the state government.

ON LIM CHONG EU

HOW was your relationship with former chief minister Tun Dr Lim Chong Eu after you assumed office?

Tun Lim said he felt it would be very challenging for me, as it was for him … I think he felt I was facing the same circumstances and conditions as he experienced when he won power in 1969.

He advised that it was important to take charge. And I agree that we have to take charge. Take charge not by compulsion, but by example and by persuasion. He felt that it was important that we must be fully in command, to be in control of all aspects of government. I told him that I don’t think that I am that capable. So I rely on my trusted comrades. For instance, he said I should also handle local government. I said I can’t cope. So I leave it to Chow (Kon Yeow).

ON BEING “DICTATORIAL”

Your political opponents have accused you of not being consultative, of being obdurate. They have even used the word “dictatorial”.

In a way that is a sort of back-handed compliment. They even try to portray me as a future DPM or PM. I have said many times – I have no higher ambitions. I think there are many people more qualified than me to be the prime minister.

I am happy where I am now as the CM, and I want to do the job as best I can. I don’t think I can do it alone. I need the collective effort of everyone, every person on the team. They are just trying to break up my team, but they won’t succeed.

I mean when I was away for a week, the government functioned. So it’s the system that works that matters. My councillors are also doing their job. The main thing is that the system overrides all. Once there is a system failure, it shows that your leadership, your management skills are questionable.

Nowadays when investors come, they not only look at you as a leader but at your team. You may be able to convince them personally, but can you convince them collectively? If you can’t convince them collectively, I don’t think they will put their money here.

When they come here, they do not just do a due diligence on you, they also do a due diligence on the team. I can say to them, you can call me anytime. But you know-lah they are also protocol-guided. They won’t just call anytime. They would prefer to call somebody lower down that they can talk to and interact with, that they can get things done with.

BIGGEST CHALLENGES

There have been challenging periods.

Every day is a challenge. Every day is a survival exercise. It’s like experiencing Survivor – you know the TV series – every day.

What do you reckon have been the biggest challenges in power?

Some of these civil servants, little Napoleonslah. Those under the state government’s watch we can deal with. Those under federal, we are powerless. I think that has been disconcerting.

Number two has been lack of funds to carry out our programmes. Number three is the lack of cooperation from certain ministers.

FEDERAL-STATE RELATIONS

What are main challenges in federal-state relations? How do you see relations between the federal government and the Pakatan Rakyat states evolving in the next year or so?

I would say there are always federal leaders who are intent on having a workable, cordial relationship. But they are torpedoed and sometimes sabotaged by those who are gungho in warring with Pakatan states, regardless of national interests. So we are hopeful that cooler heads will prevail. Cooler, saner and more sober heads will prevail at the end of the day.

Because for Penang we are the second most important state. We provide nearly 30% of the country’s exports. We provide a substantial source of revenue. We contribute 70% of the medical tourism receipts in the country. And we are a major port, major tourist destination. And of course we are, I would say, the most dynamic E&E (electronics and electrical) cluster in the world.

So can you ignore Penang? If Penang loses, Malaysia loses. If Penang wins, Malaysia wins. So it is in the best interest of Malaysia that Penang succeeds. And that’s why it is shortsighted and counter-productive … if you want to victimise, punish or marginalise Penang. It is in everyone’s best interest that we work together for the benefit of Malaysians.

I mean whatever their (voter’s) choices, you have to respect them. This is democracy. If you want to punish the state government, you are also punishing the people for exercising their democratic choice of government. And that’s wrong. That is not only wrong, but it is immoral, unethical and downright evil. And we have contributed. All the tax receipts you take, we don’t get a single sen back. So far, we got only 3% of what we paid.

We saw the prime minister coming to officiate at the expansion of the Penang Airport. Interestingly enough, he said that the federal government is allocating funds for Penang to help make it a regional economic hub. How do you look upon that?

Of course, I welcome the suggestion. And we are still waiting for more details. So I think the devil is in the details. Unless this is forthcoming we are still waiting … And waiting, and waiting. (laughs).

THE INFORMATION WAR

I have been observing the war on information (between BN and PR).

We are not doing very well on that … I think we can do more.

You have been trying to penetrate the ground with your own publications. Is it reaching the masses?

It is. They get at least an explanation from the state government. Whether you agree with it or not, at least there is an explanation.

PENANG PORT

There are reports that the Penang Port’s privatisation has been decided. Are you disappointed that the Penang government’s formal bid to take over the port may not succeed?

I have written to the prime minister. Finally, of course, we have to respect the decision made, because they are the regulators. But as long as it complies with international best practices and transparency guidelines – by ensuring that you get the best price for the best quality, and that Penang Port would be able to be a truly international port, fully benchmarked against international best practices and be the premier port in the northern region – we will be able to live with it. That is our primary concern.

If it’s granted to Syed Mokhtar (Al-Bukhary), for instance, is it the best bid? Was there an open tender? If there was an open tender, was that the best bid, according to international norms and best practices? If it is so, we can live with it. Our concern is that it may not be so. Even though we may be disappointed by not succeeding, we will be able to live with it if it is the best bid. If the bid is better than ours, why not?

There were concerns about the impact privatisation would have on ticket prices of services like the ferry which is largely absorbed by Penang Port. How much would privatisation affect not just the shippers but Penangites who use the port facility?

According to international best practices, the interests of Penangites must also be taken into account. The iconic ferry service is identified with Penang, the heritage of Penang, the soul of Penang. It cannot be stopped. It cannot be taken away.

Any attempt to scale down or remove the ferry service will be opposed vigorously by the state government. We are even willing to take it off their hands, if they don’t want it. Give it to us, we’ll handle it.

TIES WITH PAS

What about relations among Pakatan partners in Penang?

I think they are good. Grassroots are even stronger.

There are concerns that the relationship between DAP and PAS, although working well, may not continue in the long-term, with divergent views on secularism and Islamic governance. How do you respond to this?

Those who say it won’t work in the long-term don’t want us to work in the short-term and medium-term. That is why they say it won’t work in the long-term. But so far it has worked, whether in Penang or in other states. And despite all the tensions and the pressures, we have continued to be bound together.

