Petrol price hike protest

– a bystander’s report
 of the
petrol price hike protest  in Kuala Lumpur
 today

They came not in ones or twos, not in tens or hundreds, but by the thousands, desperately seeking a solution for inordinately huge fuel hike just ordinary Malaysians, who have no solution on how to cope with the current inflation.

They were young and old, male and female, participants who came from out station.  We salute them for their fortitude, for the sacrifice, for their efforts.  Shame on us KLites, I stand humbled by their initiative and gumption to come over from Kelantan and Perak.

Fellow KLites they are walking right now for you and me, from Masjid Jamek, Kampung Baru after the Friday Prayers, they held banners up. I could be mistaken, but I think Nik Nazmi, Seri Setia State Assemblyman was at the mike for a while.  Their numbers could be two to three thousand and more.  Unit Amal guys showed their professionalism and efficiency in marshalling the crowds and the public address system.

They spoke of their despair at the rising cost and how it affects the common man.  Thousands assembled at the intersection of Odeon and Sogo, at 2.30pm and voiced their disapproval at what possibly is the biggest petrol price hike, the world over, dealt out by our ruling government.  Their anxiety and worry at how to maintain their families on megre monthly incomes, showed on their concerned faces.  They ended with fervent prayers for the nation and continued to press on further with shouts of Allahu Akhbar.  KL Bystanders came in bravely, joined them in solidarity, all races, stood shoulder to shoulder wondering how else to make the Nation’s leaders hear their cries.

Really if the leaders were truly committed to the Rakyat were honest and not wasteful, the Rakyat would not have given vent to this much of anger.  All those Billions wasted on Mega Projects, in wasteful expenditure in keeping a bloated and sluggish bureaucracy to work as a mere vote bank for the ruling party to remain in control.

The token 10% cut in entertainment, is a mere drop in the ocean, a pittance infact and does not even reflect the sincerity of the Federal Government.  Christians know that their pledge or tithe to the Church is a mandatory 10% good times or bad.  So what’s the big deal in giving up 10% of entertainment allowance, cut down all allowances by 50%.   Give up your overseas holidays, start using a bicycle not for publicity for your daily commute, instead of huge petrol guzzling chauffeur driven SUVs – we tell our leaders, change your life styles, ours is already at rock bottom.

Then again, with this Petrol hike, we the common man, cannot even resort to the public transport, which is in a most deplorable state.  Ask me a Mom of two, I resisted owning my own car, but the state of the cockroach infested, overcrowded, and never on time Metrobus, made me give up my good intensions.  I get home an hour and half earlier now, and its precious time with my school going kids,  ofcourse I’m paying dearly for the petrol hike like you all.

But then this is not about you, me or our leaders, lets not steal the thunder of the Petrol Hike protestors who right  now are on the way to KLCC.  It’s about the common man – the Rakyat, who have sacrificed that our voice may be heard.

Suara Rakyat!!!! Makal Sakthi!!!

                This entry was posted on Friday, 13 June 2008, 9:46 pm and is filed under
Oil
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


The Curse Of Oil

Letters

by
Toh May Fook

Thomas Freidman deliberated on the impact of the wealth that comes with the endowment of oil, on various oil-rich nations around the world and concluded that in many of these “less developed nations,” oil is actually a curse rather than a blessing. It actually promotes indulgence of every sorts, misallocation of resources, complacency, poor governance, abuse of executive powers, corruptions and all sorts of other social and political ills.

Back in our country, revenue from Petronas has contributed to 33% of the government’s annual budget, so we were told, but the accounts of Petronas is not made public and that leads to all sorts of negative speculations from concerned citizen. It defies logic that a national institution as important as Petronas which has contributed so much to the nation does not want to be transparent and gain even more respect from all fellow Malaysians. Unless as they say, benar benar ada udang disebalik batu.

