Joko Widodo Sworn In as Indonesia’s President and Faces These 5 Challenges

Hannah Beech

TIME

Oct. 19, 2014

The ‘Jokowi Effect’ Could Be the Most Important Thing in Indonesia’s Elections

On Oct. 20, Indonesia inaugurates its first President truly of the people. Joko Widodo, known commonly as Jokowi, is unique in Indonesian presidential history because he comes from neither a politically elite nor a military background. Raised in a riverside slum, Jokowi ran a furniture-exporting business in the heartland city of Solo before he successfully ran for his hometown’s mayor in 2005. Two years ago, he was elected governor of Indonesia’s chaotic capital, Jakarta. Although he prevailed in the July presidential election against old-guard candidate Prabowo Subianto — a former general once married to the daughter of Indonesian dictator Suharto — Jokowi, 53, faces numerous challenges as he helms the world’s third largest democracy:

Political Gridlock:
Jokowi may have claimed the presidency, but parliament favors Prabowo’s Red and White Coalition, which last month controversially blocked the direct election of governors, mayors and district chiefs. Instead of a popular vote, local legislatures will pick these leaders, preventing the rise of figures outside the political establishment, like Jokowi. Democracy advocates are strategizing how to roll back what some criticize as a legislative coup.

Economic Slowdown:
 With the commodity boom waning, Indonesia’s recent 6% annual growth looks harder to maintain. Jokowi promises 7% growth by 2018 by moving Indonesia up the value chain, improving logistics and positioning the world’s largest archipelago nation as a global transport hub. But will the populist President resort to the kind of resource nationalism that will spook foreign investors?

Religious Extremism:
 Indonesia hasn’t suffered a major terrorist strike since 2009 when a pair of luxury Jakarta hotels were targeted by suicide bombers. But it only takes one attack to shatter the sense that Indonesia has tamed a band of radicals who are trying to hijack the moderate, syncretic Islam that has long flourished in the world’s most populous majority-Muslim nation.

Dirty Bureaucracy:
Jokowi won votes because of his pristine image and his anti-corruption campaign in Solo and Jakarta. He boasts of having cleaned up the once graft-ridden process by which government permits and licenses were granted. And he helped expand government coffers by enhancing tax collection. Can Jokowi promote transparency in a country notorious for corruption and bureaucratic inefficiency at every level of government?

Ethnic Relations:
While mayor of Solo and governor of Jakarta, Jokowi picked deputies who happened to be Christian. In Jakarta, his No. 2 was also Chinese, an ethnicity that has suffered from race rioting. Although the sprawling island nation has maintained remarkable harmony given the diversity of its inhabitants, human-rights groups worry about a recent uptick in ethnic and religious intolerance.

                This entry was posted on Friday, 24 October 2014, 11:23 pm and is filed under
International
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


The thinking Malay is dangerous

Mariam Mokhtar| October 24, 2014

Free Malaysia Today

The ulamas, like the political leaders, are obsessed with power and want Muslims to be at their mercy.

The most dangerous threat to the Malaysian government is not an invading army, a contagious disease, or a nuclear threat. It is the thinking Malay.

When young pharmacist Syed Azmi Alhabshi decided to organise the “I Want to Touch a Dog” event at Bandar Utama on October 19, he didn’t expect such a huge response. More than 1,000 people –Muslims and non-Muslims – turned up.

Whilst man and beast were having lots of fun, in other parts of the country temperatures were raised. Syed Azmi was perceived as a threat.

Syed Azmi may have united Malaysians but he was alienating some conservative Muslims in Malaysia. His innocent “dog touching event” is a defining moment in 21st Century Malaysian history.

The Internet was awash with photos of tudung-clad girls smiling with their favourite dogs, Malay toddlers chasing German Shepherds, elderly Muslim couples stroking contented looking Labradors and Malay teenagers playing with Cocker Spaniels.

Malays and non-Malays were getting to know one another, through another of God’s creatures. The people learnt to bond – not just dog with humans, but Muslims and non-Muslims.

Any Malaysian, including the political leaders, should have been pleased to see harmony in action. People forgot their inhibitions. They did not see themselves as people of different faiths or races. They got on with one another, with help from the dogs.

Society’s party pooper, Jakim, waded in to spoil all the fun. Its director-general, Othman Mustapha, was furious, and said that the programme should not have taken place to begin with. He barked that Jakim would investigate the matter immediately.

He was followed by a Kelantan ulama who cried “Repent. Repent. Repent.” Other conservative Muslims claimed that the ulamas were being insulted. If anyone needs their heads examined, it is these people.

This is not a political issue; so why were the ulamas angry? They were furious because they saw their power being eroded. The 3Rs – race, religion and royalty – keep us in check, and safely divided.

For years, Muslims have been told what to do by the ulamas. The political leaders, together with their cronies and religious authorities carve up Malaysia for themselves.

One political cynic said, “To keep them in power, the leaders manipulate laws. To control dissent, they bully us with draconian laws. We are threatened with sedition. We are told that women leaders will lead us to hell. We are told that God approves of the GST. We are told that voting for Umno-Baru is a one-way ticket to heaven. The sad thing is that many Malays believe this.”

His colleague said, “After last Sunday’s dog touching event, more Malays are finally seeing the light. The Malay mind is being freed from its mental slavery. That explains why the authorities and the conservative ulamas are working at breakneck speed to find Syed Azmi guilty, but he has done nothing wrong.”

Fear of being irrelevant

Syed Azmi only wanted Malaysians to be compassionate towards animals and overcome their fear of dogs. He was not insulting the ulamas. The ulamas did not even bother to ask him why he organised the event.

The ulamas and conservative Muslims see their power base eroding. They are afraid that they will no longer be of relevance in a modern world which does not believe in the 3Rs.

Many Muslims nationwide observed the event on the Internet and saw no issue with dog touching. The ulamas are afraid that the thinking Malay will start to ask questions about their other edicts, handed down, in the past, to control Muslim behaviour.

The ulamas, like the political leaders, are obsessed with power. The rakyat is at their mercy. However, a thinking Malay can see past their warped thinking.

Touching dogs is not going to lead to touching pigs or eating non-halal food. It will not lead to free sex. It is the ulamas and their obsession with sex which makes the thinking Malay question why the ulama are stupid and shallow. The ulamas use sex as a crowd puller.

The ulamas must realise that in Saudi Arabia, the Bedouin tribesmen hunt with dogs (the Salukis), as in Afghanistan (the Afghan hounds). Dogs are used in search and rescue, for drug detection, hunting, and to assist the blind, the deaf and those with epilepsy. The dog is man’s best friend.

The thinking Malays wonder why things like chocolates, dogs, the word “Allah” and beer take prominence in the national debate. They wonder why the ulamas keep silent about the rising cost of living, petrol price hikes, the collapsing infrastructure, corruption, the abuse of power by the leaders, incest, drug taking by Malays and the high crime rate.

Today, the ulamas are against us touching dogs. Knowing how their minds work, it won’t be long before Muslims will be banned from eating hot-dogs, and using English idioms like “dog in the manger” or complaining that a book is “dog eared”, or that Malaysia has “gone to the dogs”.

Mariam Mokhtar is an FMT columnist

                This entry was posted on Friday, 24 October 2014, 4:53 pm and is filed under
Mariam Mokhtar
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Will IGP Khalid now support IPCMC with police given right to appeal against conviction?

Eyebrows of all Malaysians would have been raised when they heard the Inspector-General of Police, Tan Sri Khalid Abu Bakar claiming yesterday that the police had never objected to the establishment of the Independent Police Complaints and Misconduct  Commission (IPCMC), the key recommendation of the Dzaiddin Police Royal Commission of Inquiry a decade ago.

Khalid should not think that Malaysians have short memories as to forget that it was the vehement and even ferocious opposition of the police leadership, even at one time threatening a police revolt, together with opportunistic UMNO leaders at the time, who was responsible for the killing of the IPCMC proposal, which speeded up the downfall of the then Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi who could not walk his talk of police reforms.

Khalid now says that the IPCMC proposal treated the police  like “second-class citizens” with no avenue for justice, as there was no right to appeal any conviction.

Is Khalid now saying that the police will support the IPCMC proposal if  police is  given  the right to appeal against any conviction?

Malaysians fully agree that the police are entitled to fairness and justice and should have the right of appeal against any conviction under the IPCMC bill.

Is Khalid prepared to take the initiative to propose to the Home Minister, the Prime Minister and the Cabinet that the IPCMC Bill, giving the police the right to appeal against conviction, should be presented to Parliament for passage especially as this is the only way to restore public confidence in the integrity and professionalism  of the police and to eradicate police abuses and corruption.

This is urgent and imperative for three  reasons:

1.	One of the  main objectives of IPCMC was to end deaths in police custody but police custodial deaths have not  ended and have continued to be a national scandal despite the three-year operation  of Enforcement Agency Integrity Commission (EAIC).

2.	The establishment of a special committee headed by the Inspector-General of Police in June last year has  also failed to  curb police custodial deaths.

3.	The Court of Appeal in the 	A. Kugan case in August called  for “zero tolerance” for plolice  custodial deaths and recommended  that independent  public inquiries be held for all such cases.

The Court of Appeal in the A.Kugan case also censured Khalid, who was the Selangor police chief at the time, for acting both as “judge and jury” and committing “an affront to fair play and transparency” when he negotiated with the Attorney-General for investigations into police officers and men in their probe into the death of Kugan to be confined to Section 330 of the Penal Code for voluntarily causing hurt.

This is what Justice David Wong Dak Wah said in his 51-page  Court of Appeal judgement:

 “What appears to have happened was that the police had become the judge and jury of a complaint made against their behaviour in relation to the death-in-custody case.

“This conduct, with respect, misses the point completely and that is the police force at that point in time was ‘on trial’ and to allow the police to determine what ought to be done was simply asking the wrongdoers to do their own investigations and determine the appropriate actions.