Even on the use of the word Allah, PAS has come out with a strong stand. Since it can be used in the Middle East, there is no monopoly on the word. It should continue to be allowed to be used by Christians in the Bible, as in Indonesia.

There have also been some remarks that you are “bending over backwards” in policies on Islamic issues, like giving extra allocations, in a way that even the previous government was not doing, for the sake of appeasing PAS and the Malay-Muslim masses.

What do you mean by “bending over backwards”? If you think that bending over backwards for justice, for integrity, for good governance, accountability, and doing what is right is immoral, then so be it.

We must not just do the right thing. We must do things right. So if there is a need and basis, we have to give necessary approvals. What’s wrong with it? And this can only be done if you have a strong budget. That’s where good governance comes in.

We are also giving money to Tamil schools, Chinese schools, mission schools. Are we saying we are denying them? No. We also build school for Azad (Tamil school on island). We also build Islamic schools.

FINANCIAL HEALTH

In terms of the state’s finances, what are the biggest expenditures that you need to focus on this year?

Land acquisition will be the biggest expenditure. We are talking about affordable housing and future industrial development for both the island and mainland.

In terms of revenue?

Basically our land premium, quit rent. These are main sources of revenue.

Since the implementation of the open-tender exercise you can basically see the expenditure having become much more consolidated and tighter.

Leaner. Meaner … meaner in the sense that there is line-item accounting, justification for every sen spent. That’s why it’s meaner.

Leaner, meaner and cleaner … It will be leaner by cutting out the unnecessary frills. It will be meaner in that we want to ensure that every sen is accounted for.

You offer this material, you must provide that material. No substitute, unless it is justifiable, and then you must give some recompense. And cleaner in the sense that there is no hankypanky. You can see the results. We had budget surpluses for the last three years. I think no other state has that. Even though we projected deficits, so far we have revenues. Even this year (2010) we will have a small surplus. We were projecting a deficit of around RM80 million. But I think we’ll get a surplus. Lean, mean, clean accounting. LMC.

DECISION-MAKING

When it comes to making tough decisions, is there anyone that you consult or get advice from?

We consult all the relevant key personalities … Anwar (Ibrahim), my dad (Lim Kit Siang), Karpal (Singh). Definitely, we do consult. And they give their input.

EVICTION CRISIS

You have a massive headache in Jelutong and other places, because of the massive eviction of residents on private land.

When you talk about the eviction exercises, they are not only the Malay kampung. Out of the eight villages affected in Jelutong, six are Chinese. That’s 75%. So it’s not a Malay issue, but you know lah how the press plays it up. They don’t see the 75%. They just see the 25% as being 100%. So it’s become racially-tinged. And that’s very sad.

CIVIL SERVANTS

What about the civil servants in the state? Do you think the Pakatan government has been able to garner sufficient loyalty?

That has been our greatest challenge, and will remain our greatest challenge. If you want to transform Penang to be an intelligent and international city, you have to reform the civil service. No two ways about it. You have to get the civil service to adopt international best practices, and adapt themselves to international benchmarks. Otherwise you will not succeed.

It’s a challenging process. We have to do our work daily. It’s a real grind. We grind it out every day. But I believe that the civil service is beginning to see our sincerity and our seriousness to bring better service to the people. To bring change, to improve the lives of the people, and to make a difference. When we say we travel economy, we mean it, for domestic flights … You want to show that you mean business. And then our anti-corruption measures are effective. You cut down waste, you cut down kickbacks.

And we are praised by Transparency International for CAT (Competency, Accountability, Transparency) governance. This is the highest accolade that any government can get.

SOCIALISM

I had made a comment last year that the state policies under the DAP-led government, particularly in terms of welfare, seem to be tinged with modernist-socialist elements. Am I on the mark?
 (laughs) Social democratic inclinations-lah.

When DAP was established in 1967, the Setapak Declaration registered it as a Democratic Socialist entity.

Now we have changed it to Social Democracy … From “each according to his own” to “each according to his needs”. So while we recognise that growth cannot be balanced, development must be given for all. So there is no contradiction there. We can allow unbalanced growth, but we must ensure that the benefits of it must be distributed and reach everyone.

At the same time, when we talk about social democracy, it is basically a continuous reminder to us that while we must be optimistic in action we must be pessimistic in thought.

And I think that the safety-net factor, that we try to make sure everyone has a stake in the fruits of economic success, if any, I think that would at least give everybody an equal stake.

You are referring to the hardcore poverty alleviation scheme where the state tops up a family’s income to RM500 a month, and the Senior Citizens Appreciation Scheme.

We don’t have much money, but we can give RM100 to every senior citizen. It’s an anti-corruption dividend. I think that message struck. Because we are clean, we are able to give money to you … And you know the money we spent on upgrading public flats, despite them owing so much rental and maintenance fees.

GEORGE TOWN’S CITY STATUS

You start off the New Year by celebrating the 54th anniversary of George Town as a city. The Queen of England had signed a charter in January 1957 but the Housing and Local Government Ministry insists that George Town is not a city. What do you hope to achieve by this commemoration?

I say call a spade a spade … We are trying to resuscitate, resurrect the original status of George Town as a city, the first city in Malaysia – something we should be proud of. And it’s given in a royal charter by the queen. So we should maintain that status.

After all, in the laws anything that is promulgated by the previous colonial government still remains in extant as it is. So why not George Town as it is? The integral aspect of declaring George Town as a city is to maintain its integrity. As a heritage city which is recognised by Unesco. I think that integrity is important.

ASPIRATIONS

You have said that Penang will keep its options open about dissolving the state assembly if Parliament dissolves early. What do you hope to achieve if you stretch until the maximum period (2013)?

The main thing is to make these aspirations operational. I think that would be the key aspect. That means that you deliver and implement. You talk about open tender, it’s in operation. You have seen the results but you have not really seen the flower of it. You have only seen the green shoots.