The price of pump price of fuel has risen to a point that threatens the livelihood of most ordinary Rakyat, right thinking citizen can not accept the logic offered by the government and this can easily lead to political instability. As the issue has reached crisis proportion, it is ridiculous that the government still does not deem it necessary to open up the accounts of Petronas together with a comprehensive public review on the state of affairs in Petronas.

As Petronas is headed by a respectable and very qualified accountant, Tan Sri Hassan Merican, we are hopeful that if given the mandate, he can explain how when the price of crude oil increases, a NET exporting country can justify in complaining about the burden of heavier subsidy for the amount consumed domestically. We are not talking about the justification of subsidy, we are merely asking what does subsidy mean in this context.

Further, when budget was deliberated the year before, what was the reference price of fuel which enabled the government to obtain 33% of its budgetary needs from Petronas through various forms of taxes? Now that the current oil price is deemed UNEXPECTEDLY high, wouldn’t our government derive even more from Petronas from such various taxes?

If a NET oil exporting nation is suffering so badly when oil price increases, does it mean that all Malaysians, politicians included, should be jumping up and down in uncontrollable joy if the oil price slumps to USD10 per barrel tomorrow?

Putting all the above asides, what about the 2,500 km Peninsular Gas Pipeline Project linking our rich gas reserve from Tok Arun in Kerteh to every part of Peninsular Malaysia that commenced since 1984 and completed in 1993? Hundreds of millions were invested and for 15 years very little were done to benefit the Rakyat.

For a long while the only NGV station in Klang Valley was near the surau at KLCC which caused massive congestion; some years ago, another one was available in Sri Hartamas and that also caused congestion but also brought much delight to the station owner over his monopolistic rights.

Obviously, within those 15 years, especially during the last ten years when the oil price began to escalate aggressively, many NGV pumps should have been installed and in fact, Proton and Perodua vehicles should be fitted with NGV tanks instead of petrol tanks. That alone will make those two the hottest selling brands in Malaysia and there is no need for APs and other silly protections to our auto industry, such as hefty import duty for imported vehicle.

Yesterday, a certain minister expressed relief that car owners are rushing to install NGV tanks in their vehicle, the minister went on to explain that the government planned to have 200 NGV stations by year end but due to technical problems, there will only be an addition of 24 more on top of the current available 76 NGV stations.

Today, Tan Sri Hassan Merican said we have 96 NGV stations at the moment and due to problems on land acquisitions and problems with local authorities we may have 200 NGV stations only by 2010.

Our government is about to collapse and for 15 years, Petronas could not solve land acquisition problems and could not deal with our local councils to bring much cheaper and cleaner fuel to the Rakyat!

15 years since the Peninsular Gas Pipeline was completed, with proven strong demand for the NGV, our nation will only have 100 NGV stations and mostly in the Klang Valley. Brazil and even Pakistan have more NGV stations though they had much less natural gas reserve than Malaysia. Proton and Perodua are not marketing their products according to our God given national competitive advantage and our Rakyat are compelled to pay RM2.70 for petrol instead of 68 sen for NGV for the same function and even cleaner environment.

We need someone to answer all the above strange phenomena, or is this simply what Mr Freidman described as The Curse Of Oil?

                This entry was posted on Friday, 13 June 2008, 6:34 am and is filed under
Oil
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Continue Teaching Science and Mathematics in English

by
M. Bakri Musa

The government’s decision to revisit (and most likely do away with) the current teaching of science and mathematics in English is an instructive example of how an otherwise sensible policy could easily be discredited and then abandoned because of poor execution.  Had there been better planning, many of the problems encountered could have been readily anticipated and thus avoided, or at least reduced.  The policy would then more likely to succeed, and thus be accepted.

Ironically, only a year ago a Ministry of Education “study” pronounced the program to be moving along “smoothly,” with officials “satisfied” with its implementation.  Now another “study” showed that there was no difference in the “performance” (whatever that term means or how they measure it) between those taught in Malay or English.