“Common sense militates against such a course of action.”

With the No. 1 Police Officer  censured by the Court of Appeal for flouting the basic principles of “fair play and transparency” when the police force itself is “on trial”, with the IGP incapable of pleading any extenuating or mitigating circumstances,  is it any wonder there is little public trust or confidence that the police will be able to police itself against police abuses and corruption – why the  IPCMC should be established although a decade after it was recommended by the Dzaiddin RCI?

                This entry was posted on Friday, 24 October 2014, 2:43 pm and is filed under
Police
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Joko Widodo says the time has come to “work, work and work”

Oct 25th 2014 | JAKARTA

Economist

Indonesia’s new president – Taking the reins

EVERYONE loves a politician with a common touch—except that politician’s security detail. After Joko Widodo, or Jokowi, was inaugurated as Indonesia’s seventh president, he and his vice-president, Jusuf Kalla, rode through central Jakarta to the presidential palace in an open horse-drawn carriage, their wives following along behind. Tens of thousands of well-wishers lined the path, banners saluting “the people’s president”. As ever, he reached out to them. Only the security men in black suits failed to look elated.

More hard-bitten observers did not share the crowd’s optimism. They set the simple, almost innocent demeanour of this grass-roots politician against the ruthlessness of the old guard he beat. It is determined to fight hard to preserve its wealth and privilege—and parties sympathetic to his opponent in the presidential election, Prabowo Subianto, control the legislature. Such observers are writing Jokowi off as a decent man but a political naif.

Yet the demeanour masks canny political instincts. Since Jokowi’s victory in July, Mr Prabowo has attempted to frustrate him at every turn, starting by claiming spuriously that the election had been stolen. Leading up to the inauguration, Mr Prabowo, a former son-in-law of Suharto, the late dictator, along with Aburizal Bakrie, a tycoon who heads Suharto’s former party, threatened to boycott the ceremony. But Jowoki ran rings around them by making them look petty. They attended the inauguration after all, and when Jokowi mentioned Mr Prabowo by name, the former special-forces general snapped to attention and saluted his new commander-in-chief. The battles with the old guard are only beginning. But Jokowi intends to appeal to ordinary Indonesians if the parliament obstructs attempts to transform both the country’s corrupt, grasping politics and the lives of ordinary Indonesians. A common touch can pack a punch.

Jokowi promises to “move together to work, work and work.” He wants to offer free health care and 12 years of schooling to every Indonesian. More tourism across the archipelago can generate jobs. He says ports are in urgent need of improvement. And he thinks a little investment directed at 20m Indonesians dependent on small-scale fisheries would go a long way. Above all, he must cut the fuel subsidies that consume a fifth of the budget, redirecting the savings to education and the like. Falling oil prices give him the opportunity.

But first he needs a cabinet, and despite repeated assurances that one was imminent, as The Economist went to press its line-up had yet to be announced. Partly, the delay was because in the Javanese political way, nothing is brisk—even Suharto took forever over his cabinets. Partly, the new president has been trying to chop and change an unwieldy number of ministries: some want a new ministry for maritime affairs and port works, for instance.

But mainly, Jokowi has to balance a desire for a technocratic government in key areas such as finance and resources with the many demands for seats coming from his Indonesian Party of Democratic Struggle, the PDI-P. Its matriarch is Megawati Sukarnoputri, daughter of Indonesia’s founder, and room will presumably be found for her daughter. Not all potential cabinet appointees are placemen or hacks. But the names of several have been cause for concern when brought to the anti-corruption commission, charged with vetting a new cabinet—another source of delay.

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 25 October 2014, 7:00 am and is filed under
International
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


‘Pendatang’ and other manufactured crises

By Azly Rahman

Malaysiakini

Oct 24, 2014

Again, this question of migration has bored  us to the point of death and dying and Sartrean nausea (see Jean Paul Sartre’s play La Nausee on the meaninglessness of concepts). Aren’t we all here in this land now, whether you like it or not?  We just need to be good thinking and moral citizens and uphold the ideals of the constitution and live by the spirit of it. We don’t need to keep on manufacturing crises to sustain conflicts and produce new ones.

Why fight over whose grandpa or grandma was here first? Who knows what these interpretations of the history of migration should mean, but what is clear is one’s legal status and citizenship and what all of us have contributed and will contribute to the betterment of each other if not for this ‘imagined community’ and ‘nation-state’ of Malaysia.

I fear that these arguments about ‘pendatang’ will turn into us calling each other ‘binatang’, ‘menatang’, and ‘menate’ (as in Kelantan dialect). Not good for human progress.

Each citizen, lawful citizen, must be given the equal rights and privileges as Malaysian citizens, whether they have been a citizen yesterday or 10,000 days ago. There should be no discrimination in educational opportunity, welfare services, housing, or anything – these must come with the reward for loyalty. I hope we have read Rousseau’s idea of social contract, or at least understand how airlines give free miles as rewards.

So, let us quit arguing and move on. To those still producing these over-used and abused arguments, as if there are no intelligent things to argue about, I must say this: You are all wrong in framing your argument and asking the right questions.

Race and ethnicity are mere constructs, produced by arrogant theorists whose sources are arrogant knowledge crafted into arrogant theories. They cannot be taken as real and to be a reason to fight over them.

In the end, we are all of the same race – the human race being made to race in the Sepang Formula 1 racetrack like over-glorified Mat and Minah Rempit with the capitalists laughing their way to the Swiss and Singaporean banks while we all argue about ‘pendatang’ and ‘menatang’  till death rip us all apart.

These elusive concepts

I wrote these sometime ago when proposing a new and inclusive idea of ‘bumiputraism’.

“What is a Malay? What is a Malaysian? What is a nationalist? What is a ‘nation’? How are we becoming ‘re-tribalised’ in this world of increasing restlessness over a range of issues that are not being resolved by the current regime. These are burning questions as we become more mature in discussing race relations in Malaysia – almost 40 years after the May 13, 1969 incident.

Ernest Renan, Anthony Smith, Benedict Anderson, Harry Benda, and John Funston – major scholars of nationalism – would agree that Umno does not have an ideology except to sustain its elusive political superiority via the production of post-industrial materials and human beings.

Even the words ‘National Front’ (Barisan Nasional) is elusive. It is surviving as long as means to cling on to power – by all means necessary – becomes more efficient and sophisticated.

Its survival lies in the way people are divided, conquered, and mutated into ‘post-industrial tribes’; market-segmented-differentiatedly-sophisticated enclaves that are produced out of the need for the free market economy to transform Malays and Malaysians into consumers of useless goods and ideology.

Post-industrial tribalism is a natural social reproduction of the power of the media to shape consciousness, and to create newer forms of consumerist human beings. Nationalism, including Malay nationalism of the Mahathirist era, is an artificial construct that needs the power of ‘othering’ and ‘production of enemies’ and ‘bogeymen and bogeywomen’ for ideological sustainability.

Our manufactured crises ad nauseum

‘Dog-touching controversy’, ‘Oktoberfest brouhaha’, ‘Endless ‘pendatang’/immigrants shout-outs and hollering on who is here first’, and whether a pregnant artiste should televise her delivery – all these are what producers of crises are feeding to the nation, stories borne out of the editing rooms of the Fifth Estate; fed especially to the already colonised minds of the Malays who love clichés, ‘pastiches’, trivia, and all kinds of mind-bending, issue-avoiding artifacts of hegemony and indoctrination.

The real big issues.. the fiasco of the 1Malaysia Development Board (1MDB), the massive financial losses the country is facing, the goods and services tax (GST) fiasco, raising oil prices locally whist global prices drop, the Sedition Act arrests, the slimy and sleek story of the rise of power of family-feuding political dynasties, the coming Sodomy II appeal, and most importantly the quiet and death-to-the nation-decision of the signing of the Obama-Imperialist Agenda of Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA) when the nation’s outrage has tapered down to dead silence and oblivion .

These are the inner-workings of a nation without memory, without critical sensibility, and without the will to become a moral polity – all of these cast aside in favour of shame and arrogance worn with pride as traditional headgear by leaders who think that it is their birthright to plunder and plunder and manipulate the minds of those made happily gullible with the little bread and circuses offered… as if the plan is to  let the masses argue about little things using race and religion as weapons of mass destruction and to  let the dogs out and the cats claw on each other while the rats race up and down Bukit Bintang Walk and while leaders steal the biggest pie and share the loot amongst their clansmen.

This is what this country has willingly relegated itself to.

What then must each one of us Malaysians do?  Come together and work things out please.

DR AZLY RAHMAN, born in Singapore and grew up in Johor Baru, holds a Columbia University (New York City) doctorate in International Education Development and Masters degrees in four areas: Education, International Affairs, Peace Studies and Communication. He has taught more than 40 courses in six different departments and has written more than 350 analyses on Malaysia. His teaching experience in Malaysia and the United States spans over a wide range of subjects, from elementary to graduate education. He has edited and authored six books; Multiethnic Malaysia: Past, Present, Future (2009), Thesis on Cyberjaya: Hegemony and Utopianism in a Southeast Asian State (2012), The Allah Controversy and Other Essays on Malaysian Hypermodernity (2013), a first Malay publication Kalimah Allah Milik Siapa?: Renungan dan Nukilan Tentang Malaysia di Era Pancaroba (2014), and Controlled Chaos: Essays on Mahathirism, Multimedia Super Corridor and Malaysia’s ‘New Politics’ (forthcoming 2014). He currently resides in the United States where he teaches courses in Philosophy, Cultural Studies, Political Science, and American Studies.