Because what we want to see in Malaysia and Penang is that every one must feel that they can be as good as they want to be. You should not tell people that they cannot be better because of the colour of their skin. Or they do not deserve equal rights because of the colour of their skin. Or that they are not really Malaysians in the full sense of the word because of the colour of their skin. Doesn’t make sense. And I find it most distressing that they can keep on telling children and adults, that you cannot be the best, that you cannot realise your potential, not because of anything else but because of your background. I think that is ridiculous. Is that the type of country that we want? Where these people who preach the message of hate, of division, of anger and resentment, where they succeed in telling our children that they cannot be as good as they want to be. Nonsense.

At the same time Malay kids are told that they need this help because they are not good enough. What type of message is that? You are giving them an inferiority complex. On the other hand you cannot be as good as you want to be because of the colour of your skin. Now that is really distressful. It’s not just sad, it’s outrageous.

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 13 January 2011, 3:46 pm and is filed under
Lim Guan Eng
,
Penang Government
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Pre-polls reforms unlikely, says Roubini’s RGE

By
Yow Hong Chieh

The Malaysian Insider

January 13, 2011

KUALA LUMPUR, Jan 13 — Much-needed reforms to Malaysia’s pro-Bumiputera policies will likely be put on the back burner until Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak secures a new electoral mandate, a report by star economist Nouriel Roubini’s RGE global economic analysis firm has predicted.

RGE said in its “Wednesday Note — Malaysia’s Middle-Income Malaise” released yesterday that Umno was “unlikely” to revamp such policies “blocking” Malaysia’s rise to high-income nation status before the next general election for fear of antagonising Malay voters.

Najib’s market-friendly reforms under the New Economic Model (NEM) have received lukewarm to hostile response from the Malays, many of whom regard such proposals as a challenge to the special position of Bumiputeras outlined in the Constitution.

“[Given] the governing party’s reliance on Bumiputera support, major changes are unlikely until new elections are held and the government has the political confidence to confront popular resistance to reform,” RGE said.

The Malaysian Insider, quoting sources, reported yesterday that Najib was considering pushing back snap polls, said to have been slated for the first half of this year, to the fourth quarter to give big-ticket projects time to gain traction.

RGE pointed out that the decline of the local electrical and electronics (E&E) sector over the past 10 years was “one of the most noticeable manifestations” of the middle-income trap afflicting Malaysia.

At its height in 2000, the E&E sector accounted for more than one-third of the country’s total value added in manufacturing, over 70 per cent of revenue from manufacturing exports and almost four per cent of world E&E exports, the New York-based company noted.

However, Malaysia’s E&E sector has witnessed a drop in productivity, export stagnation and deteriorating global market share since 2000 due to its inability to maintain a low value-added growth model in the face of higher labour costs and increased competition from low-cost rivals like the Philippines and China, RGE said.

It fingered the “stifling” effects pro-Bumiputera policies had on the development of a robust and indigenous E&E sector as the main culprit behind Malaysia’s failure to transition into higher value-added E&E production from its current “downstream dominated” setup.

RGE stressed that it was this “evolutionary process” to upstream production that allowed Asian Tigers South Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong and Singapore to successfully transition to higher value-added manufacturing, and later, high-income status, despite facing similar challenges as Malaysia.

“By the time labour cost increases forced downstream production facilities to lower-cost markets, [Singaporean] firms were experienced and competitive enough to continue operating in the E&E supply chain at higher levels of value added. In this way, Singapore has managed to increase its global market share of E&E since 2000,” its note said.

“In contrast, Malaysia’s E&E sector has been unable to adjust to shifts in the country’s comparative advantage.”

RGE said the underperformance of the E&E sector over the last decade should serve as a warning to Malaysia’s policymakers that the continuation of “distortionary” pro-Bumiputera policies may limit the country’s growth prospects.

It also said that affirmative action policies have exacerbated the non-Bumiputera brain drain problem and also created a “strategic disadvantage” for local firms by limiting human and financial capital as well as “perpetuating an unlevel playing field” for entrepreneurs.

The note added that the continued government presence in the economy via procurement policies and some 500 government-linked corporations (GLCs) provided “ample opportunity for rent-seeking by well-connected Bumiputera” able to take advantage of favourable policies.

RGE is chaired by Nouriel Roubini, famous for correctly predicting the US sub-prime crisis three years before it happened.

Roubini, an economics professor at New York University’s Stern School of Business, previously advised the World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF) and currently holds research fellowships at London’s Centre for Economic Policy Research (CEPR) and the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) in Cambridge, Massachusetts.

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 13 January 2011, 11:07 am and is filed under
Economics
,
Election
,
Najib Razak
,
NEM
,
NEP
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Talent Corpse

By
Dean Johns
 | Malaysiakini

The late Teoh Beng Hock is a living symbol of the dilemma facing the millions of bright young expatriate Malaysians that Najib Razak is attempting to attract back home with his latest cynical political ploy, Talent Corp.

On the one hand many of them would dearly love to contribute their energy and skills to the growth and development of their homeland, and to enjoy its rich culture and fabulous food in the company of their families and old friends.

And on the other hand, most seem totally alienated by witnessing the plight of their contemporaries who, through courageous choice or force of circumstances, elect to stay in Malaysia under the deadly BN regime.

Admittedly the case of Teoh is an extreme example of the fate that awaits the best and the brightest in BN’s Malaysia. But his highly suspicious death while in the custody of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC), and the coroner’s bizarre finding that his demise was neither suicide nor homicide, are entirely symptomatic of the BN system.

Everything, from racial and religious profiling at birth, through an education system riddled with racist teachers and propagandist textbooks, to grossly iniquitous awarding of scholarships and universities run by poorly-qualified political cronies, appears designed to strangle or suffocate all signs of youthful initiative, individuality or idealism.

And if all that isn’t sufficiently fatal to youthful dreams of playing a part in improving society, the Universities and University Colleges Act is in place to ensure students’ political passivity.

That any young Malaysian intellectually survives and even thrives in this killing environment, as millions evidently and amazingly do, is testament to their resilience and intelligence. Plus, of course, to the typical inefficiency of the BN regime in its efforts to pervert the education system for its partisan political purposes.