The policy was in response to the obvious deficiencies noted in students coming out of our national schools:  their abysmal command of English, and their limited mathematical skills and science literacy.  They carry these deficits when they enter university, and then onto the workplace.

The results are predictable.  These graduates are practically unemployable.  As the vast majority of them are Malays, this creates tremendous political pressure on the government to act as employer of last resort.  Accommodating these graduates made our civil service bloated and inefficient, burdened by their deficient language and mathematical abilities.

This longstanding problem began in the late 1970s when Malay became the exclusive language of instruction in our public schools and universities.  Overcoming this problem would be a monumental undertaking.

The greatest mistake was to underestimate the magnitude of the task, especially in overcoming the system’s inertia.  Today’s teachers and policy makers are products of this all-Malay education system.  Change would mean repudiating the very system that had produced them, a tough sell at the best of times.

In their naivety, ministry officials convinced themselves that such enormous obstacles as the teachers’ lack of English fluency could easily be overcome by enrolling them in short culup (superficial) courses that were in turn conducted by those equally inept in English.  Or by simply providing these teachers with laptops programmed with instructional modules!

Even if we had had the best talents devoting themselves exclusively to implementing the policy, the task would still be huge.  Unfortunately we have Hishammuddin Hussein as Minister of Education shepherding the change.  An insightful innovator or an effective executive he is not.  Being simultaneously an UMNO Youth Chief, he was also distracted in trying to pass himself off as the champion of Ketuanan Melayu.

These factors practically ensure the initiative’s failure.  The tragic part is that the burden of the failure falls disproportionately on the rural poor, meaning Malays, a point missed by these self-professed nationalists.  I would have thought that that alone would have motivated them to succeed.

A Better Way

Teaching science and mathematics in English would solve two problems simultaneously.  One, considering the critical shortage of textbooks, journals, and other literature in Malay, teaching the two subjects in English would facilitate the acquisition of new knowledge by our students.  With the exponential growth of new knowledge, it would be impossible to keep up solely through translations, even if we were to devote our entire intellectual resources towards that endeavor.

The other objective was to enhance the English fluency of our students.  Of course if that were the only consideration, there are other more effective ways of achieving it, like devoting more instructional hours to the subject.

If, as the recent Ministry’s “study” indicates, there is no difference in performance between those taught in Malay or English, that in itself would favor continuing the program because of the twin benefits discussed earlier.  Besides, changing course midstream would not only be disruptive but also counterproductive.  Our educational system needs predictable stability and incremental improvements, not disruptive U-turns and faddish changes, especially in response to political pressures.

A more important point is this.  Altering a politically pivotal and highly emotional public policy requires careful preparation and deliberate execution.  If I were to implement the policy, this is what I would do.  Lest readers think that this is hindsight wisdom on my part, rest assured that I had documented these ideas in my earlier book, long before the government even contemplated the policy.

Being prudent, as we are dealing with our children’s and nation’s future, I would begin with a small pilot project, analyze the problems, correct the deficiencies, and only then expand the program.

First, I would implement the policy initially only at primary and selected secondary schools, like our residential schools.  The language requirements as well as the science and mathematical concepts at the primary level are quite elementary, and thus more readily acquired by the teachers.  And at that level the pupils would not have to unlearn much as everything would still be new.

In schools where the background English literacy level of the pupils is low as in the villages, I would have the pupils take English immersion classes for a full term or even a year.  We had earlier successful experiences with this with our Special Malay Classes and Remove classes.  This strategy has also been tried successfully in America for children of non-English-speaking immigrants.  Another idea I put forth in my earlier book is to bring back the old English schools in such areas.  As the Malay literacy level in the community and at home is high, these pupils are unlikely to “forget” their own language.

At the secondary level, our residential schools get the best students and teachers.  Consequently the program could be more easily implemented there as the learning curve would be steep, and mistakes more readily recognized and corrected.  Once the kinks have been worked out, expand the program.

