DR M, Father of the Regressing Malay

Mahathir forgets easily (II)

By
Martin Jalleh

Recently, Bolehland’s Statesman Dr Mahathir (Dr M) launched Perkasa, a right-wing Malay group, (some consider it as an ultra-fanatical wing of Umno) at the Putra World Trade Centre in Kuala Lumpur.

The former premier was the replacement for the much wiser Sultan of Selangor who turned down Perkasa’s invitation. The Malay CEOs of government-linked companies (GLCs) also declined.

Dr M and his wife were greeted with a silat performance, strains of traditional music and a huge replica of a keris which stood out on the side of the stage. In the midst of speeches were shouts of “Hidup Perkasa”.

Dr M said that the Malays’ faith in Umno has weakened since it’s disastrous performance in the 2008 general elections. The BN government was weak and all this was due to the then weak leader! He inferred that the Malays needed a strong voice like Perkasa.

They placed a sash on their “strong” Malay leader with the title ‘Bintang Primbumi Perkasa’. Dr M then handed a kris to Perkasa president Ibrahim Ali who unsheathed, kiss and waved it high to cries of “Hidup Melayu”.

Lim Kit Siang slammed Ibrahim Ali for blaming the DAP and its Malaysian Malaysia slogan as the main cause of the May 13 race riots, and for his keris-waving antics which to the DAP stalwart were meant to signify that Perkasa was ready to shed blood to defend Malay rights.

But the “greatest tragedy” according to Kit Siang was Dr M giving his patronage to Perkasa, an organisation “built on stilts of lies”. He lamented that Dr M “has come full circle – from an ultra back again to an ultra”.

Ibrahim Ali, an Umno reject (in the last general elections) was only making use of the supposedly retired Umno president who was slick and sly enough to outshine the hopper and used Perkasa too. They both needed their stage to stay relevant and adored – even if the script involved making use of the poor Malays!

Dr M and Ibrahim Ali would remain silent over the poor Malays having been for so long and so scandalously shortchanged by the Umnoputras and the blame for their struggles being put on the non-Malays. They were mum on those elite Malay leaders who have bled the country dry and gambled away her well-being with a racial-religious card.

As mentor to and godfather of Perkasa, Dr M, the great Statesman, would join in the rhetoric and heroics of the mentally challenged Ibrahim Ali. The latter would holler for the continued handicap and handouts given to the Malays He would clamour for their continued “crutches” and contracts.

Yet, a long time ago Dr M had very bravely declared: “The Malays should stop sending memorandum after memorandum to the government asking for aid and other things for themselves. Such an approach is no longer suitable because the time has come for them to stand on their own feet.”

He had boldly asked: “How much longer must the Malays depend on the government and the privileges accorded to them? How much longer must they remain mediocre?”

The then prime minister was delivering a speech at the ‘Reaffirming the Idealism of Undergraduates in the New Millennium’ symposium at Dewan Perdanasiswa, Universiti Malaya, in 2001 (the 30th anniversary of the NEP).

Speaking to the predominantly Malay crowd, Dr M continued: ‘How do you view the beggars on the street and then ask yourself what is the difference between their circumstances and yours? The government has done so much to elevate the position of the Malays, be it in business or education so that their achievement would be on par with the races, yet these efforts are never enough.”

“If the Malays could compete on the same level with other races there would no longer be a need for them to restrict themselves to the quota for everything. Must we lower the eligibility standard to the point where even useless students can go to the university just so that we can fill up the 55% bumiputra quota in the local public universities?”

“If so, we must remember that some of the students who go to the university in this manner will some day become doctors and engineers. How can we entrust our life to such doctors or what will be the quality of our infrastructures if they are built by such engineers? It would be much easier to tackle the problem affecting the Malays if they are proven stupid because all that is required would be to encourage them to study harder.”

“However, the underlying reason is much more difficult to address because it is caused by negative attitude and their reluctance to work hard.” (The Star, 2 July, 2001)

That was nine years ago! Today, Dr M joins Perkasa in insisting and almost begging that the Malays remain a begging and handicapped community! Who indeed has insulted the Malays?

(31 March 2010)

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 31 March 2010, 10:57 am and is filed under
Mahathir
,
Martin Jalleh
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Muhyiddin should resign as DPM if he is not prepared to declare that in accordance with 1Malaysia goal, he is Malaysian first and Malay second

Deputy Prime Minister Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin said in Parliament yesterday in his reply as Education Minister that he supported the Prime Minister’s message of 1Malaysia and instead accused me of trying to drive a wedge between Datuk Seri Najib Razak and him.

Muhyiddin said:

“Ipoh Timur has questioned my commitment to the concept of 1 Malaysia. For Ipoh Timur’s information, 1 Malaysia, which was created by the prime minister, is a pure idea aimed at strengthening racial unity which has been the basis of our strength as a nation.

“Unity reflected by 1 Malaysia is not a form of assimilation where one’s identity is erased and replaced with one identity. It is also not a concept which rejects the special rights of the Malays as propagated by Ipoh Timur through the concept of Malaysian Malaysia and lately Middle Malaysia.

“My relationship with the prime minister is very close and 1 Malaysia has the support of the nation. The allegations made are aimed at weakening Barisan Nasional. I am confident that Barisan Nasional lawmakers clearly understand the concept of 1 Malaysia.”

Muhyiddin said that 1Malaysia respects the nation’s constitution and accused me of questioning the special rights of the Malays.

He said:

 “Ipoh Timur is questioning the special rights of the Malays and rejects the differences in identity of the different races and the spirit of the constitution which does not reflect real commitment to the concept of 1 Malaysia.”

Clearly, Muhyiddin believes in the maxim that the best defence is offence, as he had completely evaded the three questions, which I had described as the three acid tests as to whether he really supports Najib’s 1Malaysia concept and has the 1Malaysia DNA, namely;

Whether he agrees to the establishment of an Opposition-headed Parliamentary Select Committee on 1Malaysia;

Is he prepared to declare that the basis of 1Malaysia is “ketuanan rakyat Malaysia” and not “ketuanan Melayu”; and

Is he prepared to endorse the objective of 1Malaysia as defined by the 1Malaysia Government Transformation Programme (GTP) Roadmap to create a nation where every Malaysian perceives himself or herself as Malaysian first, and by race, religion or region second.

As a result of evasion and prevarication by Umno Youth leader, Khairy Jamaluddin during the exchange when I spoke in the debate on the Royal Address, I had framed a fourth question:

Whether he is prepared to declare that the basis of the Malaysian Constitution is “ketuanan rakyat Malaysia” and not “ketuanan Melayu”.

Instead, Muhyiddin had gone on the offensive to launch a baseless and scurrilous attack on me, alleging that that I “questioned Malay special rights and rejected the differences in identity of the different races and the spirit of the constitution”.

Muhyiddin must be a very desperate politician that he had to make such a baseless charge, as I had refuted the allegation that I opposed Article 153 of the Constitution.

Is Muhyiddin making the allegation because I had declared that I am Malaysian first and Chinese second, and he is evading my challenge to  him to similarly declare that he is Malaysian first and Malay second?

Isn’t Muhiddin’s refusal to make such a declaration the best proof that he does not fully support Najib’s 1Malaysia concept?

Let me remind Muhyiddin what the 1Malaysia Government Transformation Programme Roadmap said about the goal of 1Malaysia – “to make Malaysia ….a greater nation: a nation where, it is hoped, every Malaysian perceives himself or herself as Malaysian first, and by race, religion, geographical region or socio-economic background second and where the principles of 1Malaysia are woven into the economic, political and social fabric of society”.

During the debate in Parliament, I said this formulation of the goal of 1Malaysia is exactly the goal of Malaysian Malaysia and Middle Malaysia, proof that Malaysian Malaysia and Middle Malaysia are fully centred on the fundamental basis of the Constitution upon which this nation was founded when we achieved Merdeka in 1957.

In refusing to respond to my challenge to declare that he is Malaysian first and Malay second, isn’t Muhyiddin demonstrating that he does not fully support the 1Malaysia goal?

I challenge Muhyiddin to explain how my four questions on the acid tests of 1Malaysia had “questioned Malay special rights and rejected the differences in identity of the different races and the spirit of the constitution”?

Muhyiddin should resign as Deputy Prime Minister if he is not prepared to set the lead for all UMNO and Barisan Nasional leaders and declare that in accordance with the 1Malaysia goal, he is Malaysian first and Malay second.

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 31 March 2010, 10:57 am and is filed under
Muhyiddin Yassin
,
nation building
,
Parliament
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Challenge to all the other 17 UMNO Ministers and other BN Ministers to stand up and be counted to declare whether they are Malaysians first and Malays, Chinese, Indians, Kadazans or Ibans second or the reverse

In response to my challenge on the four acid tests of whether he really supports Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak’s 1Malaysia concept, Deputy Prime Minister Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin declared he is “Malay first” and then only a Malaysian.

He said: “I am Malay first! But being Malay does not mean you are not Malaysian. It is not a race issue.”