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 25 October 2014, 6:51 am and is filed under
Azly Rahman
,
nation building
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


The day-and-night difference in anti-corruption efforts between Malaysia and Indonesia

The past month has continued to provide mounting evidence of the day-and-night difference in anti-corruption efforts between Malaysia and Indonesia, which should raise the red flag that it is a matter of time before Malaysia will be regarded internationally as lagging behind Indonesia in fighting corruption.

This is best illustrated by the contrasting headlines on anti-corruption in the two countries in the past month.

For instance, one of the most electrifying news on the anti-corruption front in Malaysia was the headline last month: “8 officers face 28 fresh charges in Customs bribery case” but this paled into insignificance when compared with the following headline on the fight against corruption in Indonesia a week earlier: “Ex-leader of Indonesia’s ruling party gets 8 years in jail for corruption, money laundering”

But what gives the feeling of the night-and-day difference in anti-corruption efforts between the two countries are the headlines in Indonesian newspapers on Wednesday like “Jokowi to replace eight prospective ministerial candidates following KPK`s recommendation”, following the KPK (Corruption Eradication Commission)’s recommendation that the eight prospective Cabinet Ministers are “high risk” of being named graft suspects, and those yesterday like “Indonesia president submits new cabinet list” to KPK and “Eight new ministerial candidates still under KPK consideration: Jokowi”.

The gloom felt by Malaysians at the puny anti-corruption efforts are not relieved when they are inundated with disastrous, ambivalent or downright inane news headlines like “Malaysia one of the most corrupt nations, survey shows” (Sept. 27), “No plan to boost law to probe into ‘high-living’ civil servants” (Oct.8) and “Top cop looks to ordinary Malaysians to keep police in check” (Oct. 23).

Can the Prime Minister or even the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) explain why Malaysia is losing out so badly to Indonesia in anti-corruption efforts and results, with not a single “big fish” landed in Malaysia so far whether under the present Prime Minister or the two previous Prime Ministers, covering 33 years since 1981 when the catching, prosecution and jailing of “big fishes” have become quite commonplace in Indonesia?

This deplorable trend in the anti-corruption efforts of Malaysia and Indonesia is well documented by the annual Transparency International (TI) Corruption Perception Index (CPI) since 1995.

In the first TI CPI in 1995, Malaysia was ranked No. 23 out of 41 countries with a middling CPI score of 5.28.

Nineteen years later, after numerous anti-corruption campaigns, two major anti-corruption legislation, the “elevation” of the former Anti-Corruption Agency (ACA) into Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC), the National Integrity Plan, the 1Malaysia Government Transformation Programme with massive infusion of public funds and increase of staffing, Malaysia has now fallen in the TI CPI 2013 to No. 53 out of 177 countries, with CPI score of 50/100 – a ranking lower than ever recorded under the two previous Prime Ministers, Tun Mahathir and Tun Abdullah.

In comparison, Indonesia was ranked at the very bottom of No. 41 in 1995 with CPI score of 1.94. Now Indonesia is ranked No. 114 with a progressive rise CPI score to 32/100 in 2013.

At the annual average rate of Indonesia’s improvement on TI CPI ranking and score in the past five years, with Malaysia struggling to remain in the middling CPI score, Malaysia will be left behind by Indonesia in less than a decade, even well before 2020.

Is there a strategy by Najib and MACC to avert this disaster?

(Media Statement in Kuala Lumpur on Saturday, October 25, 2014)

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 25 October 2014, 11:06 am and is filed under
Corruption
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Challenge to make Sabah a model of corruption-free administration  instead of topping the list among the most corrupt administrations in Malaysia

Recently, anti-corruption is  in the news.

Earlier this week, it was reported that the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) had finally acted against illegal logging activity in Sarawak, with the arrest of a senior police officer who is head of a police district headquarters in the State and believed to have received RM16,000 in bribes.

MACC has estimated some RM100 million are lost as a result of illegal logging activity in Sarawak, which is a puny figure  compared to the  tens of billions of ringgit garnered by corruption every year.

Last month, eight customs officers were charged in Kuala Lumpur with 28 separate counts of receiving bribery involving a total sum of RM34,400 at the Kuala Lumpur Sessions Court.

These anti-corruption actions made quite a splash in the local media simply because there had been so little real anti-corruption news as distinct from propaganda to report for the past few years, even thought  those arrested recently  belong to the ‘flies” category in China’s anti-corruption campaign against “tigers and flies”.

Malaysians are entitled to ask many questions about the poor record of anti-corruption efforts, which is reflected by Malaysia’s dismal Transparency International Corruption Perception Index every year, and the first question is:  Why the MACC is catching “flies”, where are the “tigers”? Or to use Malaysian lingo, where are the “sharks”, as the MACC and its predecessor the Anti-Corruption Agency (ACA) had not been able to send a single “shark” behind bars for the past 33 years under three Prime Ministers – Najib, Abdullah and Mahathir – when both jails in Indonesia and China are full of “shark” or “tigers and flies”!

Indonesia recently made world headlines about its seriousness and commitment to fight corruption when its new President, Joko Widowo tasked Indonesia’s anti-graft agency, the Corruption Eradication Commission  KPK) with the assignment of assessing and clearing candidates for his Cabinet.

Jokowo, who was inaugurated President on Monday (Oct. 20), dropped eight of his candidates for the Cabinet after the KPK objected to their appointment. Jokowo has submitted new names to KPK  to replace the eight as he wants good and clean Ministers who can pass the screening by the Corruption Eradication Commission.

Will the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak, follow Jokowi’s example and submit new Cabinet appointments to the MACC for clearance and drop those who fail to secure  the MACC clearance?

Up to now, all that is required in Malaysia is for the Cabinet Ministers to submit declaration of assets to  the Prime Minister – which is totally unsatisfactory and unacceptable in a new era of good governance whether in Malaysia or the world.

The second question Malaysians, and in particular Sabahans, are entitled to know is why the MACC is so quiet, inactive and impotent in Sabah, when Sabah tops the country as an administration which has one of the worst corruption problems.

I want to issue a challenge to the MACC, the Prime Minister and the Sabah Chief Minister whether they are prepared to make Sabah a model of corruption-free administration  instead of topping the list of  among the most corrupt administrations in Malaysia.

Can the MACC explain why it is so quiet, inactive, impotent and lacking in results in the    battle against corruption in Sabah?

(Speech at “Solidarity with Junz Wong” dinner organised by Sabah DAP in Kota Kinabalu on Saturday, 25th Oct. 2014)

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 26 October 2014, 12:53 pm and is filed under
Corruption
,
Sabah
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Is Najib so cruel, callous and heartless as to want Anwar to be jailed for 20 years and not released until he is an octogenarian?

I find it shocking, unbelievable and outrageous that the Attorney-General is counter-appealing against Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim’s five-year jail sentence in the Sodomy II case when the Federal Court sits on Tuesday and Wednesday to hear Anwar’s appeal against his Court of Appeal conviction and sentence on March 7.

It has been reported that the prosecution has counter-appealed and wants Anwar to be jailed for more than five years contending that the Court of Appeal’s five-year jail sentence is “manifestly inadequate”, “does not reflect the gravity of the offence” and “fails to serve the ends of justice from the perspective of public interest”.

There are forces among those in power who want to get rid of the Opposition, by “hook or by crook”, but I want to ask the Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak whether he is so cruel, callous and heartless as to want Anwar to be jailed for 20 years and not released until he is an octogenarian?

Is this in conformity with Najib’s preaching of wasatiyyah or moderation with its emphasis on the principles of justice, balance and excellence?

Here we see another glaring difference in the political ethos and culture between Malaysia and Indonesia.

In Indonesia, it is become commonplace for the movers and shakers of the political elite, including Ministers, to be convicted and  sent behind bars –  not for the most far-fetched of offences, but for clear and specific violations of the law such as corrupt practices, like:

*the former Youth and Sports Minister Andi Mallarangeng  sentenced to four years in jail in July for receiving Rp 4 billion ($330,000) and $550,000 in bribes connected to the construction of the Hambalang sports training centre in West Java and his appeal was rejected a few days ago;

*in early September, the former Energy and Mining Minister Jero Wacik named as a suspect in an alleged extortion case to raise nearly Rp 10 billion ($585,000) for his ministerial operational fund;

*and in late September, the former chairman of President Susilo Bambang Sudhoyono’s Democratic Party, Anas Urbaningrum sentenced by the Corruption Court to eight years in jail, fined Rp 300 million (US$25,200) demanded restitution payments of Rp 57.5 billion and $5.2 million.after finding him guilty of corruption and money laundering.

KPK (Indonesia’s Corruption Eradication Commission) had challenged and appealed against the eight-year jail sentence for Anas as being too lenient.

Malaysians and Indonesians can understand the Indonesian authorities appealing against Anas’ sentence to eight years in jail, which was less than half of the 15-year prison term sought by the Indonesian prosecution.

But what could be the “public interest” in the Malaysian prosecution in appealing against Anwar’s five-year jail sentence, apart serving the ulterior political objective of the powers-that-be to kill off the Parliamentary Opposition Leader?

[Speech (2) at the “Solidarity with Junz Wong” dinner organised by Sabah DAP in Kota Kinabalu on Saturday, 26th October 2014 at 10 pm]

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 26 October 2014, 4:45 pm and is filed under
Anwar Ibrahim
,
Corruption
,
Court
,
Najib Razak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


When Malaysians flee to get justice

COMMENTARY BY THE MALAYSIAN INSIDER

26 October 2014

In the same week that Malaysia won a non-permanent seat in the United Nations Security Council, a Malaysian shockingly fled Malaysia to seek asylum and protection from what he called oppression from authorities and gangsters.

Activist Ali Abd Jalil is the second Malaysian in as many weeks who ran away, citing oppressive laws and lacking faith in the system to protect his rights.

Posting in his Facebook page, Ali said “Now I am in Sweden, looking for asylum… the Malaysian government and sultan treated me like rubbish.