Second is the issue of teachers.  Fortunately Malaysia has two large untapped reservoirs of talent:  recently retired teachers trained under the old English-based system, and native English speakers who are either spouses of Malaysians or residents of this country.  Given adequate compensation and minimal of hassles, they could be readily recruited.

I would add other incentives especially if they were to serve in rural areas where the need is most acute.  Thus in addition to greater pay, I would give them first preference to teachers’ quarters.

A permanent solution would be to convert a number of existing teachers’ colleges into exclusively English-medium institutions to train future teachers of English, science, and mathematics.  As the present teacher-trainees have limited English fluency, I would begin admitting them right away in January following their leaving school in December of the preceding year.

From that January till the regular opening of the academic year (sometime in July), these trainees would undergo intensive English immersion classes where their entire 24-hour day would be consumed with learning, speaking, thinking, and even dreaming in English.  With the subsequent three years of additional instructions exclusively in English, these graduates would then be fully fluent in English.

With such quality programs, these graduates would be in great demand within and outside their profession.  With their heightened English facility and mathematical competency, their educational opportunities would also expand as they could further their studies anywhere in the English-speaking world.  With such bright prospects, these colleges would have no difficulty recruiting talented school leavers.  Our teaching profession would also be enriched with the addition of such talents.

As for textbooks, there is no need to write new ones.  The contents of these two subjects are universally applicable.  Meaning, textbooks written for British students would be just as suitable for Malaysians, so we could select already available books.  With its purchasing clout, the government could drive a hard bargain with existing publishers.

I hope Ministry of Education officials, including and especially Hishammuddin, would heed these factors when they review the current policy.  They should continue the current policy, correct the evident errors, and strengthen the obvious weaknesses.  The success of this policy would also mean success for our students, and our nation.  That is a worthy pursuit for anyone with ambitions to one day lead the nation.

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 14 June 2008, 1:33 pm and is filed under
Bakri Musa
,
Education
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Pakatan Rakyat Protest Oil Hikes Ceramah

Pakatan Rakyat Protest Oil Hikes Ceramah

Speakers:  Anwar Ibrahim

                  Hadi Awang

                  Lim Guan Eng

                  Lim Kit Siang

Venue – City Stadium, Penang (Lorong Kulit)

Date: Sunday 15th June 2008 – 8.30 pm

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 14 June 2008, 6:59 pm and is filed under
Announcement
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Smart schools vs sick schools

by Dr. Azly Rahman

I read this excerpt of a  news story below with disgust.

‘… One-third of Malaysia’s schools do not have water and electricity, a minister said, pledging to fix the problem by 2010….

‘Deputy Education Minister Razali Ismail told Bernama that all 9,806 schools will have access to basic utilities by the end of a four-year education development plan….70 percent of schools already have access to water and electricity. The other 30 percent are mostly located in rural areas, but “we are confident the problem will be solved by 2010”.

…Malaysia has implemented a series of five-year development plans with the aim of reaching developed-nation status by 2020..In the last national blueprint, announced in 2006, the government said RM1.15 billion would be spent to upgrade schools.’

All we continue to hear are slogans such as ‘2010’, ‘Vision 2020’, ‘developed-nation status’ and ‘billions of ringgit of funding’.

These cloud our vision of what schools ought to be. It is as if there is a ‘manufactured crisis’ going on: keep schools impoverished so that the government can keep making promises using empty slogans. The aim: only this government can continue to help those poor schools. This is the nature of mystification we have been fed with all these decades.

recall then education minister Najib Abdul Razak making a statement about “smart schools” –

“…that the first Smart School is being built at a cost of RM144.5 million. Apart from being wired, it would have a hostel for 800 students, an Olympic-size swimming pool, a hockey pitch, a hall and other facilities. Eventually all Malaysian schools will be operated on this concept. …”

Now we hear that many schools do not have water and electricity supply, let alone computers to make the schools and students smart. I think our children deserve better than empty promises by the ministry in charge of human intelligence and social reproduction.