Again accusing me of trying to drive a wedge between him and Najib, he said:

“The question of 1 Malaysia should not be brought up. When a leader talks about the interest of his own race, it does not mean he doesn’t support 1 Malaysia. 1 Malaysia is based on the Constitution.

“How can I say I’m Malaysian first and Malay second? All the Malays will shun me and say that it is not proper.

“There is nothing wrong in leaders fighting for their own race. Don’t tell me Kit Siang does not fight for the Chinese?”

He even challenged me to declare that I am Malaysian first and Chinese second, until he was told by reporters that I had already made such a declaration – in Parliament during the debate on the Royal Address on 18th March.

I feel very sorry for the Prime Minister that his signature concept of 1Malaysia as the sixth Prime Minister of Malaysia has been torn into smithereens by his deputy just on the eve of his first anniversary as Prime Minister on Saturday on 3rd April.

In fact, thanks to Muhyiddin, Najib’s 1Malaysia concept has been turned nationwide into an April Fool’s joke, as today is April 1.

I never said that a person who regards himself as a Malay first and Malaysian second is not a Malaysian – but clearly he does not qualify to become a “1Malaysian”.

Who is a “1Malaysian”?

This is clearly spelt out in the 1Malaysia Government Transformation Programme Roadmap launched by the Prime Minister at the end of January, which declared that the goal of 1Malaysia is “to make Malaysia ….a greater nation: a nation where, it is hoped, every Malaysian perceives himself or herself as Malaysian first, and by race, religion, geographical region or socio-economic background second and where the principles of 1Malaysia are woven into the economic, political and social fabric of society”.

I had said in my speech in Parliament on March 18 that the the biggest enemy of 1Malaysia is not from outside Barisan Nasional but from inside Umno and Muhyiddin has proved me right.

I had wondered during my speech how many Cabinet Ministers and Barisan Nasional leaders have the 1Malaysia DNA as to be able to pass the four simple 1Malaysia tests I had formulated.

During my speech in Parliament on March 18, when I put forward the four 1Malaysia acid tests, UMNO MPs including the UMNO Youth leader Khairy Jamaluddin ran for cover and dared not give a straightforward answer.

Let me challenge all the other 17 UMNO Ministers and other BN Ministers to stand up and be counted to declare whether they are Malaysians first and Malays, Chinese, Indians, Kadazans or Ibans second or the reverse.

In fact, I want to ask the Minister responsible for the 1Malaysia Government Transformation Programme Roadmap, Senator Tan Sri Dr. Koh Tsu Koon whether it is tenable for him to continue as Cabinet Minister when the very rationale of his portfolio – 1Malaysia GTP – had collapsed and destroyed by none other than the Deputy Prime Minister?

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 1 April 2010, 12:28 pm and is filed under
Muhyiddin Yassin
,
Najib Razak
,
nation building
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Malaysia in the Era of Globalization #8

By
M Bakri Musa

Chapter 2:  Why Some Societies Progress, Others Regress

Geography As Destiny

It is easy to understand and accept the premise that geography plays a major role in deciding the fate of a nation.  Intuitively one can readily see that the Arabs are fabulously wealthy because of their vast oil deposits.  Economists have long clung to the idea of comparative advantage afforded by the luck of geography.  Portugal’s Mediterranean climate enables it to produce cheaper and better wines than Britain.  The easy availability of coal in Britain on the other hand, made possible the steam revolution.

            Access to navigable waterways and oceans confer immense advantages.  For this reason Malacca was a center of vigorous Malay civilization for a long time.  Through international commerce and the consequent intermixing of various cultures, Islam entered and became established in the Malay world through that port city.

            Yet like many ideas that seem right, geography cannot be the full answer.  There are too many exceptions of countries doing well despite seemingly no natural resources or favorable geographic factors.  Hong Kong and Singapore are two oft-cited examples.  But even here one cannot ignore geography entirely.
Hong Kong enjoys the proximity of a huge hinterland, China.  Singapore too, despite the irritatingly frequent boasts of its leaders to the contrary, is blessed with its strategic location on the maritime trade route between the Far East and Europe, and a protected natural deep-water harbor.  Those are not inconsiderable assets.  As realtors endlessly remind us, location is everything.

            Favorable geography alone is not enough.  Many nations blessed with abundant natural resources and favorable geography remain stagnant, their people languishing in poverty.  Brunei may enjoy one of the highest per capita incomes but its people are essentially Third World peasants.  One can easily imagine that country reverting to its original tropical swamps and its ruler reduced to the level of the Sultan of Sulu once the oil runs out.  Africa contains the largest deposits of many valuable minerals and has huge potential for hydroelectric energy, yet that entire continent remains backward and poor.

            Geography as an academic discipline too has also fallen on hard times, with major American campuses beginning with Harvard dispensing with it. Matters once under its purview are now relegated to earth sciences and geology. Only ancient British universities like Cambridge still have a Department of Geography.

            Geography however, has a long history.  The Greek philosopher Ptolemy in his Geographica divided the world into six geographic zones according to climate, and concluded that the areas most conducive to human civilization are the middle zones—the Mediterranean climate – where of course Greece happens to be located.  The extreme zones, the polar north and hot tropical band, were deemed not conducive for human civilization.

            Ibn Khaldun, the 14th century Muslim historian in his Muqaddimah (An Introduction [to the study of History]), expanded on this Hellenic observation.  “Environmental differences,” he wrote, “affect and shape man’s character, his appearance and his customs.  The best conditions for human existence obtain in the middle regions of the earth, between its northern and southern extremes.”  Ibn Khaldun too divided the world into several zones ranging from the tropic to the tundra, but he went further to boldly state that climate and the physical environment affect people’s character. Thus:

            Now Negroes live in the hot zone.  Heat dominates their temperament and formation. Therefore, they have in their spirits an amount of heat corresponding to that of their bodies and that of the zone in which they live….Excitability is the direct consequence.

Egyptians [in the heat are] dominated by joyfulness, levity, and disregard for the future. They store no provisions of food, neither for a month nor a year ahead, but purchase most of it in the market. Fez in the Maghrib on the other hand, lies inland and is surrounded by cold hills. Its inhabitants can be observed to look sad and gloomy and to be concerned for the future.”

            He further elaborated on the role of the food supply in shaping the culture, physique, and character of a people.  Thus, “We find that the inhabitants of fertile zones where the products of agriculture and animal husbandry as well as seasonings and fruits are plentiful, are, as a rule, described as stupid in mind and coarse in body.  Those who lead a frugal life and are restricted to barely and dira … are superior both intellectually and physically.”

            Essentially, we are what we eat! Or, adversity builds character!

            The Malay scholar Pendita Za’ba, in a 1933 essay entitled Kemiskinan Orang Melayu (Poverty Among Malays) wrote, “The geography of our country, with its fertile soil and abundant flora which provide for easy sustenance together with our oppressively hot climate, are reasons often cited to explain why Malays are sluggish and backward.  That is, we are not as diligent and hard working as the immigrants because we had no need to. Everything has been easily and amply provided for.”  But he went on to suggest (a point often ignored) that “the factors of geography” alone cannot be the full explanation. He suggested two additional elements: first the role of religion (Islam); and second, culture.

            I will cover these two issues as they specifically affect Malays later

            The most obvious effect of geography is on the climate. Having been born and raised in the tropics, lived through many a frigid Canadian winter, and now residing in California, I can personally attest to the salubrious effects of the Mediterranean clime. Many Americans too share my sentiment, as evidenced by the large number of new arrivals from such states as Minnesota and Iowa.

            It is argued that the human body tolerates cold better than heat.  I disagree.  I prefer the tropics to the frigid Artic any time; at least in the tropics I can always keep cool by taking off my shirt or having a shower.  To keep warm in the cold entails adding more layers of clothing or starting a fire, both energy-consuming activities.  In the tropics you can keep cool by not exerting yourself in the heat of the day; hence the cultural phenomenon of siesta. Only mad dogs and Englishmen would dare or be stupid enough to venture out in the heat of the day; the natives knew better.

            Climate, as intimated by Ibn Khaldun, also affects personality.  Many writers attribute the sunny, open, and warm personality of tropical inhabitants to the weather, in contrast to the frigid, icy behavior of the Northerners. Notice the similar vocabulary to describe human dispositions and weather.

            Tropical dwellings too are open and airy, for ventilation and coolness, unlike the closed and insulated homes in cold weather countries.  In a tropical home there is no distinction between the inside and outside; they just merge.  When entertaining, guests are not cooped up within the confines of the living room but can easily flow out to the verandah and the outside.  Malaysian homes also have their doors and windows wide open for ventilation, creating a welcoming aura.  Entertaining in a temperate zone home, especially in winter, involves being cooped up.  This does not favor long and leisurely conversations or create an atmosphere of openness.  In Canada you hardly see your neighbor until the spring thaw.  Not surprisingly, inhabitants of cold zones are prone to Seasonal Affective Disorders (SAD—depression).