Brain-washing by mainstream media

But for all those kids and youths not rendered entirely ignorant by BN-style education, and not willing or able to escape overseas down the brain drain, BN has a further brain-death experience in store: life-long brain-washing by the so-called ‘mainstream’ media: a massive array of government-owned or controlled newspapers, radio stations and TV channels all dedicated to killing inconvenient stories about the powers that be and assassinating the reputations of opponents.

Of course the freedom of the Internet is increasingly liberating Malaysians from the poisoning of their minds by ‘mainstream’ media operating under BN’s pernicious Printing Presses and Publications Act.

But the fact remains that the body politic remains moribund, with millions rendered too cynical, apathetic or alienated to be bothered to try and vote themselves out of BN’s death-grip.

It’s hard to blame people for despairing, considering the dire state of the nation’s electoral system. Electorates are so gruesomely gerrymandered that votes in some are worth 10 or more times those in others.

And the Election Commission is routinely blind to blatant pork-barrelling and outright bribery by the BN regime, as infamously illustrated by Najib Razak’s “I help you, you help me” offer in the Sibu buy-election.

Then there’s the scandalous situation in which so-called ‘postal’ votes by members of the armed forces and others often mysteriously sway the results, as notoriously appeared to be the case in Khairy Jamaluddin ‘winning’ the seat of Rembau.

Talent graveyard

As important to BN as postal voting apparently is, however, this right is mysteriously unavailable to Malaysians living overseas.

So that the very Malaysians that Najib claims he is keen to attract back home with his much-vaunted Talent Corp initiative are unjustly denied a voice in the nation’s affairs.

Not that it would do them much good, considering that, to get back to the case of Teoh, the name of the game in BN’s Malaysia is more a case of Talent Corpse, through the agency of its talented cops.

And highly selectively talented cops at that. The anti-corruption cops at the MACC, for example, can achieve the apparently impossible: the death of a young man who is not even a suspect but just a witness, in circumstances that are officially deemed neither suicidal nor homicidal.

As miraculously as the MACC has performed in the case of Teoh’s demise, however, it appears almost completely hopeless in its primary appointed task, the investigation of the high-level corruption that’s killing the country.

The same goes for the talented cops in the police force.

They’re conspicuously unsuccessful in their campaign against everything from snatch theft and burglary to organised crime, and utterly incompetent in enforcing traffic rules and stemming Malaysia’s terrifying road toll, but supremely talented when it comes to shooting ‘suspects’ dead on dark nights and beating allegations of abuse and killing many of those unfortunates who survive to be taken into custody.

Yet the BN politician in charge of these criminals, be they uniformed, plainclothed or, even more suspiciously, so-called ‘auxilliary’ police that recently threatened to throw press photographer Hairul Nizam Bahrin off the roof of the Bandar Tasik Selatan Integrated Bus Terminal, do nothing to deter them.

As in this case remaining deathly silent so far, or defending them as Home Minister Hishammuddin Hussein routinely does, stating in an earlier case that “instead of constantly attacking the police, the public must support the force, as it (is) one of the institutional pillars that form the spine of the country”.

In other words, as I take this to mean, having corrupted Malaysia and its civil institutions to the core, now BN sees the police as its political security corps.

And invents apparently well-intentioned initiatives like Talent Corp to cover-up the reality that BN’s Malaysia is actually a talent graveyard, and that any resident or returnee who crosses the cops could well, like Teoh, end up as a talented corpse.

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 13 January 2011, 10:34 am and is filed under
Economics
,
Media
,
Najib Razak
,
Teoh Beng Hock
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Let’s stop talking politics and get real!

By
P Ramakrishnan

President of Aliran

Let’s set aside political rhetoric and rigmarole and become sensible and serious. We cannot – and should not – play politics at the expense of our national well-being to score meaningless political points. What should be uppermost are the nation and its people.

The Pakatan Opposition Leader, Datuk Seri Ibrahim Anwar, has come out with his 100-day plan to transform Malaysia’s economy for the greater benefit of Malaysians. His transformation plan for the country, according to him, will cost the national budget RM19 billion.

Our Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Abdul Razak, has pooh-poohed this plan. His caustic dismissal of Anwar’s plan won him a round of applause from the party faithful. They laughed and felt good that Anwar was being bashed.

Najib, in evaluating Anwar’s plan, questioned where the fund was coming from for this grandiose transformation and contended that if this plan were to be implemented it would bankrupt the country in two years and reduce it to the pathetic status of Greece.

On the other hand, Anwar had countered Najib by claiming that RM28 billion can be recouped from corruption and leakages the country suffers as a result of poor management as estimated by the Auditor-General in his report.  By waging a relentless war against corruption, the government can recoup this colossal amount and use it for the benefit of the many instead of allowing a few connected cronies to reap profit through graft.

Anwar talked about saving RM19 billion from the subsidies given to the Independent Power Producers and another RM4 billion by overhauling the toll concession system. We are not sure how successful Pakatan would be in these two areas considering the legal implications involved.

However, recouping the money lost as a result of corruption and poor management is a real possibility. The Pakatan-led Penang government has shown that prudent and stringent management of public coffers can indeed save millions of ringgit for the benefit of the people. Not only has the Penang state government provided various benefits for the people, it has also accumulated more reserves – a fantastic achievements within three years.

Anwar has stated that he is prepared to defend his transformation plan and has thrown down the gauntlet, challenging Najib to a national debate. This is a golden opportunity for Najib to expose what he claims as Anwar’s irresponsible and irrational plan that is not achievable. If Anwar is fishing for votes with plans that are attractive to the voters but which will spell doom for Malaysia, Najib has a responsibility and duty to expose this hog-wash which is presented as a national plan.

We are not interested in the views of BN politicians, one or two economists and academics who tend to parrot the Prime Minister and deprecate Anwar’s plan because they are people who are expected to flatter the Prime Minister. Their role is as expected, to toe the official line.

We are not interested in Umno Youth leader Khairy Jamaluddin or  Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz picking up the gauntlet to debate Anwar. They don’t measure up to the Prime Minister’s status or stature to stand in for him and therefore do not qualify to debate Anwar. Anwar did not challenge them to a debate; he challenged Najib. It is as simple as that.