What has that ministry done since Merdeka to allow schools to be left in such a state? What paradigm of nationwide school improvement has the ministry been using in order to create such a deformed version of democracy and education?

Is it a strategic plan to ensure that children of the poor will continue to perform the worst under such conditions, and that schools equipped with state-of-the-art technologies are select ones for children of the elite?

No wonder we have an increasing number of Mat and Minah Rempit, Ah Longs and gangsters – they were educated in the most deplorable circumstances perhaps. They were schooled in environments with teachers who are not committed and motivated, but also imprisoned in classrooms that do not have the basic amenities compared to ‘smart schools’.

Overhaul long overdue

It is simply unacceptable for this government to allow class stratification; schools not only become the stratifier of ethnic groups but also of classes of the poor, through the unequal distribution of resources. This is characteristic of the hideous form of schooling in Asian-style capitalist societies.

How can we develop the child’s intelligence to the fullest if schools are designed to fail them miserably?

We must demand the exposure of the conditions of the schools – which schools get access to what and why. We must demand a comprehensive picture on why our schools are failing and unable to produce children smart enough to bring their intelligence, ethics, and problem-solving skills to the university and beyond an succeed in a world that is challenging.

The new governments of the Pakatan Rakyat must undo what the Barisan Nasional (BN) government has done to the most under-privileged schools. They must gather data on what is lacking in the schools and how resources are shared.

Certainly, if the situation has been exacerbated over the last 30 years of BN rule, how are we to see any changes in class and classroom stratification in the next 30 years?

We see many projects like the Petronas Twin Towers, Multimedia Super Corridor, Monsoon Cup and Iskandar Malaysia carried out as fast, so that governmentally-linked companies can make money for the select few.

Why does comprehensive school reform take ages to be implemented? This is the ‘prison-industrial complex’ approach we are taking in implementing national educational policy.

By maintaining the sense of deprivation of the physical, psychological and intellectual aspects of the schools, we hope to produce more of those citizens who will be desperate enough to find ways be and become like the successful ones, but through desperate means.

We are creating a larger underclass tempted by materialism in a system created to encourage conspicuous consumption – these citizens produced out of the smart schools-sick schools system.

What then must we do to heal the system, to make our sick school smarter? This is for the education ministry and progressive parliamentarians to answer.

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 15 June 2008, 7:56 am and is filed under
Azly Rahman
,
Education
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


A new oil policy – reform Petronas

by Dr. Chen Man Hin

The latest jump in pump pricing by 42% has caused an upheaval in the economy and much unhappiness among motorists and the people. businesses are stalling, and there is undertainty about the future. the sudden severe rise has caused a social and economic earthquake.

The shocking increase was unnecesary, and here are the reasons why it was a bad mistake.

MARKED DISPARITY OF PUMP PRICES BETWEEN MALAYSIA AND OTHER OIL PRODUCING COUNTRIES.

Malaysia’s pump price should be equilvalent to pump prices in other oil producing countries, as for example:-

Saudi Arabia              RM 0.38 per litre

UAE                                1.19 / litre

Egypt                               1.03 / litre

Bahrain                             0.87

Qatar                                0.68

Kuwait                               0.67

Iran                                   0.35

Nigeria                               0.32

Turkmenistan                      0.25

Venezuela                          0.16/litre

MALAYSIA                         2.70/LITRE

COST OF PRODUCTION PER BARREL OF OIL

Statistics indicate that the production cost per barrel of oil for the above countries  vary around US$ 4 per barrel.  The world average is US$ 7 per barrel.

A barrel contains 44 gallons or 176 litres oil, which works out at US 2.27 cents per litre or 2.27 x 3.3 = 7.49 sen per litre.

As the production cost per litre is only  7.49 sen, it is beyond comprehension to see  how  the pump price could  be raised astronomically to RM2.70 per litre.