“I have been threatened by gangsters and racist Malay groups in Malaysia. Malaysia is not safe for me, police and gangsters are following me all the time.”

Ali faces three sedition charges for allegedly insulting the Johor royalty and the Sultan of Selangor in his Facebook postings.

He has been accused of posting seditious remarks on a Facebook page called “Kapitalis Bangsat” that allegedly belittled the Johor sultanate.

Another Malaysian, Alvin Tan, who is facing  criminal charges under the Sedition Act as well as the Film Censorship Act for controversial online uploads, including a photo deemed insulting to Islam on Facebook, is seeking asylum in the United States.

Ordinarily, these two are facing criminal charges and that should be the end of that. But there has been a rise of vitriol and venom against those who allegedly cause offence to be taken by certain groups.

To say that the police have been quick to stem such toxicity in the bud as they are in looking for Ali and Alvin would be too naive.

Which is why, rightly or wrongly, these two men have left the coop because they believe they won’t get justice in Malaysia.

This is a major embarrassment for the Najib government, which has been at pains to paint the country as a moderate nation, and that its election to the UNSC is due to its moderation and peace-loving values.

And no amount of speeches at the UN or in international events can wipe away this blemish – that two Malaysians do not believe they will get justice in Malaysia.

Perhaps we think we are, and perhaps we do that abroad but in Malaysia, what we can term moderation in the broadest of sense that does not appear to exist.

Malaysia has seen the rise of a few groups which use hate speech to run down and threaten people, to the extent that Muslims who touch dogs are deemed apostates and anything Western is seen as a conspiracy against the Malays and Islam.

What more for the likes of Ali and the case against him.

Not only is he facing a trial, he is facing groups that have threatened his life. And nothing much has been done about it. Hence, the decision to run away.

No one should condone Ali’s alleged offence. But no one should also condone those who want to harm him for what he has done.

Malaysia is in the UNSC to promote peace and moderation. It must also be seen to do that in the country. If not, we are just a country that speaks from both sides of the mouth.

No one is going to listen, let alone respect Malaysia if we allow this hypocrisy to continue. – October 26, 2014.

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 26 October 2014, 11:23 pm and is filed under
Court
,
Law & Order
,
Najib Razak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Did Malaysia take the world for a ride and  won the highest-ever 187 votes to be elected non-permanent member of UNSC under false pretences that we are a role model for moderation when moderation is under unprecedented attack?

(Speech on the 2015 Budget debate in Parliament on Monday, Oct. 27, 2014)

First, I want to commend Malaysia for being elected for the third time and with the highest-ever 187 votes to be a non-permanent member of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC).

Regrettably however, Malaysia is not living up to the high international standards of moderation which Najib has set for the world despite  the Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak’s repeated statement  that Malaysia’s election into the UNSC for the third time with such high votes was testimony of  world recognition of Malaysia as a role model for other countries in the practice of moderation.

Have we taken the world for a ride and secured such high votes to be elected UNSC non-permanent member under false pretences that Malaysia is the very model of moderation against extremism, when in actual fact, Malaysia as a model of a peaceful, stable and harmonious multi-racial and multi-religious nation has never come  under more  intense unprecedented attack in the nation’s 57-year history resulting in moderation in retreat?

The volume, frequency and venom of hate speech on race and religion, promoting extremism and religious intolerance in the country in the past four years had outpaced all such hate speech in the country in the previous four decades.

The evidence of such immoderation and  the rise of hate speech, extremism and intolerance posing unprecedented threat to moderation have been  piling up relentlessly –  in fact, in the ten days since Malaysia’s election as UNSC non-permanent member, there have been over a dozen examples  of moderation under threat and attack by hate speech, extremism and intolerance.

The first
 most outstanding  example is the current case of activist Ali Abdul Jalil, the victim of multiple sedition charges, who had to flee Malaysia and seek asylum and protection in Sweden because of oppression from authorities and gangsters.

Ali told Malaysiakini yesterday from Sweden via instant messenger that he feared for his life.

He said: “The police, gangsters, Perkasa, Malay right-wing groups, Umno groups are all looking for me, some of them have threatened to kill me and to beat me.

“Some even say that I am a traitor and I am not supposed to be treated like a person.

“Most of the Malay groups (such as) Perkasa are saying that I am rubbish and the police are not protecting me.”

Ali said it was this sense of helplessness that finally pushed him to leave.

He said that whether he is granted asylum or not, he will not give up his Malaysian citizenship.

He said: “I am still a Malaysian and I am so proud to be a Malaysian because Malaysia is my home and my parents, family, brothers and sisters are still in Malaysia”

The day he returns home, he said, would be the day the ruling coalition falls from power.

“Hopefully the current Umno will collapse and when the government in Malaysia changes, I wish I can go back.”

Which MP dare to say he is more Malaysian than Ali, that he would not flee the country for political asylum in another country if he cannot get justice in the country and is in fear for the safety of his life?

Last month another Malaysian,   Alvin Tan, who faces criminal charges under the Sedition Act and the Film Censorship for controversial online uploads, announced that he was seeking asylum after fleeing to the United States

I do not condone the offences of Ali and Alvin if they had committed offences, but something is very wrong and sick with our nation when they have to flee the country to seek asylum in  a foreign land because they won’t get justice in Malaysia and even more serious, in fear of their lives.

Can any MP tell me of another Malaysian who had to flee Malaysia because he cannot get justice in the Malaysian courts, or even worse, in fear of his life because he was not safe in the country under anyone of the five previous Prime Ministers of Malaysia  – Tunku, Tun Razak, Tun Hussein Onn, Tun Mahathir and Tun Abdullah?

If there was not a single citizen  under the five previous Prime Ministers who had to flee the country  either because he cannot get justice in the country or in fear of his life, this is a terrible indictment on the governance and the practice of moderation under the sixth Prime Minister of Malaysia!

The second example
 of the rise of hatred, extremism and intolerance is the case of the Organiser of the ‘I want to touch a dog’ event Syed Azmi Alhabshi, who had   has been inundated with an avalanche of  thousands of death threats and other hateful messages within hours of  holding the controversial event, whether on his WhatsApp, phone or Facebook.

Wild and defamatory statements have also been leveled against Syed Azman and others involved in the event, which among others alleged that Syed Azmi is a Shiite or that he is a Christian or that he was trying to promote liberalism.

One can agree or disagree with the dog event organized by Syed Azmi, but what is completely impermissible are the deaths threats and the wild, baseless and defamatory allegations let loose against Syed Azmi on the social media.

Azmi has already lodged a report with the police and another with the Malaysian Communications  Multi-Media Commission (MCMC) on Oct. 22.

It is shocking that the Minister for Communications and Multimedia, Datuk Seri Shabery Cheek could “wash” his hands and disclaim responsibility, stating that MCMC won’t be acting against the death and violent threats against Azmi as  this was the job of the police.

But Shabery’s lame excuse had  not stopped  the MCMC from acting immediately when the Kedah Mentri Besar Datuk Seri Mukriz Mahathir received death threats online earlier this year,  resulting in the  arrest of the blogger concerned within 24 hours of the lodging of the police report.

Moderation does not mean double standards in the  upholding  of law and order which undermines public confidence in the system of governance and justice in the country.

The third example
 of the deviation from moderation is the Universiti of Malaya clampdown to ban Anwar Ibrahim from giving a talk in the university this evening and the  issue of a show cause letter to the Universiti Malaya Students’ Association president Fahmi Zainol, over the programme entitled ’40 Years: From Universiti Malaya to Jail’.

The University of Malaya seems more concerned in violating the academic freedom of students and academicians in the campus than ensuring that it restore its previous international reputation for academic excellence.

Recently, for the fifth year in succession since the launching of the Times Higher Education (THE) World University Rankings in 2010, not a single university including the University of Malaya  had made it into the THE Top 400 University Rankings.

Unfortunately, this did not even rate a mention in the 2015 Budget speech although the Najib had challenged  the University of Malaya nine years ago to be among the world’s Top 50 universities by year 2020, which is only five years away.

Three weeks ago, Najib twittered congratulations to the five Malaysian universities which were ranked higher in the Top 400 of the QS World University Ranking 2014, namely University of Malaya (UM) ranked 167 last year to 151; University Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM) from 269 to 259; University Teknologi Malaysia (UTM) from 355 to 294; Universiti Sains Malaysia from 355 to 309; Universiti Putra Malaysia (UPM) from 411-420 to 376.

But there has been a deafening silence from Najib as well as from the DPM-cum- Education Minister, Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin this whole month over the exclusion of Malaysian universities in Top 400 in THE University Ranking 2014-2015.

Arguments which have been advanced to justify the boycott of UM and UKM in the THE Top 400 World University Rankings while continuing to participate in the QS World University Rankings are very weak and most untenable.

Would UM and UKM be excluded from the THE Top 400 altogether if they participate?

Four other Malaysian universities had participated in the THE World University Ranking 2014-5, but none made it into the Top 400 of the THE rankings.

It will be real shame to both UM and UKM if anyone of the four other Malaysian universities had succeeded in being ranked among the THE Top 400.

Although Najib challenged University of Malaya to be ranked among the Top 50 universities when he was Deputy Prime Minister in 2005, the former University of Malaya Vice Chancellor Tan Sri Professor Dr Ghauth Jasmon, had set a more realistic target when he was heading the university from 2008 to 2013 – to enter QS World University Ranking’s Top 100 by 2015.

Can UM achieve Ghauth’s target of entering Top 100 in QS World University Ranking next year?

This is an impossible mission, as UM’s best QS ranking is 151 this year.

University of Malaya should be more concerned why it has failed  to achieve the much lower target set by Ghauth to be among the world’s Top 100 Universities (QS) by 2015, not to mention the Prime Minister’s superlative target to be among the Top 50 universities in the world by 2020, instead of trying to stop Anwar from returning as an alma mater to the University of Malaya this evening.