Anwar is the Leader of the Opposition; Najib is the Leader of the BN. Anwar is the Prime Minister-in–waiting; Najib is the serving Prime Minister. Both are top leaders of their respective parties. They are equally matched to take on each another.

Apart from that, the issue involved is a matter of grave importance to the nation. The economy is the cornerstone of our survival; it is what will ensure our success and well-being. That is why a national televised debate is all the more crucial for the people to make an informed decision.

This matter concerns not only the party faithful of both parties but also all citizens. They have a right to this debate. They want to know where the economy is heading to; they want to know what is in store for them and for the country.

Let the debate take place and let us set a precedent for debating all issues concerning the nation. Let this be the trend for the future.

It is a real pity that Najib has turned down Anwar’s challenge to debate their economic policies. Najib’s decision has not taken anyone by surprise but Malaysians are disappointed that Najib has failed to justify his criticism of Pakatan’s plan through a national, televised, public debate. He could have nailed Anwar and projected the BN’s economic policies as superior and deserving the people’s support. He failed himself and let down the BN government terribly.

Najib’s justification “that voters did not need such an exercise to decide if they wanted Barisan Nasional or Pakatan Rakyat in Putrajaya” does not hold water. If a referendum was taken to ascertain whether such a debate was necessary, without a doubt a vast majority of voters would welcome it.

Najib does not make sense in stating, “If we want to debate, there must be an outcome from the debate. I do not see one and what is important is public opinion.”

Indeed, if there was a debate there will be an outcome. Malaysians will be able to judge whose economic policy is superior and who deserves their support. Malaysians are clamouring for this debate.

We should consciously cultivate the culture of public debate rather than having a mindless mob at our doorsteps or turning up  at the police station to make innumerable reports that amount to nothing.

                This entry was posted on Friday, 14 January 2011, 11:47 am and is filed under
Anwar Ibrahim
,
Economics
,
Good Governance
,
Najib Razak
,
Pakatan Rakyat
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Plea bargaining and the hidden dangers

By
K.Siladass

of Lincoln’s Barrister-at-Law of Malaya, Advocate and Solicitor.

On Monday 13 December 2010, the Chief Justice of Malaysia, Tun Zaki Azmi announced that, “accused persons in criminal cases will get 50 per cent reduction from the maximum punishment under the plea bargain system which will be implemented soon”. There was no explanation under which statutory provision this plea bargaining, and the reduction of punishment prescribed by various laws will apply or the types of cases to which the new system may be applicable. However, one thing that was so apparent was the emphasis that this reduction of punishment would help to clear backlog of cases. That gave the impression clearing of backlog of cases was far more important than seeing justice being done. It is in the light of what had been disclosed for the consumption of the pubic that prompted the public to question whether the negative consequences that could arise from such implementation had been considered.

As on 14 December 2010 the public were not informed that the Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Code 2010 (Act A1378) had been passed by Parliament and Royal assent had been obtained on 2 June 2010. The Act A1378 was gazetted on 10 June 2010. And plea bargaining had been given statutory effect; but, has not been implement as yet.

 	The public must be shocked on learning the fact that the Bar Council had been negotiating or debating about the plea bargaining and was a party to it long before the amendments were introduced in Parliament and duly approved. It is rather odd that such an innovation had been kept away from the scrutiny of the public; for, had it been made public, there would have been representations on the pros and cons on the amendment as it is the public who are directly affected by the crimes that are committed, and they have an interest in the matter of punishment – whether it be severe or lenient.

Aside this, we are not told what would happen to the one-third remission which a convict is entitled to on account of good behaviour. Would half the statutory punishment on pleading guilty mean the one-third remission would still apply. If that is the case crime would seem to be a lucrative enterprise; for, take away half the statutory penalty and one-third remission the convict will be back in society to terrorize the public within a short period of time. Should we be surprised that the next move will be the reduction of the number of strokes?

In fact, SUHAKAM is on record recommending “that a committee be set up comprising all stakeholders to examine the issue of plea bargaining. And we will never understand why this recommendation was ignored.

Plea bargaining may be good but an encouragement to plead guilty with a statutory assurance that the penalty will be halved could lead to other problems. Backlog of cases should not be the sole criteria to encourage plea bargaining but we must also see the kind of protection society will have and how the reduction in penalty will help change the criminals away from the life of crimes. Experience had shown that incarceration alone had not in any way helped to reduce the crime rate. Having said that it will be equally true that reduction of penalty can never be the solution for backlog of cases. The crime rate in the country is in the increase, and there will be more cases clogging the Courts.

It is true that the laws on plea bargaining have been implemented in India and Pakistan.

In India plea bargaining does not apply to all types of cases as there are exceptions. The position in Pakistan is also different; for, although the plea bargaining has been given statutory effect there is no provision to bargain over the penalty: it being the Court’s sole privilege. The Malaysian plea bargaining does not provide any exception, the punishment seems to be general and applies to all cases. The time honoured discretion vested in the Courts had been taken away.

Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act 2010 (Act A1387) applies to all cases and it is hard to guess whether any consideration was given to domestic crimes, and ever-growing sexual crimes against children, and the menace by snatch thiefs all of which are on the ascending scale, not forgetting the violent nature of the crimes that are constantly committed.

The amendment to the Criminal Procedure Code also enjoins the court to weigh the feelings of the victims. To what extent this will help to balm the damaged feelings of the victims is hard to predict. The gulf between the damaged life of a victim by a criminal act inflicted upon him or her and requiring the victim to make a statement of impact are two different things. We can only, in an artificial way, describe the differences but in real life it is a difficult exercise; for, how could the Court measure the victim’s feeling, actual feeling, over the crime that had resulted in immense loss and suffering?. Damaged life could be objectively analysed; but feelings are infinitely subjective. And what is the purpose of this statement of impact on the victims? Would the Court give any weight to the feelings of the victims; if so, it is not clear. Besides, when it is already statutorily provided that a mandatory reduction of 50% will be available on pleading guilty, what usefulness could be derived from the statement of impact?