There is no justification for pump price of petrol to be RM2.70 which is way above the price set in other oil producing countries in Middle East, Africa or South America.

This is an example of bad governance. Our natural resources should be used to help people and not to profit recklessly at their expense. Prime Minister Abdullah has a lot of explaining to do.

Petronas should be more transparent and be people frieidly.

Petronas is making huge sums of money. Tun Mahathir claims that Petronas made a profit of  well over RM70 billion last year, and should therefore be able to keep down  fuel prices instead of  unreasonable price increases.

OIL PRODUCTION.   Petronas produces 650,000 barrels of oil each day, out of which 250,000 barrels were for export and the balance of 450,000 barrels for domestic consumption.

At US$130 per barrel, less US$10 for production cost, profit per barrel would be US$120.

Estimated profit per year would be 250,000 x 120 x 365 x 3.3=   RMR 36.1 billion

If we include profits from natural gas, investments in other countries, Petronas’s earnings would reach record levels.

PETRONAS WEALTH TO REDUCE SUFFERING OF THE PEOPLE INSTEAD OF RAISING OIL PRICES

The evidence is definitely against any increase of pump prices for Malaysians. Pump prices should return to a reasonable level – the same as in other oil producing countries.

Instead of spending money on subsidies for fuel, the funds should be used for the benefit of the people and marginalised poor with better schools, more hospitals for the sick and housing for the homeless.

PETRONAS TO REFORM

Since its inauguration in Parliament in mid seventies, its operations have been shrouded in secrecy. It is time for Petronas to be answerable to Parliament, to open its accounts to the people and to institute new policies for a healthy and vibrant industry.

                This entry was posted on Monday, 16 June 2008, 8:54 am and is filed under
Dr. Chen Man Hin
,
Oil
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


PAS, Don’t fall for UMNO’s Trap!

By
Farish A. Noor

Civil society, and the actors who occupy that public domain, exists for a number of reasons and one of the reasons is to keep all politicians and political parties in check. It would appear that the work of civil society actors in Malaysia today has been cut out thanks to the murky goings-on within and between the political parties of Malaysia on both sides of the political fence.

Hardly three months have passed since the landmark results of the 8th March Federal elections and already we see Malaysia transformed as never before: Despite winning 79 Parliamentary seats the UMNO party that has been in power for more than half a century is showing signs of internal division and fragmenting before our very eyes; bringing with its collapse the very real possibility of change in the mindset of millions of ordinary Malaysian citizens who were told for so long that the sun of the Barisan Nasional would never set. Well, with BN MPs running helter-skelter in all directions at the moment, it would appear as if that claim is about to be tested in no uncertain terms.

What is worrying, however, is the fact that the Pakatan Rakyat coalition is still in its infant stages and does not have the luxury of time on its side. Should the BN government fall, and that prospect seems more likely by the day, the PR should be ready to assume office at a moment’s notice. This can only be done if and when the PR gets its act together and all component parties of the PR agree once and for all that they will abide by the terms they had set for themselves; which includes the PR manifesto and the standards of the People’s Declaration which they had all assented to.

Now the problem that faces the PR is that for too long the component parties have grown accustomed to their own version of narrow communitarian based politics, identifying specific and exclusive racial and religious communities as their target constituencies and primary vote base. What is even more worrying is the tendency for some of the leaders of the PR component parties to continue operating on the basis of the idea that their primary political constituency has remained unchanged; thereby making the fatal assumption that the Malaysian public and the Malaysian electorate hasn’t evolved over the years. Now the last time a right-wing politician worked on such a silly assumption he did something even sillier: namely take out a keris in public and started waffling about racial dominance and the special status of his ethnic-religious constituency. And see what happened: the same politician’s party was thumped at the polls and lost every single Malay-majority urban seat on the West coast, thereby proving that the Malays were no longer susceptible to this sort of juvenile antics and emotional manipulation. Padan Muka.