The fourth instance
 of the retreat of moderation in Malaysia is the deafening silence, whether from the Prime Minister or the Attorney-General, over the worst crisis of confidence in the nation’s history over the role and powers of the Attorney-General (AG).

This is the  result of the escalating controversy over non-prosecution of Perkasa President Ibrahim Ali for his threat to burn the Malay-language Bible on the one hand and the sedition blitzkrieg against scores of Malaysians who had made inoffensive and non-incendiary statements to create a climate of fear on the other.

The  continued absence of satisfactory accountability and acceptable explanation on the  arbitrary abuse of the AG’s prosecutorial discretion not to prosecute Ibrahim Ali for the threat to burn the Malay-language Bible and the mass sedition blitzkrieg have raised serious questions whether the Attorney-General is committed to uphold the Rule of Law and to act as guardian of the public interest – the mark of a nation committed to the principles of wasatiyyah or moderation, in particular the qualities of balance, justice and excellence.

Clearly, there had been a change of prosecution policy on sedition cases, as this was rare before Najib’s premiership. Parliament and the nation is entitled to know and debate the reasons for such  a fundamental  change in the  prosecution policy for sedition cases, but there has only been silence so far.

Gani’s predecessors as Attorney-General, Tan Sri Abu Talib from 1980 to 1993 and Tan Sri Mokhtar Abdullah (1994 – 2000) had their controversies when they served under the country’s most controversial Prime Minister, Tun Dr. Mahathir but Gani Patail had put both Talib and Mokhtar in the shade both in the volume and gravity of controversies since becoming AG in 2002.

Gani has gained another distinction of having been criticized by his predecessor, as last month Talib excoriated Gani Patail for undertaking to review the sedition cases against Pakatan Rakyat leaders, academicians and social activists like Prof Dr. Azmi Sharom after the charges were framed, as the barrage of sedition charges came across as “persecution” and not “prosecution”.

It is now seven weeks since Gani responded on Sept 9 to massive public outrage at the sedition blitzkrieg, announcing that the AG’s Chambers would review the sedition charges against Azmi and others, but nothing has been forthcoming on the outcome of this review, or whether such a review had taken place.

Do the Prime Minister or the de facto law Minister Nancy Shukri (Batang Sadong) know anything about this review of the sedition charges by the AG’s Chambers, or are they completely in the dark as they are unable to demand any accountability from the AG’s Chambers apart from reading their prepared answers in Parliament?

MPs and the Malaysian public are entitled to know whether in the exercise of the prosecutorial discretion on the basis of ‘public interest’, are these purely legal considerations or they also involve “political” considerations, and if so, the nature of these “political” considerations.

The recent letter by the Court of Appeal Judge, K.C.Vohrah on “Doubt in the administration of justice” (Star October 23, 2014) express the legitimate nagging concerns in many minds.

Vohrah, who had been with the AG’s Chambers for 16 years in the 70s and early 80s, said the AG’s prosecutorial discretion under Article 145(3) of the Constitution to institute, conduct or discontinue any proceedings for an offence is “an awesome power which has to be exercised bona fide and with great professionalism and care.”

He said: “And any perception that the A-G when exercising such powers, is biased, selective or acts under ministerial pressure or pressure from any group will bring disrepute to the office of the A-G and cause grave misgivings as to the fair administration of the legal system. And when mistrust arises in regard to the exercise of such powers it would be to the discredit of the Government.”

Vohrah has joined in the call for the review and withdrawal of cases where persons have already been charged based on three considerations:

(1) The Sedition Act is an oppressive law and that many jurists and scholars consider sedition (based on common law seditious libel) as obsolete.

(2) That once a person is charged for an offence under the Act, looking at the state of case law in Malaysia, there is no defence that can normally be taken for offences, say, under the Penal Code or other acts creating offences – whether  truth, lack of intention, presence of an innocent or honourable intention, absence of consequent harm, or even a lack of possibility or potential for consequent harm.

(3) That the A-G before exercising his discretion whether to charge a person for sedition must ignore pressure from any quarter, political or otherwise, the noisy and the cantankerous, and the well-meaning and well-intentioned groups (who have not seen the oppressive implications of the law), and focus on whether it is reasonable to charge such a person in the context of all relevant circumstances in an age of “disagreement in ideas and belief on every conceivable subject” which are the essence of our life in modern Malaysia pushing on for developed status in 2020.

Will the Prime Minister and the Attorney-General heed the voice of reason and sanity of the  overwhelming majority of thinking and reasoned Malaysians?

Fifth
, the Gerakan President and Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Datuk Mah Siew Keong recently said the 1Malaysia campaign, which appears to have run out of steam since the last general election, needs Tongkat Ali to give it an urgent boost so that the campaign could be “long lasting”.

This applies not only to Najib’s 1Malaysia campaign, but to his “Global Movement of Moderates” movement in Malaysia.

In the latest survey finding by Pew Research Centre, nearly one-third of Malaysians see religious and ethnic hatred as posing the greatest danger to the world, a concern shared by Indonesia amid simmering religious tensions in both countries and the rise of violent militant Islamist groups.

The Washington-based research group’s Greatest Dangers in the World survey showed 32 per cent of Malaysians cited religious and ethnic hatred as the biggest global threat today.

In the global survey of 44 countries among 48,643 respondents, Malaysia is one of the 12 countries which see religious and ethnic hatred as posing the greatest danger to the world.

The Pew Research Centre study was conducted from March 17 to June 5. If it is conducted today, the saliency of religious and ethnic hatred as posing the greatest danger to the world would have risen to a higher pitch as a result of the continued upsurge of extremism and religious intolerance, to the extent that Najib’s brainchild, the Global Movement of Moderates and GMM operatives are regarded as subversive and “seditious”, gravely hampering their operations to promote moderation in Malaysia.

On Sept. 27, Najib made the most commendable speech at the United Nations General Assembly setting out the moderation agenda for the world, declaring: “The fight against extremism is not about Christians versus Muslims, or Muslims versus Jews, but moderates versus extremists of all religions. We therefore need to rally a coalition of moderates; those willing to reclaim their religion, and pursue the path to peace.”

I have no doubt that in international forums, where Najib had expounded his global cause of moderation, whether the Oxford Centre for Islamic Studies, the East-West Centre in Hawaii or at Asia-Europe (ASEM) conferences, had Najib been asked whether those who threatened to burn the sacred books of different religions are extremists, his answer would be a categorical and unqualified positive.

But back home in Malaysia, his government finds excuses for Ibrahim Ali’s threat to burn the Malay-language Bible on the completely unacceptable and outrageous grounds that Ibrahim Ali was protecting the sanctity of Islam and that his action is protected by Article 11(4) of the Malaysian Constitution.

What is the direction Malaysia is heading at the rate hate speech, extremism and intolerance are having a field day and allowed to operate with immunity and impunity despite their inflammatory and incendiary statements?

Would the Global Movement of Moderates one day  go defunct, or be deregistered or simply be  neutered and defanged?

Sixth
– the recent “pendatang” furore is not only proof of failure of Najib’s 1Malaysia policy and Global Movement of Moderates initative, but the 57 years of UMNO/BN Malaysian nation-building.

Apart from Sabah, which is a special case by itself, the overwhelming majority of Malaysians, regardless of race or religion, are local-born and 100% Malaysians – a figure which can be as high as over 95 per cent for Malaysians in Peninsular Malaysia and Sarawak.

Whether the ancestors of Malays, Chinese or Indians are immigrants, there can be no cause or justification for any Malaysian to describe another Malaysians from different ethnicity as “pendatang”, especially when the term is loaded in a very derogatory, pejorative and even abusive sense.

This is in fact questioning the citizenship rights of Malaysians, which is entrenched as one of the four “sensitive” rights in the Malaysian Constitution in 197i, whereby it becomes an automatic sedition offence to call for the withdrawal of a Malaysian’s citizenship.

Since the 70s, there is a National Unity Department in the Prime Minister’s Department, but all the tens and even hundreds millions of ringgit of budget expenditures for over four decades for this department in the PM’s Office had been a total waste and loss when 57 years after Merdeka, extremists are hurling the “pendatang” label at ordinary, loyal and patriotic Malaysians in the latest upsurge of hate speech in the country.

Calling loyal, patriotic Malaysians born, bred and who will die in Malaysia as “pendatang” must be condemned as a form of extremism which Najib had denounced in the United Nations and international forms since becoming Prime Minister.

As questioning the citizenship rights of another Malaysian is a sedition offence under the four entrenched sensitive clauses in the Constitution Amendment Act  of 1971, can the Prime Minister inform the House how many cases of sedition prosecutions had the Attorney-General initiated as the questioning of citizenship, including the hurling of “pendatang” labels, have become quite frequent in recent  years.

Seventh
, how can Malaysia claim to be a moderate country when we continue to be so low down in the annual Transparency International (TI) Corruption Perception Index (CPI) in the past two decades?

We are even losing out to Indonesia and China in the anti-corruption front.

In the first TI CPI in 1995, Malaysia was ranked No. 23 out of 41 countries with a middling CPI score of 5.28.

Nineteen years later, after numerous anti-corruption campaigns, two major anti-corruption legislation, the “elevation” of the former Anti-Corruption Agency (ACA) into Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC), the National Integrity Plan, the 1Malaysia Government Transformation Programme with massive infusion of public funds and increase of staffing, Malaysia has now fallen in the TI CPI 2013 to No. 53 out of 177 countries, struggling with CPI score of 50/100 – a ranking lower than ever recorded under the two previous Prime Ministers, Tun Mahathir and Tun Abdullah.

In comparison, Indonesia was ranked at the very bottom of No. 41 in 1995 with CPI score of 1.94 while China was ranked No. 40 with a CPI score of 2.16 in 1995. Now Indonesia is ranked No. 114 with a CPI score of 32/100 while China is ranked No. 80 with a score of 40/100.