If we accept law is rigorous and justice is mercy then we have a unique situation where an accused person buys off mercy by pleading guilty. Hence how does the feeling of the victim come into play? When law and justice had combined to clear the backlog of cases why ask a victim as to what he or she feels about the punishment? Suppose the victim makes a statement how badly his or her life had been affected and nothing in the world would induce him or her to forgive the accused, would the court take that into account before passing sentence? The Court has no power to enhance the sentence. The amendments do not allow any discretion when the accused had pleaded guilty.

Besides, there are criminal syndicates which profit from criminal activities and who have been luring young men and women to join in their unlawful enterprises, especially drug related offences and illegal bettings which are the common areas where the youths have been recruited to be carriers and bookies respectively. These young men and women fresh from schools, are promised of protection from the law as well as security in the event they are imprisoned. The amendments, if implemented, without looking into these kinds of problems would encourage crime syndicates to recruit more young men and women to participate in criminal activities, which could lead to unimaginable social problems.

	There could also arise situations where the police investigations too would not be up to the mark; but, the accused who may be a victim of circumstances coaxed into pleading guilty with the promise of the sentence being halved. Or well organised crime syndicates would induce those in their pay-roll to plead guilty so that the principals could escape from law and their identity kept as a secret. This means the police would not be thorough in their investigations for they could induce the accused with the statutory reduction of 50 per cent. The temptation is great and the danger so frightening.

Take the case of an overzealous police officer who having arrested a person on suspicion induces him to plead guilty because the sentence would be halved. This may sound unethical and unthinkable but the possibility cannot be ignored.

	Another area which would be the main concern is that by focusing only on the problem of backlog of criminal cases alone we might be ignoring the real danger; for, this may lead to slipshod police investigations, and a licence to overzealous arresting officers to be not diligent in their investigations as they could convince the accused or a suspect, that he could get away with a reduced sentence.

	What the learned Chief Justice and those who are involved in this plea bargaining system should do is seek curative panacea to the backlog of criminal cases, not to devise procedures pregnant with far reaching consequences.

Much was discussed and many suggestions were made at the Forum on the Right to an Expeditious and Fair Rrial held in March 2006 organised by SUHAKAM. Some good ideas that were workable were presented but never considered by the Government or those who are interested in expeditiously concluding cases. It is suggested that SUHAKAM’s recommendations should be considered very seriously.

Backlog of criminal cases may be a sign of inefficiency or lack of commitment yet it is not a crime, but, to encourage the plea of guilty with a promise of half the statutory penalty is indeed a bizarre encouragement to commit crimes. This should be avoided at all costs.

	What would be the position of our Muslim brethren when charged with an offence under Syariah laws? Although a Muslim will be dealt with under the Syariah Laws for any offence so committed yet it would be an anomaly that there could be different sentences in the country, one is religion and the other secular. This also is not helpful to create the feeling of being a proud Malaysian.

Perhaps the learned Chief Justice, the AG’s Chambers, and the Bar Council, would recall the words of wisdom of the late Chief Justice Hashim Yeop Sani in the case of Public Prosecutor v. H. Chamras Tasaso [1975] 1 MLJ 95 at p. 45 which were as follows:

“At the outset let me say this. I would rather live with arrears and backlog of cases, which is I think a lesser evil, than have cases disposed of with such a speed and in such hurried a fashion as would leave in the minds of the ordinary persons a lingering suspicion that something is not right. Justice must not only be done but must manifestly be seen to be done. This case which I have called for revision is a case in point.”

I hope that the learned Chief Justice and his judges would free themselves from the fear of backlog of criminal cases and give due respect to justice. There are many ways to overcome backlog of criminal cases. As it is, judicial time is being wasted in unproductive matters  such as “mention” in civil cases. If the judicial time could be distributed in a more practicable manner, then, criminal cases could be speedily handled. In this context all parties must play their parts effectively. Backlog of cases can never be resolved by mere reduction of punishment. What happens if counsel advises his client, an accused, something like this: “Let us see how the prosecution presents the case. If the evidence is too strong, then, we can start plea bargaining!.” There is nothing in the law to prevent such a development. The time frame affixed for criminal cases for trial in a speedy manner is commendable and in this regard the co-operation from the police is inevitable in furnishing police reports, cautioned statements well in advance and be prepared at the pre-trial conferences. However encouraging to plead guilty alone with a promise of half the statutory penalty is certainly not going to be helpful as it also suggests that crime is a tolerable problem. It would be helpful if children are taught in schools of the evil side of crime from a young age thus help them to develop an attitude against crime.

In the interest of justice and to protect the public from criminal acts that are so rampant now,	 it would be prudent if the amendments are withheld and the public be invited to submit their representations. Backlog of cases are real but the danger posed by crime syndicates are far more serious and could be the threat to society’s aspiration to carry on with its life free from fear of being hurt; and being hurt badly. Let us not make Malaysia the haven for criminals.

                This entry was posted on Friday, 14 January 2011, 4:33 pm and is filed under
Court
,
Law & Order
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Malaysia ranked ‘partly free’

By
Shannon Teoh

The Malaysian Insider

January 15, 2011

KUALA LUMPUR, Jan 15 — Malaysia was ranked ‘partly free’ in terms of political rights and civil liberties with Indonesia the only country in Southeast Asia to be ranked ‘free’ for 2010 in a report released by US-based freedom watchdog Freedom House yesterday.

On a scale of one to seven, with one being the best score, Malaysia obtained a four for both political rights and civil liberties while Indonesia managed a two and three respectively.

Malaysia edged out Singapore (5, 4) in the Freedom of the World 2011 assessment while Burma obtained the worst possible rating of seven for both categories which resulted in the tag of “Worst of the Worst.”

Other countries that scored two fours were Honduras and Nepal while Australia, Belgium, Germany, the US and UK were among those that obtained the best possible score of two ones.

North Korea and Somalia were among eight other countries that joined Burma at the bottom of the rankings.

A ‘partly free’ country is one in which there is limited respect for political rights and civil liberties, said Freedom House in its summary report released early this morning.