            I brought a Canadian guest to a Hari Raya (Eid celebration) party in Malaysia.  At the end he was amazed at the number of guests he had met and yet somehow they did not overwhelm him.  The reason was that people came and went, mingled in and out of the house, with some eating on benches outside.  The atmosphere was like a party at a public park rather than in a home. Children too were tolerated because they were not in the way; they could be running outside the home.  In contrast, in Western societies it is considered bad form to bring children along unless specifically invited.  I can see why.  All you need is a couple of kids running wild within the confines of a house to give everyone a headache.  Malaysians visiting a similar party in an American home always wonder where the children are.  Well, they are cooped up in the family room watching a movie under the watchful eye of the babysitter.

            Geography has also been invoked to explain differences in personalities and temperament of inhabitants of the different regions within a country, as between northern and southern Italians.

             Ibn Khaldun was the first to systemically study the development of society.  To him urbanization, in contrast to nomadic lifestyle, represents an advance form of existence.  Such concentrations of humans permit, among other things, the division of labor, a concept that predates by centuries the thinking of modern economists.  Further, human society can only exist and flourish through the cooperative endeavors of all its participants on behalf of the common good.  This “group feeling” or group consciousness (asabiyah) is the glue that binds society.  Groups that have strong asabiyah achieve predominance over others.  Contemporary social scientists have a modern term to describe this attribute: social capital.  This is increasingly recognized as the glue that keeps modern society functioning.

Next:   Culture and Geography:  An Experiment of Nature

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 1 April 2010, 10:03 am and is filed under
Bakri Musa
,
globalisation
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


A Blueprint for Malaysia

Opinion Asia | The Wall Street Journal

Prime Minister Najib Razak sounds a reform note, but will he follow through?

The times they are a-changin’ in Malaysia. A few years ago it was inconceivable that a Malaysian premier would express dissatisfaction with the “rent-seeking and patronage” inherent in the country’s four-decade-old affirmative action policies and call for a more “transparent” system based on merit and need. Former strongman Mahathir Mohamad used to label people with such ideas “extremists.”

Yet today Dr. Mahathir, who has thrown his lot in with nativist groups like Perkasa, looks extreme. Prime Minister Najib Razak, by contrast, is reflecting the popular will. In announcing what he dubbed a “New Economic Model” Tuesday, Mr. Najib is responding to the obvious: His country’s extensive system of hiring rules, investment quotas and various other perquisites for the majority ethnic Malays drives away capital and labor and entrenches corruption and poverty.

It’s a story investors already understand. For the past few years, foreign direct investment in Malaysia has slowed to a trickle in an economy that used to be one of Southeast Asia’s dynamos. On a net basis, money is flowing out of the country. Part of this trend has to do with state-owned oil behemoth Petronas’s investments abroad. But it also reflects that many Malaysian companies don’t repatriate capital because they see fewer decent investment opportunities at home. The same goes for foreign investors.

The only way to change this trend is to roll back Malaysia’s overweening public sector and open space for competition and creative destruction. Mr. Najib acknowledged this Tuesday, saying “we need a new way of doing things.” He laid out a plan for privatization of state-owned companies, sales of government land, a reassessment of subsidies and a review of restrictions on foreign investment in services.

As importantly, Mr. Najib mentioned education reform—an area in which pro-Malay admissions policies have made meritocracy a dirty word and denied opportunities to bright minority students, especially from the Chinese and Indian communities. Malaysian companies often complain about the lack of skilled labor, and the country’s universities are a big part of the problem.

So far, so good. However, Mr. Najib has made these promises before, and there’s no evidence beyond his words that he has the gumption to press ahead. He announced a small services liberalization in April last year, but it wasn’t the big-bang reform that Malaysia needs. Not much has happened since. The markets yesterday greeted the New Economic Model with a yawn.

Most investors simply don’t believe Mr. Najib is willing to take on the biggest entrenched interest of all—his own political party, the United Malays National Organization. For decades, UMNO has monopolized power by divvying up economic spoils on political and ethnic grounds. If Mr. Najib is serious about reform, that’s the place to start.

                This entry was posted on Friday, 2 April 2010, 2:53 pm and is filed under
Economics
,
Najib Razak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Najib’s first anniversary marked with his 1Malaysia signature theme in complete tatters – will the NEM go the same way as 1Malaysia?

Datuk Seri Najib Razak’s first anniversary as sixth Prime Minister of Malaysia is marked with his 1Malaysia signature theme in complete tatters, raising the question whether the other pillar of his premiership, New Economic Model unveiled three days ago will go the same way as  his 1Malaysia slogan.

When Deputy Speaker Datuk Wan Junaidi Tuanku Jaafar made an arbitrary last-minute rejection of my amendment to the Motion of Thanks for the Royal Address late last night, provoking a collective protest walk-out of the Chambers by Pakatan Rakyat Members of Parliament from PAS, PKR and DAP, it was not only a black-letter day for parliamentary democracy but also for Najib’s 1Malaysia concept and slogan.

I had moved the amendment motion for the establishment of a Parliamentary Select Committee on 1Malaysia Government Transformation Programme Roadmap to monitor and report on its progress and development at the conclusion of my speech in the debate on the Royal Address two weeks ago on March 18, and it was seconded by the PAS MP for Kuala Krai Dr. Mohd Hatta bin Mohd Ramli and had been accepted by the Chair.

It is against all parliamentary precedents and practices for the amendment motion, which had been properly moved, seconded and accepted two weeks ago, to be suddenly rejected at the last-minute just before voting on the specious ground that it had nothing to do with the Royal Address.

If so, why was the amendment to the motion accepted for two weeks? Why did it take the Chair two weeks  to discover that it had nothing to do with the Royal Address?

Such a ruling is also against all accepted parliamentary precedents and practices for the debate on the Royal Address is a general policy debate of the government-of-the-day and it defies all imagination that it could be claimed that the proposed establishment of a Parliamentary Select Committee on 1Malaysia Government Transformation Programme  (GTP) Roadmap had nothing to do with government policies and programmes.

Is anyone suggesting that the 1Malaysia Government Transformation Programme  (GTP) is an illicit and illegitimate government programme – making Senator Tan Sri Dr. Koh Tsu Koon and illicit and illegitimate Minister?

Equally unfortunate and tragic, what happened in Parliament yesterday provoking the protest walkout of PR MPs is also a black-letter day for Najib’s 1Malaysia concept and slogan – tearing them to tatters after exposing the chasm between words and deeds on the Prime Minister’s signature slogan.

Why is the Barisan Nasional Government tooth-and-nail against the formation of a 1Malaysia GTP Roadmap, when it should welcome parliamentary recognition and support for the programme?

The answer is simple and straightforward – the 1Malaysia concept and slogan is a fake which cannot stand scrutiny.

March 31 will go down in history as the day that Najib’s 1Malaysia concept and slogan were torn into tatters, not by the Opposition but by the Deputy Prime Minister Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin when he declared that he is “a Malay first and then only a Malaysian” – completely rejecting the “goal of 1Malaysia” as documented in the 262-page 1Malaysia Government Transformation Programme Roadmap of “a nation where every Malaysian perceives himself or herself as Malaysian first, and by race, religion, geographical region or socio-economic background second”. (page 11 1Malaysia GTP Roadmap)

As a result of Muhyiddin’s “I am a Malay first and then only a Malaysian” statement, which has created a firestorm of outrage and protest as evident from the avalanche of adverse comments particularly on twitter, Facebook and Internet media like Malaysiakini and MalaysianInsider, the entire Cabinet had been forced to line up to back up Muhyiddin.

This was why Parliament last night saw the pathetic spectacle of the Minister responsible for 1Malaysia GTP Roadmap, Tan Sri Dr. Koh Tsu Koon, twisting and turning when he was repeatedly challenged to declare whether he is “Malaysian first and Chinese second” or “Chinese first and Malaysian second”?

I have no doubt that before Muhyiddin’s declaration on March 31 that he is “Malay first and Malaysian second”, Koh would have no  hesitation in saying that he is “Malaysian first and Chinese second” when asked.

However, after Muhyiddin’s declaration, Koh did not even dare to declare that he is “Malaysian first and Chinese second” when repeatedly asked in Parliament last night, for fear of stepping on Muhyiddin’s toes.

In fact, Koh  was specifically warned not to give an answer which is different from that given by Muhyiddin and endorsed earlier in Parliament by the Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz, causing Koh to twist and turn to avoid answering when challenged to declare his stand.

So is Najib’s 1Malaysia concept and slogan a step forward or a step backward for Malaysian nation building?

Clearly it is not progress but regress when Koh now dare not declare in Parliament that he is “Malaysian first and Chinese second”, a position he would have no hesitation in making before Muhyiddin’s “Malay first, Malaysian second” declaration on March 31!

As a result of having to back Muhyiddin’s statement, Nazri had to resort to perverse logic and dubious reasoning, even suggesting that 1Malaysia is somehow against the Malaysian Constitution – a position which I reject outright.

This is why Nazri’s challenge to me to table a motion to amend the Malaysian Constitution to delete the word “Malay”  in the constitution is completely inappropriate ,  off-tangent and irrelevant to the issue as to whether Cabinet Ministers are prepared to set an example of 1Malaysia by declaring that they are Malaysians first and their ethnic identities second.