At the annual average rate of Indonesia and China’s improvement on TI CPI ranking and score in the past five years, with Malaysia struggling to remain in the middling CPI score, Malaysia will be left behind by Indonesia and China in less than a decade, even well before 2020.

Is there a strategy by Najib and MACC to avert this disaster?

I had recently referred to the “day-and-night” difference in anti-corruption efforts between Malaysia and lndonesia.

Although  anti-corruption in Malaysia was recently in the news, with arrests of custom officers and those involved in illegal logging activity in Sarawak, which made quite a splash in the local news media, they belong to the “flies” category going by China’s anti-corruption campaign against “tigers and flies”.

With the recent survey by Ernst & Young that Malaysia is ranked as one of the most corrupt nations and listed as a country which is most likely to take shortcuts to meet targets when economic times are tough, Malaysians are entitled to ask: Why the MACC is just catching “flies”, where are the “tigers”?

Or to use Malaysian lingo, where are the “sharks”, as the MACC and its predecessor the Anti-Corruption Agency (ACA) had not been able to send a single “shark” behind bars for the past 33 years under three Prime Ministers – Najib, Abdullah and Mahathir – when both jails in Indonesia and China are full of “sharks” or “tigers and flies”!

Indonesia recently made world headlines about its seriousness and commitment to fight corruption when its new President, Joko Widowo tasked Indonesia’s anti-graft agency, the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) with the assignment of assessing and clearing candidates for his Cabinet.

Jokowi, who was inaugurated President last Monday (Oct. 20), dropped eight of his candidates for the Cabinet after the KPK objected to their appointment. Jokowo announced his new Cabinet yesterday after submitting new names to KPK to replace the eight as he wants good and clean Ministers who can pass the screening by the Corruption Eradication Commission.

Will the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak, follow Jokowi’s example and submit new Cabinet appointments to a credible anti-corruption commission for clearance and drop those who fail to secure clearance?

I was in Sabah over the weekend, and I asked why the MACC is so quiet, inactive and impotent in Sabah, when Sabah tops the country as an administration which has one of the worst corruption problems.

Is the MACC, the Prime Minister and the Sabah Chief Minister prepared to make Sabah a model of corruption-free administration instead of topping the list of among the most corrupt administrations in Malaysia?

The gloom felt by Malaysians at the puny anti-corruption efforts are not relieved when they are inundated with disastrous, ambivalent or downright inane news headlines like “Malaysia one of the most corrupt nations, survey shows” (Sept. 27), “No plan to boost law to probe into ‘high-living’ civil servants” (Oct.8) and “Top cop looks to ordinary Malaysians to keep police in check” (Oct. 23).

There is not a single word of mention of anti-corruption efforts in Najib’s 2015 Budget speech.

Can he  explain why Malaysia is losing out so badly to Indonesia and  China in anti-corruption efforts and results, with not a single “big fish” or “tiger” landed in Malaysia so far whether under the present Prime Minister or the two previous Prime Ministers, covering 33 years since 1981 when the catching, prosecution and jailing of “big fishes” or “tigers” have become quite commonplace in Indonesia and China?

How does Malaysia’s record of rampant corruption and poor anti-corruption efforts stand with Malaysia’s commitmernt to wasatiyyah or moderation agenda at home?

Eight
, with Jokowi’s inauguration last Monday and the formation of his Cabinet yesterday after clearing the KPK’s screening, we are seeing a new face and fresh hope for  Indonesian democracy.

In contrast, Malaysia stands on the brink of another political convulsion with Malaysians and the world awaiting the Federal Court decision in the next two days on the appeal of the Parliamentary Opposition Leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim against the Court of Appeal conviction and five-year jail sentence in the Sodomy II case.

I find it shocking, unbelievable and outrageous that the Attorney-General is counter-appealing against Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim’s five-year jail sentence in the Sodomy II case when the Federal Court sits to hear Anwar’s appeal against his Court of Appeal conviction and sentence on March 7.

It has been reported that the prosecution has counter-appealed and wants Anwar to be jailed for more than five years contending that the Court of Appeal’s five-year jail sentence is “manifestly inadequate”, “does not reflect the gravity of the offence” and “fails to serve the ends of justice from the perspective of public interest”.

There are forces among those in power who want to get rid of the Opposition, by “hook or by crook”, but I want to ask the Najib whether he is so cruel, callous and heartless as to want Anwar to be jailed for 20 years and not released until he is an octogenarian?

Is this in conformity with Najib’s preaching of wasatiyyah or moderation with its emphasis on the principles of justice, balance and excellence?

In Indonesia, it is become commonplace for the movers and shakers of the political elite, including Ministers, to be convicted and sent behind bars – not for the most far-fetched of offences, but for clear and specific violations of the law such as corrupt practices, like:

*the former Youth and Sports Minister Andi Mallarangeng sentenced to four years in jail in July for receiving Rp 4 billion ($330,000) and $550,000 in bribes connected to the construction of the Hambalang sports training centre in West Java and his appeal was rejected a few days ago;

*in early September, the former Energy and Mining Minister Jero Wacik named as a suspect in an alleged extortion case to raise nearly Rp 10 billion ($585,000) for his ministerial operational fund;

*and in late September, the former chairman of President Susilo Bambang Sudhoyono’s Democratic Party, Anas Urbaningrum sentenced by the Corruption Court to eight years in jail, fined Rp 300 million (US$25,200) demanded restitution payments of Rp 57.5 billion and $5.2 million after finding him guilty of corruption and money laundering.

Malaysians and Indonesians can understand the Indonesian authorities appealing against Anas’ sentence to eight years in jail, which was less than half of the 15-year prison term sought by the Indonesian prosecution.

But what could be the “public interest” in the Malaysian prosecution in appealing against Anwar’s five-year jail sentence, apart serving the ulterior political objective of the powers-that-be to kill off the Parliamentary Opposition Leader?

I hope that good sense and sanity can prevail, and the wasatiyyah or moderation agenda be the basis of the Najib government, guiding the policy directions of the Attorney-General and that the prosecution would withdraw their counter appeal at the Federal Court tomorrow.

                This entry was posted on Monday, 27 October 2014, 12:53 pm and is filed under
Parliament
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


In UM student protest, leaders see third-wave rising for reform

By Zurairi AR

Malay Mail Online

October 28, 2014

PETALING JAYA, Oct 28 ― Malaysia looks to have a brighter future with a new generation of student activists who last night stood up to an authoritarian administration to preserve their academic freedom, several civil society leaders and Pakatan Rakyat (PR) lawmakers said.

The prominent speakers at a fundraising dinner attended by close to 1,000 people here last night pointing to the mammoth in-campus demonstration in Universiti Malaya (UM) led by its student council to show solidarity for alumnus Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim who returns to the courtroom today to challenge his controversial second sodomy conviction.

“I say we need a third wave of uprising. An uprising of the people of Malaysia to fight and arise,” said DAP parliamentary leader Lim Kit Siang, to much applause from the crowd.

According to the Gelang Patah MP, the “first wave” happened in 1998 following Anwar’s sacking from government and first sodomy charge. That period in time has come to be knows as the “reformasi” period.

The “second wave”, Lim added, was in 2008 when PR was formed to go toe-to-toe against the Barisan Nasional (BN) ruling coalition in the 12th General Elections.

Prominent lawyer Datuk Ambiga Sreenevasan singled out the UM Student Representative Council (PMUM) president Fahmi Zainol for his bravery in facing the university’s “autocratic” rule, after a lockdown purportedly to bar Anwar from entering the campus for a highly-anticipated speech last night.

“It all shows that you can push people only that far. I was hoping that I would see the pushback in my lifetime and we’ve seen it,” said the patron of the Negara-Ku movement.

“We’re seeing people reach a point of no return. They must know that they cannot bully the citizens of this country the way they had continuously done so,” added Ambiga.

“Once that pushback comes in a big wave, they’ll not be able to stop it. So I say to them: the more you push us the more we will push back.”

Anwar was originally slated for an appearance at the dinner to raise funds for a nationwide campaign to abolish the controversial Sedition Act after an address at UM, but had to give the fundraiser a miss for another late-night speech in Subang Jaya.

The opposition leader has been on a roll in the week ahead of his Federal Court hearing, with three stops across the Klang Valley on his itinerary in a bid to drum up support ahead of his appeal.

The fundraising dinner was organised by the anti-Sedition Act coalition Gerakan Hapus Akta Hasutan (GHAH), represented by PAS Deputy President Mohamad Sabu and civil liberties lawyer Eric Paulsen.

The two insisted that they wish to see the controversial colonial act go, and they do not wish it to anybody, even to Datuk Ibrahim Ali the firebrand president of Malay rights group Perkasa.

“I don’t agree. Just like we don’t want ourselves to be charged, we don’t agree if others are charged under it,” Mohamad said, catching by surprise some in the crowd who wanted Ibrahim to be similarly charged.

“We cannot be selective and having double-standards … We don’t want anyone to be charged, even Ibrahim,” said Paulsen, who spoke after Mohamad.

“If [Ibrahim] cannot find a lawyer, I will gladly defend him,” he offered.

The coalition also garnered the support of Selangor Mentri Besar Azmin Ali, who pledged his state government’s support to civil societies involved.

“Only a weak government, like Umno and BN, uses the Sedition Act to oppress the citizens,” Azmin said.

“If the government is strong, legitimate, and backed by the public, there is no need for it to use the Act to curb the public’s freedom.”

The Federal Court is set to hear today Anwar’s challenge against his second sodomy conviction as decided by the Court of Appeal.

The Permatang Pauh MP, charged with sodomy again in 2008, was initially acquitted by the High Court in 2012.