“Partly Free states frequently suffer from an environment of corruption, weak rule of law, ethnic and religious strife, and a political landscape in which a single party enjoys dominance despite a certain degree of pluralism,” it said.

The combined average ratings of both political rights and civil liberties determines the overall status with ‘free’ being 1.0 to 2.5, ‘partly free’ between 3.0 to 5.0 and ‘not free’ at 5.5 to 7.0.

The report also aggregates total scores of political rights and civil liberties into a scale of 100 where Malaysia showed a net improvement of between 1 to 4 points since the 2007 report.

The 70-year-old organisation did not release full details of how the 194 countries and 14 territories it assessed performed in its study but said the full report with country assessments will be published in spring this year.

The study, which measured freedom in 2010, also said that global freedom suffered its fifth consecutive year of decline, which is the longest consecutive drop since it first published its report in 1972.

Freedom is defined by the independent watchdog as the opportunity to act spontaneously in a variety of fields outside the control of the government and/or other centres of potential domination.

Freedom House’s website says it was established in New York City by prominent Americans concerned about US isolationism as Nazism threatened to engulf Europe with the encouragement of then US President Franklin D. Roosevelt.

The First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt was its first co-chair when it was created in 1941.

The summary report also stated that Freedom House supports global freedom through comprehensive analysis, vigorous advocacy and concrete assistance for democratic activists around the world.

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 15 January 2011, 12:15 pm and is filed under
Human Rights
,
Politics
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Utusan suspends senior reporter pending inquiry

By
Shazwan Mustafa Kamal and Melissa Chi

The Malaysian Insider

KUALA LUMPUR, Jan 15 — Utusan Malaysia has gone ahead and suspended senior reporter Hata Wahari pending an inquiry for being highly critical of the Umno-owned daily’s opinion pieces.

It is understood that the suspension will officially take effect this coming Monday, January 17 which is the first day of the domestic inquiry.

“After taking into consideration the seriousness of misconduct allegations against you, the company has decided to suspend your service effective January 17, 2011 until the domestic inquiry on your actions has been completed,” said Utusan’s suspension letter addressed to Hata.

The letter, which was sent to Hata on January 11, stated that the senior reporter would be denied entry into any Utusan office throughout the course of the inquiry, and needed to seek permission from the company management if he wanted to enter the office.

“During the period of your suspension, you are required to be in a place where the company management can contact you, and you are not allowed to leave your neighbourhood,” said the letter.

Hata, who is also president of the National Union of Journalists Malaysia (NUJ) has been attacked by his own company for issuing statements to news portals The Malaysian Insider, Malaysiakini, Merdeka Review, and The Sun newspaper between September 21 and October 14 last year.

In an immediate response, NUJ secretary-general V. Anbalagan said that it was “normal procedure” for employers to suspend their staff pending a public inquiry.

He said however that the union will adopt a “one step at a time” approach first before taking any further action.

“Despite appeals from international organisations such as the The International Federation of Journalists (IFJ) and local NGOs, Utusan Malaysia was adamant in having a domestic inquiry…so we will see how it goes,” Anbalagan told The Malaysian Insider.

The IFJ has joined a growing chorus here demanding Utusan  call off its inquiry on Hata. The NUJ president had recently caused a stir when he urged the authorities to act against Utusan’s editors for stoking racial sentiments in its reports.

Hata also blamed the drop in the national daily’s sales on the editors for pushing what he called racial rhetoric.

IFJ director Jacqueline Park told Utusan last week that Hata was bound to uphold the global reporting body’s code of ethics as union chief.

“No journalist can be disciplined in any way for asserting his or her rights to act according to their conscience,” she had said.

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 15 January 2011, 6:08 pm and is filed under
Media
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


NUJ President Hata Wahari first victim of the hypocrisy of Najib’s 1Malaysia slogan in Malaysian media

National Union of Journalists (NUJ) President Hata Wahari is set to be the first victim of the hypocrisy of Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak’s 1Malaysia slogan in the Malaysian media.

What is Hata’s crime?

For taking seriously Najib’s 1Malaysia slogan of building a Malaysian nation premised on the concepts of unity in diversity in multi-ethnic, multi-lingual, multi-religious and multi-cultural Malaysia, inclusiveness, social justice and values including the  culture of excellence, integrity, wisdom and humility!

It was in this 1Malaysia spirit that Hata, shortly after being elected NUJ President last September, called on “all mainstream journalists, especially of Utusan Malaysia, New Straits Times, Berita Harian and The Star to return to their true function as deliverers of objective information to the public, and not as tools of propaganda for the government, or any political party or individual, for their personal gain.”

Hata also noted that the drop in print media circulation figures also clearly proved that the people were “far too disgusted with what is served up by the newspapers, which not only fail to develop the mind, but are full of horrible propaganda”.

Hata’s call as NUJ President was fully in keeping with Najib’s 1Malaysia concept.

The 1Malaysia Government Transformation Programme Roadmap launched by Najib in January last year identified “Promoting an all-inclusive 1Malaysia media” as one of the seven target groups to give meaning and life to the 1Malaysia concept. It admitted:

“However, when some of the reporting and writing becomes too ethno-centric or even takes on a more race-centred angle, it raises, rather than breaks down, barriers.  Further, instead of providing constructive and valid criticism, some writers abuse the greater freedom of expression now available to use terms and express feelings that are racist or inflammatory in nature and tone.

“While censorship is antithetical to democracy, there is a need to introduce, instill and internalize a commitment to journalistic professionalism, a sense of responsibility and self-restraint, with sensitivity to the divergent views and feelings of the diverse communities in Malaysia.”

In the 18 months of Najib’s premiership, Utusan Malaysia had been the worst culprit among the Malaysia media  most guilty of these anti-1Malaysia sins  – “instead of providing constructive and valid criticism…abuse the greater freedom of expression now available to use terms and express feelings that are racist or inflammatory in nature and tone”  with its daily staple of lies and falsehoods to stoke racial and religious illwill, tension and hatred directed against Pakatan Rakyat leaders.