There is no need to amend the Malaysian Constitution to attain the 1Malaysia objective,which is why one of the four 1Malaysia acid tests I had formulated is whether Barisan Nasional Ministers agree that the Malaysian Constitution is based on the principle of “ketuanan rakyat Malaysia” and not “ketuanan Melayu”.

                This entry was posted on Friday, 2 April 2010, 1:17 pm and is filed under
Najib Razak
,
nation building
,
Parliament
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Najib Stalls on his New Economic Policy

Asia Sentinel

Fleshing it out is probably impossible

As expected, Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak unveiled his New Economic Model in an 8,000 word speech on March 30 to a national investor conference in Kuala Lumpur. And, as expected, despite the hype and favorable news stories in the international press, it contained virtually nothing of substance. The speech can be found here.

Najib remains caught between the need to eliminate costly subsidies enshrined in 40 years of economic policy that benefit ethnic Malays and the fact that eliminating them would alienate a major part of his United Malays Political Organization political base.

His pledge in the speech to eliminate rent-seeking is fraught with political danger, since UMNO has largely been built on party cadres who have made fortunes on government contracts or other arrangements. As Lim Kit Siang, the leader of the opposition Democratic Action Party, pointed out to Asia Sentinel, Najib’s promise to end rent-seeking was almost an exact echo of speeches by his predecessor, former Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, who was unable to make any progress whatsoever in the face of implacable opposition from UMNO cronies.

The premier has been trying to walk the line between economic liberalization and enraging his base virtually since he took office a year ago, offering to unveil policies and then delaying. The details now have been delayed until the release of the 10th Malaysia plan, probably in June. Some, including veteran UMNO politician-turned-reformer Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah, whose speech appeared on March 24 in Asia Sentinel, have questioned whether it is possible to split the difference.

Last year, Najib quickly stoked ethnic Malay anger by removing a long-standing requirement mandating ethnic Malay participation in 27 economic sub-sectors as well as removing a requirement that 30 percent of shares in IPOs go to ethnic Malays. That,along with rising irritation in other ethnic parties, led to rallies across the country put on by the Malay Consultative Council, an umbrella group of 50 ethnic Malay non-government organizations, and its most active voice, an NGO called Perkasa.

While there has been no open break between Najib and the splenetic former Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad, Mahathir has appeared several times at rallies to defend so-called ketuanan Melayu, or Malay superiority. Some of the rallies have turned into near riots and have been likened to the Tea Party rallies in the United States that have roiled American politics. Mahathir is also close to Ibrahim Ali, a former UMNO wheel-horse who is a major force in Perkasa, leading some to believe Ibrahim is Mahathir’s spear-carrier.

As Asia Sentinel reported on March 8, the widening gap between what Najib wants to do and what a major portion of his United Malays National Organization constituency wants is putting in jeopardy his so-called RM20 million 1Malaysia campaign, designed to bring the country’s alienated and fractious ethnic groups together, and torebuild the Barisan Nasional, the ruling national coalition of ethnic political parties.

In his speech, Najib said the country could no longer rely on a few sectors like oil palm plantations and crude oil sales to drive growth. He called for the country to diversify and provide incentives in new strategic industries. The education system – which critics say now gives ethnic Malays virtually blanket passes with little academic rigor — must be revaluated and improved, he said, to reward excellence and nurture talented graduates who excel in strategic and creative thinking, and entrepreneurial and leadership skills that will drive success in the decades ahead.

On Tuesday, the Malaysian Insider, an increasingly influential website, reported that the Malay Consultative Council is split over Najib’s plans, with the council taking an unofficial stand to support them on condition that affirmative action features contained in the New Economic Policy, put in place after bloody ethnic riots in 1969, remain in place. Given that Najib’s economic plans would remove many of those perks, it remains to be seen how he can convince the rank and file of their value.

Najib does have an improving economy working in his behalf. As he told the Invest Malaysia conference Monday, fourth-quarter 2009 Gross domestic product grew by a higher-than-expected 4.5 percent, that exports have rebounded, and foreign direct investment is picking up. The Industrial Production Index, he said, rebounded to 12.7 percent growth in January with exports, which traditionally have comprised more than 100 percent of GDP, exports rose 37 percent to RM52 billion and imports increased by 31 percent to RM40 billion. His decision last year to inject RM67 billion of stimulus funding provided a much-needed boost to the economy.

The government, he said, “can no longer tolerate practices that support the behavior of rent-seeking and patronage, which have long tarnished the altruistic aims of the New Economic Policy. Inclusiveness, where all Malaysians contribute and benefit from economic growth – must be a fundamental element of any new economic approach.”

However, there is no better example of how closely tied to Najib’s own coat-tails are to rent-seekng than a contract to provide services and coordination for two Amaris submarines purchased for US$1 billion from DCNS, a French defense contractor, when Najib was defense minister. Najib and one of his closest friends, Abdul Razak Baginda, were intimately involved with the purchase of the submarines. Although many critics characterized the €114.96 million payment to a company called Perimekar, partly owned by Razak Baginda, as a bribe, Malaysia’s defense ministry defended it in Parliament as a support services contract.

Perimekar was partly owned by the Armed Forces Superannuation Fund Board (the military retirement fund), Boustead Holdings Bhd, and KS Ombak Laut Sdn Bhd. Ombak Laut was in turn owned by Razak Baginda, who was tried for the murder of Mongolian translator Altantuya Shaariibuu and found not guilty in a controversial trial that saw two of Najib’s own bodyguards convicted of the crime. Altantuya had served as a translator in France on part of the submarine transaction and was demanding US$500,000 from Razak, her former lover in what she herself called blackmail in a letter found after her death.

Yet there is another service contract as well. The submarines became controversial again in February when it was reported that the first one to be delivered had problems with its ballast system and couldn’t submerge. Although that turned out to be a relatively minor problem, it brought to light questions over an additional service agreement between the government and a well-connected firm called Boustead DCNS, a joint venture between BHIC Defence Technologies Sdn Bhd, a subsidiary of publicly-listed Boustead Heavy Industries Corp Bhd, and the France-based DCNS SA, which built the subs. Originally Boustead told the Malaysian Stock Exchange that the service contract was for RM600 million (US$184.1 million) for six years, or US$30.68 million annually. However, the contract later ballooned to RM270 million per year. Boustead Holdings is partly owned by the government and has close connections with UMNO.

There are dozens of such contracts or other arrangements between the government and favored companies closely connected to either UMNO or the Barisan Nasional as a whole. One of the costliest scandals in Malaysian history blew up last year when it transpired that a plan to modernize Port Klang, a seaport 60 km west of Kuala Lumpur, had gone so far out of control that the costs skyrocketed from RM1.96 billion to a potential RM12.45 billion if the government has to pay all interest costs it is obligated to by guarantees. Although the scandal is mainly centered in the Malaysian Chinese Association, the second ethnic party in the Barisan Nasional, or national ruling coalition, it also implicates several leading members of UMNO as well, and there appears little appetite to prosecute any of them despite Najib’s rhetoric.

“The government promised the world it would be announced by the end of last year,” Razaleigh wrote. “It was put off to the end of this month. Now we are told we will be getting just the first part of it, and that we will be getting merely a proposal for the New Economic Model from the National Economic Advisory Council. Clearly, politics has intruded. The NEM has been opposed by groups that are concerned that the NEM might replace the NEP. The New Economic Model might not turn out to be so new after all.”

                This entry was posted on Friday, 2 April 2010, 5:00 am and is filed under
Economics
,
Najib Razak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


NEM and NEP – Only One Letter Different!

By
M. Bakri Musa

With threatening clouds overhead, there are no prizes for predicting the flood, only for designing or building the ark.  The recently-released New Economic Model (NEM) Report draws our attention (not that we need it!) to the darkening Malaysian skies, and then goes on advising us to build an ark.

            That is as far as the report goes.  There are no hints on whether the clouds would bring a tropical drenching or just a midday sprinkle.  There are also no suggestions on the type of vessel we should build.  A barge, yacht or a sampan will all keep us afloat, but beyond that they serve vastly different purposes, not to mention their enormously varying costs.  And if the forecast calls for only a light sprinkle, then a simple umbrella would do; no need to expend scant resources on an unneeded ark.

            We are told that following “public input,” another report will be released by June, in time for its recommendations to be incorporated into the Tenth Malaysia Plan and the 2011 Budget.  This second report, we are further assured, will contain specific policy prescriptions – the ark design, as it were.

            The current report is silent on how this “public input” would come about.  Before deluding ourselves that we could participate in robust public debates, let me intrude a cautionary note.  Acknowledging that there will be opposition, the report urges the government to take “prompt action when resistance is encountered.”

            You can be assured that those UMNO-Putras and others glutton on the NEP-spawned patronage system would be spared this “prompt action.”  They as well as the Perkasa boys can continue with their shrill voices opposing NEM.  For Pakatan folks and others however, be warned!

Major Conceptual Flaws

On a general level, this report suffers from three glaring conceptual flaws.  One, it fails to recognize that the bane of past policies is in their implementation.  Two, it ignores the major role culture plays in the successful execution of any economic initiative.  And three, there is no attempt at learning from the successes and failures of earlier policies.