But the appellate court subsequently overturned the High Court verdict on March 7 this year, ruling that the trial judge had erred in rejecting the DNA evidence produced in the case.

If Anwar fails to reverse his five-year imprisonment sentence and conviction in the Federal Court tomorrow, the Permatang Pauh MP would lose his seat as the law bars anyone fined RM2,000 or imprisoned for one year from serving as a lawmaker.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 28 October 2014, 8:05 am and is filed under
Anwar Ibrahim
,
Law & Order
,
Pakatan Rakyat
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Lock-down/shut-down of University of Malaya to prevent Anwar from speaking to students is latest example of “first world infrastructure, third world mentality” afflicting our universities which will condemn the nation to a future of  mediocrity

Imaging the lock-down of the University of Oxford and the shut-down of all electricity supplies to plunge one of the leading universities in the world into darkness just to deny the British Opposition Leader, Edward Miliband from returning to his alma mater campus to address the undergraduates?

Or imaging the lock-down of Monash University and the shut down of all electricity supplies to prevent the Australian Opposition Leader William Shorten from addressing students in his alma mater university, which had advertised itself online thus: “Monash is ranked in the top one per cent of world universities – 91st in the world – according to the Times Higher Education World University Rankings 2013/14”. (Monash this month improved its franking in the THE World University Rankings in 2014/15 to No. 83).

Banish both thoughts, for it would be completely unthinkable that such silly notions would be entertained by any self-respecting university administrator or even political leader in United Kingdom – just as it would be completely unthinkable that world-class American universities like Harvard, Stanford, California Institute of Technology or Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) would be locked down or their electricity supplies completely shut down to prevent Opposition politicians from returning to their alma mater universities to speak to the university students.

Former Prime Minister Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi’s indictment of Malaysia a decade ago as “a nation of first-class infrastructure but third-world mentality” is even more telling and relevant today in Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak’s Malaysia in 2014.

I don’t think previous Prime Ministers, including Abdullah and Mahathir would have been so desperate or cheapskate as to approve  such an outrageous affront to academic freedom and excellence as to plunge the University of Malaya into darkness by a shutdown of the university’s electricity supplies  although Mahathir had done more than any other person in Malaysia to trample on academic freedom.

By plunging University of Malaya into darkness, those in authority have also plunged the country into a democratic and educational darkness as well as  a darkness of the soul.

The lock-down/shut-down of University of Malaya to prevent Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim from speaking to students is latest example of “first world infrastructure, third world mentality” afflicting our universities which will condemn the nation to a future of  mediocrity

DAP National Vice Chairman and MP for Seputeh Teresa Kok is right – University of Malaya has become an international laughing stock, not only in banning Anwar Ibrahim from returning to his alma mater university to bar him from accepting the invitation of the Universiti Malaya Undergraduates Association (PMUM) to speak on “40 years from University of Malaya to prison” but for resorting to the outrageous and preposterous ruse of a shut down of power supplies in the university.

Up to now, shut downs of power supplies have been a favourite ploy of lowly officials whether to sabotage Opposition parties and leaders from holding public events in public halls or in the undisturbed and  unhampered counting of votes in outlying areas during general elections or by-elections.

Who would have thought that such a disease of “shutdown of power supplies” have now spread to inflect even high-level public officers including university administrators.

The lockdown of the University of Malaya and shutdown of its power supplies yesterday plunging the university into darkness is a stain and stigma to the reputation of the premier university of the country.

I call on the Deputy Prime Minister and the Education Minister, Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin to direct a full inquiry to find out who are responsible for such a lockdown and shutdown of the university campus, and to take disciplinary action against all those responsible for the stain and stigma to the university – including officials up to Deputy Vice Chancellor and Vice Chancellor levels.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 28 October 2014, 4:22 pm and is filed under
Anwar Ibrahim
,
university
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Speaking about context, what about other sedition cases?

COMMENTARY BY THE MALAYSIAN INSIDER

27 October 2014

Context, the Attorney-General Chambers said today, was the important ingredient to consider when deciding whether Datuk Ibrahim Ali committed sedition when he threatened to burn bibles that contained the word “Allah” last year.

“As decided by the court, before a statement is said to have seditious tendencies, the statement must be viewed in the context it was made …

“When studied in its entire context, Datuk Ibrahim’s statement is not categorised as having seditious tendencies.

“It was clear Datuk Ibrahim Ali had no intention to create religious tensions, but was only defending the purity of Islam,” the AGC said, noting the Perkasa chief also said: “This is not a sentiment or (an attempt) to provoke religious tensions, but to defend the purity of Islam which is clearly (stated) in the laws.”

“He also did not commit any offence under Section 298 or 298A of the Penal Code as he was clearly defending the purity of Islam.”

Right. So the context is this, Ibrahim was not charged because he said he was not attempting to provoke religious tensions but was defending the purity of Islam.

Well, to put it in context, that is a half-baked explanation by the AGC, a comment after the fact.

In any court, this type of mitigation would have been laughed at.

Can the AGC explain what made the legally correct statement by the late Karpal Singh and academics Dr Azmi Shahrom and Dr Aziz Bari seditious? What was their context that made them liable for sedition?

In their statements thus far, none of these three stand-up individuals caused an affront to the dignity of another religion or community. Their words were factual and based on the law of the land.

Yet, one was convicted of sedition and the other two face sedition charges. And many others run the risk of being prosecuted without knowing the context of the offence.

But the one individual who has consistently caused the mercury of race and religion to rise in Malaysia is being defended by the AGC and the federal government.

How’s that for context in Malaysia? – October 27, 2014.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 28 October 2014, 7:39 am and is filed under
Constitution
,
Court
,
Crime
,
Law & Order
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Students come together in defiance of UM

by Muzliza Mustafa and Lee Shi-Ian

28 October 2014

The students who forced themselves into the University Malaya campus tonight to listen to Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim speak said the situation would not have come to this if only the university’s administration had not banned the event.

Many felt that the failure by UM in acknowledging academic freedom and the rights of students was what pulled the crowd together.

Wei Yan, 21, a student from UM said what happened last night was historical as students stood united in support of each other.

“This is big. It is not about politics. I just believe that he (Anwar) as an individual should be allowed to address the students in campus, like other leaders. He has given speeches before, but it was outside. This is good because the students could listen and digest what he said,” said Wei Yan.

The event, ‘Pidato Anwar Ibrahim: 40 Tahun Dari UM ke Penjara’, had been declared illegal by UM vice-chancellor of student affairs Professor Datuk Dr Rohana Yusof.

But the crowd, which numbered about 2,000, forced their way through the main gates before Anwar arrived and spoke for about 20 minutes.

University Putra Malaysia student Chai Xintao, 21, almost gave the event a miss as he had a lot of homework to do, but turned up with five friends as a show of solidarity with the UM students.

“We have read about the issues and how the UM administration had reacted to the event. We just wanted to be here to listen to what Anwar had to say about his case,” said Chai .

“The number of students who turned up were far more than the other student events I have attended.”

He pointed out the incident of the crowd forcing their way into the campus grounds would not have happened if only the university had allowed them in.

Another student from UPM, Fatiha Ahmad, 23, said she felt tonight’s event was a success.

“People were here because of the restrictions imposed. Students came in droves to show that we are united. What is the harm in listening to the speech?” asked Fatiha who came to the event with her husband.

“The number of people would not have been too big and things would have been calmer if only the university had given its approval to Anwar to address the students.”

She felt that the university’s action in declaring the event illegal, was the reason for the large turnout.

Another student, Michelle Lee, said she was initially not interested in attending the event as she was not a supporter of Anwar or PKR.

But she changed her mind when the university yesterday allowed the staff to go home at 4pm yesterday, citing problems with the electricty supply to the campus.

“It was such a ridiculous excuse. I was outraged, so I changed my mind and decided to attend the event.”

Lee said UM was clearly restricting student freedom, adding that the university should give them sufficient space and freedom to voice their opinions.

Habibah Ab Hamid, 22, and her friend were trying to exit the university to return home, but when they saw the main gates locked, they decided to join the crowd.

“We are in the final year of our studies, but the university is treating us like children. We have our own mind and should be allowed to draw our own conclusions,” she said.

Habibah said that student freedom should not be restricted and there is no need for the university to think on their behalf. – October 27, 2014.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 28 October 2014, 7:23 am and is filed under
Anwar Ibrahim
,
university
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Why is Universiti Malaya afraid of Anwar Ibrahim?

 — P Ramakrishnan

Aliran

October 27, 2014

OCTOBER 27 — We can understand why Barisan Nasional, particularly Umno, is so terrified of Anwar Ibrahim. If anyone can send the BN packing off from Putrajaya, it has to be Anwar.

He is the only one who can hold Pakatan Rakyat together and mount an effective challenge to unseat BN from Putrajaya. He is the only one who can galvanise the Malays and non-Malays to come together to bring about a change in government.

Anwar is undoubtedly a political threat to the BN’s power and position. So they fear him — with justification!

Why is Universiti Malaya afraid of Anwar? Is he any threat to UM? What kind of threat does he pose to UM? Why are they imposing a ban on his speaking engagement at the invitation of the UM Students’ Council?

No logical justification has been stated for barring him from speaking at Dataran Dewan Tunku Canselor in UM except some unconvincing and unacceptable reason extended by the UM’s vice-chancellor of student affairs, Professor Datuk Dr Rohana Yusof, who came up with the silly notion “that UM would never allow or support such a programme as it was  against the university rules and had tarnished its reputation.”

What university rules have been breached? In what way can the university’s reputation be tarnished if Anwar were to speak at his alma mater?

Is UM colluding with the BN to bar Anwar from speaking to the students? UM is not an extension of the BN. It is not BN’s agency.

Is UM wilfully denying a free discussion and debate and exchange of ideas in UM?