When Hata made his call as NUJ President to the mainstream media “to return to their true function as deliverers of objective information to the public”, he was doing what Najib’s 1Malaysia had preached – a reminder to “journalistic professionalism, a sense of responsibility and self-restraint with sensitivity to the divergent views and feelings of the diverse communities in Malaysia”.

Although he is a Utusan Malaysia journalist, how can Hata be penalized by Utusan Malaysia for what he said as NUJ President  – and fully in line with Najib’s 1Malaysia concept of promoting an all-inclusive 1Malaysia media?

What makes the whole disciplinary proceeding against Hata so outrageous is that Utusan Malaysia is the official newspaper of Umno.

Is Najib facing a revolt in Umno, especially in Utusan Malaysia, against his 1Malaysia slogan – or is this another example of the hollowness and hypocrisy of Najib’s 1Malaysia concept: of Najib preaching 1Malaysia flooding the country with the 1Malaysia logo while his subordinates, whether in government or UMNO do the exact opposite?

The Government has spent tens of millions of ringgit on initiatives like setting up labs to brainstorm the  “1Malaysia. People First. Performance Now” concept.

Would  the Ministers directly responsible for  implementing the “1Malaysia. People First. Performance Now” concept, Tan Sri Dr.Koh Tsu Koon and Datuk Seri Idris Jala, intervene to ensure that Hata would not become the first victim of the 1Malaysia slogan?

Will any Cabinet Minister dare to raise this travesty of the 1Malaysia slogan, violation of press freedom and infringement of trade union rights in Cabinet next Wednesday?

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 16 January 2011, 5:02 pm and is filed under
1Malaysia
,
Media
,
Najib Razak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


The insidious pattern

Breaking Views

The Malaysian Insider

January 16, 2011

Since Election 2008, the racial and religious mercury has appeared to rise in Malaysia.

Little incidents of friction have sprouted here and there, testing inter-community ties and blotting the Malayan, and later, the Malaysian dream of Tunku Abdul Rahman and the Merdeka generation.

Fact is, there is an insidious pattern all over Malaysia, especially in states held by Pakatan Rakyat (PR), where little slights have exploded into full-blown crises that appear to require the deft touch of senior politicians to maintain calm and cool-headed thinking.

Name the issue, from Lim Guan Eng’s name in a prayer, relocation of temples, destruction of suraus and, the latest, where a surau allegedly had its speakers turned down after a complaint from an MCA man.

Many of these things were brought up, broadcasted, twisted and turned to major issues when the solutions could have been found within the communities themselves.

What is certain is that most are linked to either Umno or their allies, who manufacture racial or religious slights and then go on about how Malays/Muslims’ interests cannot be protected by PR.

In doing so, these protagonists have no care about worsening racial relations in the country. That most communities have lived through thick and thin but now face tests to their community spirit to resolve issues rather than make it a cause.

The ends justify the means. They just want to regain control of the states which fell to PR. That appears to be the aim from Day One. Create an incident. Then appear to be the salvation. That only one party can be the balm and boon for the country.

It is up to Malaysians to decide if these despicable and desperate tactics are acceptable. If these are not acceptable, then the message must be sent at the ballot box.

This country needs to move forward and not be afflicted by such issues that are blown out of proportions. Or by people or groups who have vested interests to keep Malaysia in a perpetual state of crisis.

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 16 January 2011, 3:08 pm and is filed under
nation building
,
Pakatan Rakyat
,
UMNO
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Be realistic, Kit Siang tells Pakatan supporters

By
Kuek Ser Kuang Keng
 | MalaysiaKini

Pakatan Rakyat supporters were told to be realistic in their target for Tenang, which is to reduce BN’s majority instead of winning the by-election.

“We need to be realistic. It is not easy to win this by-election,” said DAP leader Lim Kit Siang at PAS’ candidacy announcement ceremony last night in Labis.

“If we could reduce the over-2,400 majority of Umno and BN in the 2008 general election, it would be a victory for the people and Pakatan Rakyat, paving the way for the next general election.”

He pointed out that should the BN majority be reduced, it would mean the political tsunami in 2008 that spared Johor had hit the southern state and Johor is no longer a BN ‘fixed deposit’.

BN retained the state seat in the last general election with a 2,492 majority.

Lim (left) also slammed the recent statement by Prime Minister and BN chairperson Najib Abdul Razak, that he would veto potential candidates of BN component parties to ensure only winnable candidates stood for BN in the next election.

“Since when has there been a veto power? All the candidates were decided by component parties. Since when has the veto power been in the hands of the BN chairperson?

“If the component parties are not happy with Umno’s candidate, can they have veto power? This shows Umno hegemony is getting more serious. This is not 1Malaysia, this is against 1Malaysia.”

He stressed that Umno has not undergone a radical change since the last general election, and the only way to change the ruling party is through the ballot box.

“To change Umno, you need to have a Pakatan Johor state and change the government of Putrajaya,” said Lim told the excited crowd of 1,000.

Struggling for common objectives

PAS president Abdul Hadi Awang, who was recently embroiled in the controversial Christmas Eve dinner between PAS and Umno leaders, reiterated that the party will remain an ally of DAP and PKR.

“We work with DAP because DAP is a party for poor people. It is easier to work with poor people, because PAS is also a poor party,” he quipped, sending the audience into guffaws.

“We work with PKR because PKR is a party for oppressed and victimised people.”

Hadi (left) said the the three parties are struggling for common objectives and to celebrate the differences among them such as religion, language and culture.

At a press conference later, he commented that the creation of an Islamic state (should Pakatan form the federal government) is a non-issue.

“This issue does not arise because we have held two (Pakatan) conventions (and resolved the differences in views). What is important is not the name of the state but what is implemented. We emphasise on our common point which is the concept of the welfare nation. All religions support welfare.

“If MCA wants to raise it (Islamic state), it shows they are bankrupt of ideas,” he said.

According to Lim, MCA had started their campaign in the constituency by accusing DAP of supporting PAS’ agenda to establish an Islamic state.

                This entry was posted on Monday, 17 January 2011, 2:57 pm and is filed under
Election
,
Pakatan Rakyat
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.