            This last deficiency is surprising as well as disturbing.  If NEM were to supplant NEP, then we should know the strengths and weaknesses of that earlier policy.  Or if it was basically sound, then what or who perverted it, and where the failures were in its implementation.

            No one argues with the twin objectives of NEP:  eradicating poverty and eliminating the identification of race with economic function.  Those are laudable goals; the second in particular for a racially diverse society like ours.  Indeed, the report pays tribute to NEP for reducing poverty and minimizing inter-communal inequities.

            Unfortunately, there the report ends.  In an earlier chapter, the report duly lists the numerous problems facing Malaysia to day:  widening inequities especially among Bumiputras; talented citizens leaving; the rise of a rent-seeking class; entrenched corruption; and the failure of our institutions.

            What happened in between?  Unless we know, there is little assurance that the laudable goals of NEM would not be similarly derailed.  If we are unwilling to acknowledge and learn from the mistakes of the NEP, then we are bound to repeat them.

            Thus there should be some critical analysis of the NEP, at least an elaboration of the positive elements and the highlighting of the negatives.  The one chapter that should be in the report would be one titled, “How did we get in the mess we are in today?”  I reckon that such a chapter would be filled with narratives on the failures of our institutions.  It is this that doomed NEP.

            On the role of culture, it is surprising that a committee made up of mostly Malaysians and those familiar with Malaysia would come up with a report that is totally oblivious of this reality.  This cultural dimension is crucial not only in economics but also in management and healthcare.  Of all people, Malaysians who are daily immersed in a diverse cultural environment, should be well aware of this.

            An initiative that would be embraced by urbanite Chinese in Penang would fall flat among Iban rural dwellers of interior Sarawak.  The solo entrepreneur model would probably find a fertile ground in Penang, but not in Kenawit.  There, the social system would be more supportive of cooperative-like ventures.

             Challenges for the urban poor regardless of race are radically different from those in rural areas; race only compounds those differences.  The failure to recognize this dooms many an imaginative plan.  When that happens, those policymakers would resort to blaming and stereotyping the poor victims.  We have heard that many times.

            The colonials brought modern schools to Malaysia with the best of intentions.  Non-Malays responded to that gesture and benefited immensely.  Malays did not, and suffered the consequences in terms of our economic and social development.

            It would be wrong as well as cruel to conclude that Malays did not value modern education, as many (and not just the colonials and non-Malays) were wont to.  For when those schools were named Tuanku Muhammad School instead of Convent of the Holy Infant Jesus, Malay parents readily enrolled their children.  The content was still essentially the same but only the packaging was different; it was sensitive to the culture of the clients.

            American consumers readily respond to their leaders’ exhortations to increase their spending to pull the country out of recession.  For the Japanese however, the more their leaders urge them to spend, the more they save, and hoard.  Same economic circumstances and the same economic rationale, but the responses and results are diametrically different.  Culture explains that.

            “Most of economics,” as Landsburg put it in his The Armchair Economist, “can be summarized in four words:  ‘People respond to incentives.’  The rest is commentary.”  Alas what are viewed as incentives in one culture can be definite disincentives elsewhere.  That is the central challenge.  Policymakers ignore this at their own peril.

            The British, in an attempt to encourage Malays to save, duly increased the interest rates on Postal Savings Accounts.  However, instead of increasing their deposits, Malays withdrew theirs!  Malays viewed the increase as an inducement to a life of sin.  Those sneaky white devils!

            Ungku Aziz created Tabong Haji and labeled the investment returns as “dividends.”  Malays swarmed to that institution, making it the largest in the region.  Essentially the same content, but different packaging!  The Ungku understood economics well and fully comprehended its central axiom:  People respond to incentives.

            An extension to this observation is that the incentives you offer would influence your responders.  Offer honey, you get bees; rotten meat, maggots.  When the committee decries the economic rent-seekers emerging under the NEP, it should carry the analysis further to find out the incentives offered.  Rest assured that if NEM were to offer rotten meat as NEP did, NEM will too get its share of maggots.

            On the crucial issue of implementation, the report only tangentially addresses the strengthening of our institutions when that should be the major focus.  Our institutions are blighted with bloat, incompetence, and corruption; they simply cannot deliver.

            Consider the current initiatives to improve the civil service, of which there are too many to count.  First there was PEMUDAH, self-described as “a high-powered taskforce to address bureaucracy in business-government dealings.”  It is chaired by no less than the Chief Secretary.  Then there was the appointment of Koh Tsu Koon as the minister in charge of “Performance Management.”  He had hardly warmed his seat when yet another minister, Idris Jalla, was made in charge of – you guess it – KPI!

            Who is in charge here?  Meanwhile the civil service continues its bloat and ineffectiveness, as exemplified by Najib’s own cabinet.  And if you have to get your driver’s license, you would still need the services of runners and touts, as well as some duit kopi.

            Corruption will not be dented – much less ended – merely with the report blandly declaring “zero tolerance” for it.  Make the Anti Corruption Commission independent, answerable only to Parliament or the King, and appoint a seasoned professional to head it.  If you cannot find a native, recruit from the FBI or Scotland Yard.  That one move would more effectively curb corruption and improve our institutions than all the KPIs, National Integrity Institutes, and NEM’s and others’ declarations of “zero tolerance.”  It would also be considerably cheaper.

Accurate Portrait, But No Revelation

This report is refreshingly different from the usual government publications in that it is highly readable and the content well organized.  The chapter headings too are clear and simple; they accurately reflect the contents, with such titles as “Where We Are?” Where Do We Want To Be?” and “How Do We Get There?”  An index would have been useful, but the well laid-out and sufficiently detailed “Table of Contents” made up for that deficiency.

            This report is remarkably free of gross grammatical gaffes and awkward syntax.  The committee staff has also done a credible job with the executive summary.  The report was made available online almost immediately.  These features are rare with our government publications, and thus merit special commendation.

            The full report is available only in English, a glaring omission considering that NEM would supplant NEP.  As everyone knows, NEP is dear to most Malays, especially those of the Perkasa persuasion.  Any tampering of NEP, even if it involves only one letter of its acronym, risks raising the hackles of those folks.  Having the full report in Malay would have been a splendid start at trying to influence them, quite apart from being a politically smart gesture.  Malay after all is our national language.

            As things stand, those proficient only in Malay would have to be satisfied with the Ringkasan eksekutif (Executive summary).  My hunch is that they would find the going rough, what with such phrases as “Menginovasi hari ini untok hari besok yang cemerlang,” (Innovation today for a glorious tomorrow) and, “Inisiatif Pembaharuan Strategik” (Strategic Renewal Initiatives).  I would have said it differently, “Cara baru untok menjamin masa depan yang cemerlang” (A new way to ensure our bright future).

            Dark clouds there are – and many – hovering over Malaysia, from the hundreds of thousands of skilled citizens who have migrated, to the anemic growth in our productivity.  The report rightly points out the lack of political will to overcome these myriad problems.  Kudos to the committee for this forthrightness!

            The report paints a gloomy picture for Malaysia if it were to stay the course.  Again, few would disagree with that.  I wish those luminaries would help us sketch and build the appropriate ark, one that would meet our unique needs and challenges, instead of merely warning us of the impending flood.

            The report does not lack for specifics.  For example, it aims for an economic growth of at least 6.5 percent annually.  Its target too is specific, the bottom 40 percent of Malaysians.

            One specific suggestion on improving the government machinery is the proposal to “corporatize” and rename the Malaysian Industrial Development Agency (MIDA) to Malaysian Investment Development Agency.  The committee pats itself for the brilliance of substituting “Investment” for “Industrial,” as then the agency could continue keeping its acronym and logo!

            If only they recognize that changing even a single letter in a corporate name would entail changing entire letterheads, advertising plates, and web pages.  The exercise would consume as much effort as if you had changed the entire name.  It would have been more productive if the committee had recommended changes to MIDA’s mode of operations and strategies.  After all, Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway did not need to change its name in order to diversify very profitably beyond its initial textile roots.

            The Report goes out under the signatures of all but one (Dr. Norma Mansor) of NEAC members.  Of the ten who signed and thus responsible for the report, three are non-Malaysians while two are Malaysians (or at least born locally) who have spent their formative careers abroad.

            Of the remaining five – the ‘natives’ – only one, the chairman Amirsham Aziz, has substantive private sector experience, having spent his time in banking.  He had a brief political career as a cabinet minister, but that was through the appointive senate route rather than through elections.  In short, the chairman, like the rest of his committee, is short on political acumen as reflected in the lack of a Malay version of the report.

            Again referring to the ‘natives,’ all have formal training in economics except for one.  The exception is Dzulkifli Razak, Vice-chancellor of Universiti Sains Malaysia; he is a pharmacist by training.  Two of the ‘natives’ were former academics but now, government bureaucrats.  The resumes of the committee members are impressive, with seven having doctorates, all but one in economics.