Any university must live up to its reputation as a seat of learning. It must live up to the peoples’ expectation that it is a powerhouse of knowledge where future leaders are groomed and exposed to various contending issues so that they will come out as thinking and reasoning individuals who can uphold justice and freedom of expression.

But UM is deliberately stifling the growth of mature students who can decide for themselves and organise activities that are deemed necessary and suitable. Can’t the students act as thinking adults who are capable of organising themselves without any interference from the authorities?

If it is feared that Anwar would influence the students so easily, it is a terrible indictment of the university itself. Is it implied that UM students are an unthinking and unreasoning lot who can be swayed effortlessly in spite of their university education? If that is the implication, then it is a disgrace that UM has failed miserably in inculcating critical thinking and analysis.

But that is not the case. It would appear that UM is merely doing a favour to the BN by coming up with silly excuses to prevent Anwar from speaking to the students. They don’t want to give him space to curtail his influence.

Aliran calls on UM to rescind their totally unjustified ban on Anwar and salvage its tattered image caused by its silly actions.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 28 October 2014, 8:15 am and is filed under
Anwar Ibrahim
,
university
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Anwar brought out the worst in UM

– Thulsi Manogaran

The Malaysian Insider

28 October 2014

It has been long written by William O. Douglas that the most important aspect of freedom of speech is the freedom to learn. All education is a continuous dialogue comprising of questions and answers that pursue every problem on the horizon. That is the essence of academic freedom.

I am not a big fan of Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim but I stand for academic freedom and freedom of speech. Anything that curtails the intellectual growth of my fellow Malaysians is a barrier to the nation’s growth.

I stand against suppression and indoctrination especially in the field of education. By now, we all know the reaction from Universiti Malaya’s administration on the close down of the entire university. UM staff were sent home early and classes cancelled. All entrances were locked.

However, what happened thereafter in UM is proof that no amount of suppression can work to curtail progress and change. Malaysia’s social landscape is changing and it is time those in power remember and accept the fact that you are in control because we, the rakyat, gave you control.

I am a UM alumni. I graduated in 2012 from the Faculty of Law UM. Let me tell you that academic freedom when I entered campus in 2008 was completely absent.

Nobody speaks of politics. Worst, nobody speaks of the opposition even after the 2008 General Elections where the famous 2/3 majority was defeated. It is a breakthrough beneficial for the rakyat, but my fellow students did not understand.

Even if they did, they did not speak about it. Politics was a dirty word. It is labelled sensitive and brushed off.

Campus elections were mere campus elections with heavy government infiltrations. So was the environment when I was a student.

Seeing what happened yesterday gives young Malaysians like me a lot of hope. Malaysia is not a lost cause after all. My generation will build a better Malaysia, I am sure.

Let us look at this practically. This discourse titled “DSAI: 40 Tahun dari UM ke Penjara” could have been way more intellectual than it actually turned out to be.

If it wasn’t because of UM’s immature reaction, there would not have been gate crashing, a marching crowd of at least 2,000 from the main gate to Dewan Tunku Canselor, shouts of “REFORMASI”, LAWAN TETAP LAWAN and criticism towards UM’s administration. It could have been an open, mature, healthy discourse between an opposition leader and broad-minded university students.

If it wasn’t because of UM’s disproportionate reaction, Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim would not have delivered his speech smack in the middle of the road in front of Dewan Tunku Canselor, UM’s tomb of glory. UM’s reaction of closing the gates and denying access to vehicles only helped create a more convenient environment for us to hear Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim.

In its effort towards improving university rankings, UM should have had the foresight and courage to do what is right.

Established universities around the world have welcomed opposition leaders because it is undeniable that such discourses encourage policy debates. UK opposition leader Ed Milliband has visited Cambridge University, Norwich University of the Arts, and Reading College among others.

Australian opposition leader Bill Shorten visited the University of Melbourne and Curtin University recently. Thomas Mulcair, Canada’s opposition leader visited the University of McGill early this year. So why can’t Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim visit his alma matter? How will the visit topple the government?

Let us look at Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim’s professional capability, his experience as an economic adviser to the country’s richest state.

Selangor is thriving well under the administration of the opposition since 2008 with better financial reserves and has never performed so well under the administration of BN. Isn’t there something we can learn from this experience. Shouldn’t UM students be geared to find out how this was done? How can this model be emulated in other states?

Instead, UM sends emails to cancel classes.

What kind of an institution that aims to improve international rankings shuts down an experienced politician cum economic adviser with proven results.

And my question is how will such a discourse tarnish the reputation of UM? Why should this discourse be only about gutter politics and the Sodomy appeal? Isn’t Malaysia much more than that?

I was taught in law school that democracy is a collective responsibility. A democracy cannot function without a strong and balanced opposition. One cannot afford to shut out part of a balanced structure forming a workable democracy. Whether you like it or not, a leader of the opposition is an official part of that system. The quality of any democracy will suffer should it not have a strong opposition.

As the leader of the opposition, Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim represents the people. He deals directly with the policies that affect our very own bread and butter and much more. Half of UM students are above 21 and that makes them eligible voters.

There cannot be a dichotomy between being a rakyat and being a student in a public university. There cannot be segregation or a censorship between the rakyat and the representative they elected just because they happen to be students in a public University. It cannot be so and there is no two ways about it.

As I write this, I recall my friend and I being hauled up by Datuk Rohana Yusof at the deputy vice-chancellor’s office because we had invited the then CEO of Malaysiakini for a forum with students in UM. This was because he spoke of Bersih. Now I wonder how will her office fit the hundreds of students that turned up last night.

This is an inevitable consequence. The greater the suppression, the greater the uprising. The powers that be should leave educational institutions to foster an environment of open debate and discussion. At least do that right. – October 28, 2014.

* Thulsi Manogaran is a UM law graduate and the secretary of Lead Malaysia.

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 29 October 2014, 8:13 am and is filed under
Anwar Ibrahim
,
university
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Call on Najib to announce a “zero tolerance” policy for any  threat to burn any holy books of any religion in Malaysia  to be a role model of moderation for other countries as part of his Global Movement of Moderates campaign

The explanation by the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) on Monday on why the Attortney-General Tan Sri Gani Patail  has not prosecuted the Perkasa President Ibrahim Ali for his threat to burn the Malay-language Bible has added salt to the wound, as it failed not only to win over doubters but have been received with scorn and rejected outright by majority of the critics.

What is worse, it reinforced the perception that the AGC’s arguments that Ibrahim Ali  should enjoy immunity and impunity from legal sanctions because he was defending the sanctity of Islam and was protected by Article 11(4) of the Constitution were not only shallow, superficial and cock-eyed but reflects a Public Prosecutor who  has failed in his duties to be a responsible and trustworthy upholder of  the rule of law and the protector of inter-racial and inter-religious unity and harmony in a multi-racial, multi-cultural and multi-religious nation.

The Monday statement from the AGC said Ibrahim had made the threat of burning the Bible “in the context of an incident in Jelutong, Penang, where copies of the Bible were distributed to members of the public, including Muslims” and “After the context had been studied as a whole, Ibrahim Ali’s statement does not fall into the category of having seditious tendencies”.

Does this mean that there are certain “context” where it is fully permissible to threaten the burning of the Bible?

Furthermore, are  there also certain “contexts” where it is permissible to threaten the burning of  holy books of other religions, for instance,  Tripitaka for Buddhism, Vedas for Hinduism, Torah for Judaism, Guru Granth Sahib for Sikhism and Tao Te Ching for Taoism?

Are there also  “contextual” justifications to justify the threat to burn the Holy Quran?

Surely not, there can be no justification in any context to justify the threat to  burn  any holy book of any religion in multi-religious Malaysia if we want to maintain inter-religious  understanding, harmony and peace and to quote Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak, to go  beyond just “tolerate” but to “accept” and even celebrate Malaysia’s multi-ethnic, multi-religious and multi-cultural diversity.

Many thinking Malaysians find most appalling  and even obnoxious the AGC’s argument that Ibrahim’s threat also does not fall within the purview of Section 504, Section 298 and Section 298A of the Penal Code as he was defending Islam.

Section 504 is on intentional insult with intent to provoke a breach of peace, Section 298 is on uttering words with deliberate intent to wound religious feelings and Section 298A is on causing disharmony, disunity, enmity, hatred or ill-will.

Is the AGC now contending that one is permitted to commit the offences under Section 506, Section 298 and Section 298A of the Penal Code, or escape any criminal liability when doing so, provided one is “defending Islam”?

What about defending the other religions, viz Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Sikhism, Taoism in the country?

These questions show how ridiculous  and outrageous are  the justifications that there are certain “contexts” where it is not an offence to issue a threat  to burn the Bible,  to wound religious feelings or to cause inter-religious hatred!

Just as there should be zero tolerance for corruption, there should be zero tolerance for  any threat to burn the holy books of any religion in Malaysia.

Or does the AGC also hold the view that there are certain contexts where corruption is not an offence?

Having reiterated his call for a Global Movement of Moderates thrice in four years in his three speeches at the United Nations General Assembly, and even securing the highest-ever 187 votes in Malaysia’s recent election as a non-permanent member of the United Nations Security Council on the basis of Malaysia’s commitment to moderation to marginalize extremism, I call on the  Prime Minister Najib to announce a zero tolerance policy in Malaysia  for any threat to burn any holy books of any religion so as to be a role model of moderation for other countries.

Najib should also announce that he will ensure that he will have an  Attorney-General who is committed to his Global Movement of Moderates initiative, and is prepared to remove  Tan Sri Gani Patail as Attorney-General if Gani refuses to adopt the Prime Minister’s  Global Movement of Moderates initiative as  the guiding policy for all his  prosecution decisions – although the sole discretionary power on individual prosecutions is vested in the AG as stipulated by  Article 145(3) of the Constitution.

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 29 October 2014, 9:22 am and is filed under
Islam
,
Najib Razak
,
nation building
,
Religion
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.