            I have no quarrel with the committee’s assessment of our current dismal state.  I concur with its observations.  I just wish that the committee members would have been more forceful in pointing out whether the Najib Administration’s many recent moves were in the spirit of or contrary to the committee’s aspirations.  For example, the committee wisely noted the need for devolution of authority to lower levels, yet Najib’s recent response to the request for local elections runs counter to that.

            Similarly, the committee decries the failure of our educational institutions.  Yet it does not address whether the recent rescinding of the policy of teaching science and mathematics in English would accelerate or reverse this decline.

            I hope that in its final report the committee would be more forceful in addressing these contradictions.  The committee owes this obligation not only to the Najib Administration but also to all Malaysians.  Doing so would also help us design and build a better ark.

                This entry was posted on Friday, 2 April 2010, 11:42 am and is filed under
Bakri Musa
,
Economics
,
Najib Razak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Gerakan National Central Committee should convene emergency meeting to give ultimatum to Koh Tsu Koon to declare he is “Malaysian first and Chinese second” or be removed as Gerakan President

The Gerakan Youth Secretary-General Dominic Lau had rightly come out with a public position criticizing Deputy Prime Minister, Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin for his declaration that he is “a Malay first and then only a Malaysian”, asking him to be Deputy Prime Minister for all Malaysians and not just for the Malays; cautioning him to be mindful of the fact and reality that Malaysia is a multi-racial and multi-religious society and warning him not to forget the lessons of the March 8 “political tsunami” in the 2008 general elections where the people have made clear that they wanted a government for all Malaysians and not just for anyone ethnic group. (Chinese Malaysiakini 3.4.10)

This statement by the Gerakan Youth Secretary-General shows that there are still people at least in Gerakan Youth who have not completely lost their sense of idealism and national service in politics, especially as Gerakan national leaders like the previous Gerakan President Tun Dr. Lim Keng Yaik had repeatedly declared that Gerakan’s mission is nothing less than to achieve a Malaysian Malaysia.

The Gerakan National Central Committee should follow up on this statement by the Gerakan Youth Secretary-General to convene an emergency meeting to give an ultimatum to the Minister for 1Malaysia Government Transformation Programme Roadmap, Tan Sri Dr. Koh Tsu Koon to declare that he is “Malaysian first and Chinese second” or be removed as Gerakan President.

Koh was a pathetic spectacle in Parliament on Thursday night, twisting and turning when he was repeatedly challenged to declare whether he is “Malaysian first and Chinese second” or “Chinese first and Malaysian second”?

Without  doubt, before Muhyiddin’s declaration on March 31 that he is “Malay first and Malaysian second”, Koh would have no  hesitation in saying that he is “Malaysian first and Chinese second” when asked.

However, after Muhyiddin’s declaration, Koh did not even dare to declare that he is “Malaysian first and Chinese second” when repeatedly asked in Parliament on Thursday night,  during the winding-up in the debate on the Royal Address.

In fact, Koh  was specifically warned not to give an answer which was different from that given by Muhyiddin and endorsed earlier in Parliament by the Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz, causing Koh to twist and turn to avoid answering when challenged to declare his stand.

The Gerakan leadership must now decide whether they want as a President for their  party which claims to have as its mission a Malaysian Malaysia a person who dare not declare in Parliament that he is “Malaysian first and Chinese second” despite repeatedly challenges and opportunities?

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 3 April 2010, 10:44 am and is filed under
Gerakan
,
nation building
,
UMNO
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Koh Tsu Koon under thumb of Umno – cannot and dare not declare “Malaysian first Chinese second” (Video)

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 3 April 2010, 10:44 am and is filed under
Gerakan
,
Parliament
,
UMNO
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Why are Malays poor? Blame it on Umno!

By
P. Ramakrishnan

APRIL 2 — Of late, the pressure is building up to convey the impression that the Malays are poor because of the non-Malays. It is trumpeted that the non-Malays are enriching themselves at the expense of the Malays.

This erroneous and mischievous line of argument is deliberately pushed to achieve two objectives: One, to get the Malays riled up and to create hatred for the non-Malays as the source and cause of Malay poverty. Two, this is a ploy to consolidate the position of these hate-mongers so that they can be accepted as the defenders of the race and champions who would deliver the Malays from their wretched situation.

But these extremist elements do not reveal how they have benefited from the policies of Umno that were meant for the welfare of the majority poor Malays. They do not reveal how the benefits have gone to the crony corporate figures and the well connected political elite irrespective of their ethnicity.

They do not disclose how billions of ringgit had been squandered to rescue the failed ventures of their elite group. They do not disclose how billions were pumped into Bank Rakyat and Bank Bumiputera to sustain them. They do not disclose why Mirzan Mahathir’s floundering and debt-laden shipping empire  had to be bailed out with our national wealth. They do not disclose why Tajudin Ramli’s stake in MAS was bought over for RM8 per MAS share when the market price was only RM3.62.

Likewise many other individual Malays have benefited enormously. They don’t lose out when their businesses fail but they gain in spite of their failure. Contracts, licences, AP permits, new shares and whatnot are grabbed by these individuals for themselves and their families. The poor majority Malays do not  benefit from these policies.

It was recently disclosed that out of RM54 billion in shares allocated for Bumiputeras, only RM2 billion were still in their hands. What has happened to the RM52 billion that cannot be accounted for? RM54 billion is a colossal sum of wealth that has been dished out. How did RM52 billion disappear into thin air?

After 40 years of NEP, it is absolutely unacceptable that the deserving poor have not benefited in the way it was intended. Sometimes we wonder if the Malays are kept poor simply and deliberately to get their votes by blaming the non-Malays for their abject situation.

Over the last 40 years, successive Umno presidents and deputy presidents served as prime ministers and deputy prime ministers wielding great powers, influencing policies and determining the fate of the Malays.

Every Education Minister since Merdeka has come from Umno. Every Finance Minister after Tun Tan Siew Sin has been an Umno man. Every Rural Development Minister has been an Umno man. The Cabinet was dominated by Umno leaders.

How is it that with this heavy representation of Umno leaders in the Cabinet the vast majority of Malays have remained deprived and desperately poor? How did Umno, ever ready to advance Malay interest, permit this neglect?

The Umno-dominated Barisan Nasional holds the purse strings of the national wealth. Why wasn’t this wealth distributed to the poor as well? Why did the greedy grab everything? Was this done without the knowledge of Umno leaders?

Don’t blame the non-Malays who have no say in the policies of the government; blame it on Umno. Who squandered the national wealth on prestige projects while neglecting the poor? Who bailed out crony businessmen by writing off billions of ringgit? It is Umno and nobody else! If the Malays are poor, it is because of Umno. Don’t blame it on others.

There is a serious lesson to be learnt from John F. Kennedy’s view: If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich.

Be warned! — Aliran

* P. Ramakrishnan is president of Aliran

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 3 April 2010, 10:23 am and is filed under
UMNO
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Mainstream media were also full of superlative praises for Abdullah in his first year as PM – what happened to him?

Today marks the first anniversary of Datuk Seri Najib Razak as the sixth Prime Minister with all the mainstream media singing peans of praise for his first year as Prime Minister.

The mainstream media were also full of superlative praises for Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi in his first year as Prime Minister – but what has happened to him?

It will be better for Najib and the country if the Prime Minister is more anchored to reality and realize that after his first 12 months as Prime Minister, nothing much as changed apart from a surfeit of sloganeering.

In less than a year, Najib’s 1Malaysia slogan and concept has been torn to smithereens by his own Cabinet and the question now is whether the second pillar of his premiership, the New Economic Mode (NEM), would suffer the same fate as his 1Malaysia slogan.

How different is the NEM from NEP – New Economic Policy – which has landed the country in a middle-income trap, with the Malaysian economy suffering stagnation while other countries have either caught up or overtaken us in the league of economic development?

Will the NEM guarantee that there will be no repetition of the abuses of the NEP such as the following:

Rampant corruption causing the country to lose RM28 billion a year.

Only RM2 billion has remained in the hands of bumiputeras out of the  RM54 billion shares allotted to bumiputras since the NEP.

At least RM100 billion wasted or burned in the 22 years of the premiership of Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad on grandiose projects and corruption – openly alleged by Barry Wain in his book “Malaysian Maverick: Mahathir Mohamad in Turbulent Times”.

If not, what is the difference between the NEM with the NEP?

[
Speech by DAP Parliamentary Leader and MP for Ipoh Timor Lim Kit Siang at the PAS ceramah in Arau, Perlis on Saturday, 3rd April 2010 at 11.30 pm
]

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 4 April 2010, 11:38 am and is filed under
Najib Razak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Najib marks his first anniversary as PM by setting the bad example of BN abuses of power in the forthcoming Hulu Selangor by-election

Datuk Seri Najib Razak has established a new precedent in marking his first anniversary as Prime Minister by setting the bad example of Barisan Nasional abuses of power in the forthcoming Hulu Selangor parliamentary by-election.

Najib visited Hulu Selangor yesterday and announced a new RM32 million housing project, involving 250 units, on a 14ha site at Soeharto Felda.

I support government housing projects for Felda settlers to uplift their living standards but as a Prime Minister who had listed fighting corruption as one of his six priority areas, Najib should be very circumspect in his actions to ensure that he is not guilty of political and electoral corruption in using government funds and promises of specific development projects to win votes in the Hulu Selangor by-election.

This is the first example.

During his visit in Hulu Selangor yesterday, Najib had to “buy insurance” to manufacture a very enthusiastic and rousing public reception – by bringing along 120 students who played the role as his band of “cheerleaders”, puncturing the Prime Minister’s walkabouts with shouts of 1Malaysia.

This is a most hypocritical stance as the Barisan Nasional Government has banned students from involvement in politics under the Universities and University Colleges Act (UUCA) and refused repeated attempts by Pakatan Rakyat parties, student unions and the civil society to lift such undemocratic restrictions.

Why then use students from colleges and universities in Kuala Lumpur and Selangor to be Najib’s cheerleaders in his pre-byelection visit to Hulu Selangor?

It is such cavalier disregard for right and wrong, and inconsistency of his action with his slogans whether 1Malaysia, People First, Performance Now slogan as illustrated by these two instances that is at the heart of the crisis of confidence faced by Najib in his first year as Prime Minister.

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 4 April 2010, 2:42 pm and is filed under
Elections
,
Najib Razak
,
UMNO
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


The father, the son and the fighting spirit

Malaysian blogs

Extract from
“Does it matter if you are Malaysian first or Chinese first or manusia first?”

“The Obnoxious 5xmom”

It doesn’t help that our Chief Minister is super laser tongue and he just have to go on and on to refute BN’s politicians. It is made worse when UMNO leaders are so used to our previous, gracefully silent Chief Minister who will smile his way through even the most humiliating moments. They forget that now, they have the father, the son and the fighting spirit to bite on their tails over the slightest thing.

The best is, if you ask the CM some provocative questions, it will get him to blast BN even more. Sometimes, I enjoy being a CJ because it is fun to ask things to get him to say what I have in mind but don’t have the power or the immunity to say it. So, put in some tricky questions and tadaaa….it is yet another world vs Lim Guan Eng drama.

Frankly, I never think of myself as a Chinese first or Malaysian first. But if leaders like our DPM said it loud and then, supported by the PM who quoted the constitution that they think it is alright to put their race before the nationality, then, we have to be worried. They have that superior air around them and that makes the rest of us, the dan lain-lain manusia to be second grade, or even third grade. It is unacceptable, don’t you think so?

It is not about dismissing who they are. It is about how secured and comforted we, the citizens, feel under their leadership. I don’t think I like what the DPM had uttered. No no. Time for all of us to think carefully where we stand.

Imagine, if we Chinese start to proudly and loudly proclaim that we put our Chinese roots ahead of being a Malaysian, they will probably accuse us of being a commie. Sad that our DPM did not realise that we have, through the decades and even century mingled, immersed and ended up in the melting pot of being Malaysians. He failed to see that we love our nation as Malaysians and we contributed to the nation as Malaysians.

We didn’t wait till the 1Malaysia concept was born. We had been 1Malaysian long long time ago.

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 4 April 2010, 10:20 am and is filed under
1Malaysia
,
blogging
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


I am Malaysian first

By
Kee Thuan Chye

I am proud to call myself Malaysian first and Chinese second. And if I were to tell other Chinese Malaysians that, I don’t think they will shun me.

Even if they do, so be it. Let them. If they are so narrow-minded as not to see the beauty of calling oneself Malaysian first, I don’t want to have anything to do with them.

I have two children to whom I have given Malaysian names, i.e. Malay, Indian and Chinese names. It is my contribution to Bangsa Malaysia. Their identity cards bear their full names.

In both cases, their Malay name comes first. And that is the name my wife and I call them by. We call our daughter Soraya and our son Jebat. To us, Malay names are also Malaysian names, and our children are Malaysian. We have no hang-ups about it.

Now, why can’t this be the norm in this beautiful, rich, multi-racial nation – a nation that is beautiful and rich because of its many races and cultures? Why must we separate ourselves into divisive categories? Why can’t we take the inclusive approach, consider each of our fellow citizens as being part of a whole, as part of us instead of as the Other?

Why is it so hard for someone no less than the deputy prime minister of this country to acknowledge that he is Malaysian first and Malay second? Why does he give the excuse that if he were to do so, he would be shunned by the Malays? How does he know for sure? Why does he presume the negative? Why would they shun him?

He is a leader of the country. Should he not instead be leading by example? For all we know, if he were to actually declare himself Malaysian first and Malay second, he might find others doing the same – and they may well be not just Malays but people of other races as well. Why does he fear to lead and instead prefer to take the safe and untested route? Why does he even take the exclusive line and say, “I am a Malay first”?

The basic function of leadership is taking the first step before anyone else, isn’t it? Especially if it’s a step in the right direction, towards the noble purpose of bringing the people closer together. It may be a risky step to take but if it’s the right one, morally and logically, who can judge you harshly?

PM waffles in interview

Walk the talk, leaders. Do what’s right, not what’s politically expedient. Why does the prime minister defend the deputy prime minister for saying he is Malay first? Why does the prime minister himself not say he is Malaysian first and Malay second when the TV station Al Jazeera put the question to him?

Granted, the Al Jazeera interviewer didn’t pose the question sharply. Instead of saying to the PM, “Let me then just ask you, are you a Malay first and a Malaysian second?”, she should have asked, “Would you say you are a Malaysian first and a Malay second?” That would have been to-the-point.

He would not have been able to wriggle his way out by saying, “Well technically, if we talk about the Constitution, I am a Malay but I’m comfortable being a Malay in a Malaysian society …” He wasn’t actually answering the question. And the interviewer wasn’t on-the-ball enough to pin him down.

Perhaps someone else should now pose the proper question to the PM so we can see how he responds. I would be disappointed if he waffled again. He is, after all, the man with the 1Malaysia slogan, the one that aims to unite all Malaysians. If he can’t walk the talk, how much credibility can we give the 1Malaysia concept? In fact, if he can’t walk the talk, how much trust can we give the PM?

At the end of the day, will it only be left to ordinary citizens like me to declare ourselves Malaysian first and whatever our race is, second? I’m sure there are many others out there – ordinary citizens – who will make that declaration with readiness and sincerity. Perhaps if our leaders won’t take the lead, we ordinary citizens should do it, ironic as it may sound. Perhaps we should show our leaders how to walk the talk. Why not?

Let’s band together and exercise our right, our power, as the rakyat. Let’s show Malaysia – and the world – that if our leaders will not take the lead, we the people will take up that responsibility. We will not be doing anything wrong. In fact, we will be doing what is good for our country. We will be bringing about the real 1Malaysia.

How about it? I am a Malaysian first and a Chinese second. What about you?

                This entry was posted on Monday, 5 April 2010, 10:42 am and is filed under
Kee Thuan Chye
,
Muhyiddin Yassin
,
Najib Razak
,
nation building
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


The Labu and Labi Team of Najib and Muhyiddin (Part 2)

By
M. Bakri Musa

[Second of Four Parts]

The Best Team

The Razak-Ismail duo lasted just a month shy of three years, prematurely cut short by the sudden but not unexpected death of Tun Ismail.  At first glance they had all the ingredients for a divisive and acrimonious relationship.  One was a lawyer the other, a physician; two professionals not known to get along well with each other.  Members of the two professions view society differently; likewise their approaches to problem solving.  Lawyers cross examine their witnesses; doctors get a history from their patients.  Lawyers assume their clients would lie; physicians implicitly trust theirs.  Attorneys’ clients may think it is in their interest to lie; patients however risk their lives if they were to mislead their physicians.

            What made the Razak-Ismail team worked remarkably well was that both were true professionals as well as consummate politicians in the best traditional mold.  It was this combination that made their partnership blossomed.  As professionals they were able to separate their personal feelings to address the problems at hand; as accomplished politicians they were skillful in the art of compromise, a fine sense of politics as the art of the possible.  They were able to sink whatever personal, political and professional differences and ambitions they harbor in order to best serve their client:  the nation.

            They also shared many similarities.  Under different circumstances or with other personalities, those similarities could well be sources of unending conflicts.  Consider their age; only seven years separating them, with Razak the younger.  Politicians are inherently ambitious and competitive; they all aspire to be the number one.  The number two could hardly wait for number one to exit, making for an often stormy relationship towards the end, as demonstrated by the Tony Blair and Gordon Brown show.  Being comparable in age would only aggravate that aspect of the rivalry.

            Surprisingly, we did not see that kind of rivalry with Razak and Ismail.  While Ismail was as ambitious as the rest, he was the original and genuine citizen-legislator.  Meaning, someone who takes time off from his regular vocation to serve his nation, and then after giving his best, leave.  Ismail was a rare breed, especially when compared to the specimens we have today; they make politics their permanent careers.  Najib’s cabinet, like Abdullah’s and Mahathir’s before that, is infested with tired old career politicians who have no life outside of politics.  They hung on long past their shelf-life.

            Both Razak and Ismail were also aristocrats, Razak from Pahang and Ismail, Johor.  They both attended English schools and the best English institutions; Razak read law at Lincoln’s Inn and Ismail, medicine at Melbourne.  Jagoh kampong (village champions) they were not.  They were not insular as they had competed successfully against the world.

            Those similarities may have contributed to their cordial and workable relationship, but those were not the main factors.  Instead what them “click” was their deep commitment to public service.  They were true patriots.  It was this that made them overcome whatever differences they may have had between them.

            And differences there were!  In personality, the two could not be more dissimilar.  Ismail was the gregarious type; he knew how to enjoy life.  As a medical student he idled his time on the cabaret floor on the evening before his crucial anatomy oral examination!

            Razak was the studious one; he was a legend at Malay College.  He completed his law studies well before his scholarship ended.  At social gatherings I could not imagine Tun Razak backslapping his guests or joining them in uproarious laughter, as Dr. Ismail would.

            Being from the predominantly Malay state of Pahang, Razak’s political philosophy was more towards Malay nationalism.  Ismail hailed from the more urban and cosmopolitan Johor; that shaped his worldview.

            Yet these differences complement them rather than being sources of rivalry, a reflection of their great sense of self confidence.  Ismail did not need to aspire for the top post in order to show his stuff, while Razak was not in the least threatened by having someone of the caliber of Ismail as a deputy.  Malaysians were blessed to have a pair of such caliber helming the nation.  It is sad that their success did not inspire the present generation of leaders to emulate if not better that team of Razak and Ismail.

The Longest and Most Enduring

If as Prime Minister Tun Razak did not feel threatened by having a highly capable deputy in the person of Dr. Ismail, the Tun also did not feel that being a deputy to the Tunku would hamper his ability to contribute towards the nation.  He also did not view being in the number two slot for an inordinately long time as a reflection of his ability.  Only when the Tunku’s leadership was wanting in the aftermath of the 1969 race riots did Razak assert himself.

            Razak could have headed UMNO and thus be the country’s first prime minister if he had wanted to; the opportunity was there.  When the party’s first president, the towering Datuk Onn, left the party sulking in 1951, many wanted Razak to take over.  He was not yet 30 at the time, and already they recognized his exceptional leadership and executive talent.

            Razak politely declined the honor, not out of a sense of false modesty or lack of confidence, rather his astute reading of the Malay psyche and culture.  He rightly believed that his community would more readily accept as leader someone older and thus perceived to be more experienced.  In Malay culture, age equals wisdom; hence his declining the honor.  Instead, Razak was instrumental in persuading the initially reluctant Tunku to head UMNO.

            At another level, UMNO’s stated mission then was merdeka.  Razak was shrewd enough to recognize that the party would need someone whom the British would find comfortable to negotiate.  The affable and anglophile Cambridge-bred Tunku fit the bill.  That was a particularly prescient call on Razak’s part, reflecting his wisdom and foresight despite his youth!

            Razak’s wisdom in turning to Tunku was manifested in other ways.  It turned out that the major obstacle in the negotiations for merdeka was not with the British but the Malay sultans.  The British knew that colonialism was no longer chic or compatible with the values of a civilized society.  They were ready and eager to let go of their colonies.  The sultans however, were an unanticipated issue.  Their concerns about their status in an independent Malaysia made them recalcitrant.  They were not without reasons; they saw only too clearly the fate of the Sultan of Jogjakarta in neighboring Indonesia, as well as the multitude of Maharajas in India.

            With Tunku, a member of the Kedah royal family leading the negotiations, the sultans felt reassured.  Had it been the commoner Razak, the negotiations would definitely have been tougher.

            Many ascribe the enduring partnership of Rahman and Razak to their presumed traditional Malay father-son relationship, with the loyal son always deferring to the father.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  I had never seen any public display of filial genuflecting by Razak to the Tunku.  When the Tunku was swamped in the aftermath of the May 1969 riot, Razak was not at all bashful in taking over.  That was certainly not the response of a supposedly obedient son or display of undivided filial devotion.

            Instead their relationship was akin to that of a non-executive chairman of the board and the chief executive president.  While Tunku was prime minister, it was Razak who actually ran the country.  All the major initiatives, from overhauling of the education system to the massive rural development, originated from and executed by Razak.

            A comparable dynamics would be between the ambassador and his deputy chef de mission in the old Soviet embassies.  The real power and authority resided with the DCM, not the titular number one, the ambassador.  He was merely the figure head, the sultan as it were.  In that way, he (very rarely she) could indulge himself at diplomatic functions like getting drunk without compromising embassy secrets.  Similarly if the ambassador were to be blackmailed, he could be readily expended.

            I always thought that to be an ingenious scheme!  It was certainly successful with the Soviets; it was no less so with Tunku and Tun Razak.

Next:   The Ugly and Dysfunctional Mahathir-Anwar Pair

                This entry was posted on Monday, 5 April 2010, 8:36 am and is filed under
Bakri Musa
,
Muhyiddin Yassin
,
Najib Razak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


From PERKASA to pekasam?

by
Azly Rahman

I am following with interest the development of the collaboration between non-governmental organisations and political parties. I try to analyse the role of local NGOs and international NGOs viz-a-viz the parties they augment or even sabotage.

In a free country such as Malaysia, we will see more of the interplay between hegemonic and counter-hegemonic forces as they deal with angelic or demonic political groups.

It is not easy to read this as we members of the public are always presented with perceptions in this endless game of invented realities. I wish Malaysians are by now well-equipped with the skills of critical media analysis and in political economics to engage in intelligent discussions on the politics of the day.

How would one read the media hype over Perkasa? How might one read Dr. Mahathir Mohamad’s patronage of this interesting group? How about the pledge by the retired and aged Umno leader to uphold the struggle on the rights of the Malays? How do these go with the neverending story of the present regime to hold on to power as the 13th general elections greet us?

The image of Perkasa and its members brandishing the keris must have terrified Malaysians again – as if there is no repentance, remorse, and shame in the way the Malays conduct their war on perception. I feel that these constructed set of Malays are merely an embodiment of a crude image of an insignificant and diminutive group, disengaged from the larger group of Malays that are now global, cosmopolitan, and multicultural in its outlook.

The image of Perkasa is akin to a propped up image of Hang Tuah made of marshmallow.

At a time when 1Malaysia seems to be desperately promising the gradual phasing out of all race-based political parties, a return to multicultural Malaysian Malaysia, and a close monitoring of hate-groups and fascist-leaning NGOs, Perkasa seems to be an organisation which need not have to be born.

At a time when the people of Malaysia are more aware of the decades of race-based divisive politics that has made the concept of tolerance and unity daunting, Perkasa might be perceived as a fermentation of the concept of ketuanan Melayu. In other words, it is a pekasam, as the Malays themselves would call it – a ferment that is offensive in smell to those who loves good things in life, and a great and addictive delicacy for those who love fermented food.

Perkasa a tool

In an age wherein NGOs are fashionable creations to carry out whatever that political parties cannot achieve and NGOs can help do with good funding, Perkasa is a perkakas or an instrument/tool of parties that are pushing the ketuanan Melayu agenda desperately – to what conclusion we are yet to see. As many NGOS can be created – 10s. 100s, 1000s, etc. – the more the louder – although not necessarily making the argument for racial superiority more intelligent.

In an age wherein Malays are now questioning everything – themselves, truth, religion, government, media, and even their “Malayness” – NGOs like Perkasa are an easy target for the philosophical reflection of Malayness.

These days Malays are asking: who is Perkasa and will it be an embarrassment to the image of the progressive and thinking Malays? How much will it cost to create a Perkasa ? would be another question, Malays in general might ask.

As a keen observer of Malaysian culture, I am interested in seeing the process of fermentation and fragmentation of the Malaysian mind as a consequence of the interplay between technology, culture, and politics.

The level of consciousness of Malaysians in the early 1970s is different than now, 40 years later. It is not easy to incite violence based on truncated race-based arguments on who owns this or that and how many percent of the economic pie should that be. Today, it is the classes of this or that race that determine the nature and structure of poverty and wealth.

It is the mainstream media controlled by the ruling parties that are still primitive in analysing the causes of the wealth of Malaysians. It is the controlling interests behind the production of perception that are still creating conditions of poor visibility in telling Malaysians what actually is the nature of stratified society they are in.

“The centre cannot hold/things fall apart,” as the poet William Butler Yeats once wrote – verses that can aptly describe what is happening in Malaysian politics as we witness the age of uncertainty dawning upon us. But maybe in the case of Perkasa we are seeing it fermenting after all, into a pekasam wherein the image of Hang Tuah, the immoral historical-obedient fool in the court of Malacca, is slowly becoming uglier as in the portrait of Dorian Gray, slowly melting as in a propped up marshmallowed-mannequin in all its uselessness of the semiotics of ketuanan Melayu – an assertion of idiotic pride and an anti-thesis to Umno’s own 1Malaysia, a slogan that is desperately in need of blind followers.

May this nation be spared of hate groups.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 6 April 2010, 9:37 am and is filed under
Azly Rahman
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.