Looking at the Pakatan Rakyat coalition today, we sadly see rather similar tactics being used by some leaders of the PR, and in particular by some of the leaders of PAS. First came the claim that the PR in Selangor should start ‘Islamising’ the public space of Selangor and promoting faith and piety among the Muslims of the state, which begs the question: Since when did the PR become a missionary pietist movement and who said that PAS leaders of the PR in Selangor were voted to become our religious mentors and moral guardians?

Now it would appear that there have been calls by some of the leaders of the Youth Wing of PAS for the PR to start Islamising the five states whose assemblies are under the control of the PR, with Kelantan to serve as the model.

Now let us repeat this again for the umpteenth time: The vote for the PR at the recent elections was not a vote for an Islamic state, or an endorsement for any kind of communitarian or sectarian politics, be it on religious or ethnic grounds. The Malaysian public – who remain the real power brokers in Malaysia today – have signalled their utter disgust and frustration with the slow pace of reform that was meant to be the starting point of the Badawi administration but which ended with pointless projects such as an Islamic theme park and crystal mosque instead.

Nor is there any indication that the Muslims of Malaysia have called for any form of theocratic governance in the country, for their rejection of the state’s Islam Hadari project may actually suggest that many of them are fed up with the politicisation of religion by this stage.

So when is PAS – or rather some of the more vocal and hot-headed leaders of PAS – going to realise that for it to become a truly national party with national ambitions, it has to adapt to the reality of a plural, multicultural and multireligious Malaysia where there are not only differences between Muslims and non-Muslims, but also – crucially – differences among Muslims as well? Who and what gave these PAS leaders the licence to assume that all Muslims in Malaysia want an Islamic state, and more importantly their version of an Islamic state? What on earth makes them think that the rest of Malaysia wants to be like Kelantan?

Whenever any leader or any party in the PR makes demands like these, it goes against the collective spirit of the PR, narrows the universalist scope of the PR manifesto and betrays the spirit of the People’s Declaration – which, need we remind them, they all signed and agreed to. The negative consequences of such unilateralism are manifold, and can be summed up thus:

Firstly, it reinforces the BN’s claim that the PR is at best an instrumental coalition that will break apart because there will never be any real compromise and co-operation between PAS and the other parties;

Secondly, it sends shivers down the spines of many non-Muslim Malaysians who – for better or worse – have their own misgivings about the idea of any religious state (Islamic or otherwise) in what they hope to see evolve into a secular, democratic, free and equal Malaysia;

Thirdly, it also alienates Malaysian Muslims who – this writer included – also have deep misgivings about the abuse of religion for political ends and who do not want to live in an Islamic state where our personal lives, private space and right of speech and thought on religious matters are decided by Islamist politicians from a party we are not even members of;

Fourthly, it will provide ample materiel for Malaysia-bashers who would jump at the opportunity to rubbish the PR government (if it comes to power) and to make outlandish claims that Malaysia has fallen under the heels of PAS and is about to be transformed into some Iranian-like theocracy;

Fifth, – and perhaps this is the most dangerous consequence of all – such unilateral moves on the part of this handful of PAS leaders will pave the way for UMNO to open its doors to PAS, and to invite PAS to abandon the PR and opt for joining the BN instead, ostensibly for the sake of ensuring Malay-Muslim unity, and more importantly Malay-Muslim dominance.

Now of all the worst-case scenarios to contemplate, this is the most worrisome. During the election campaign of March 2008, UMNO’s posters in Trengganu were already paving the way for a PAS cross-over to the BN, with slogans like ‘If you want to really promote Islam, then join the BN/UMNO’. Since March there has been speculation about PAS leaders who have been in negotiations with UMNO, a fact that some of them have admitted; and talk about a PAS hop-over to UMNO/BN should the PR be successful in winning over more MPs from East Malaysia or the non-Malay component parties of the BN.

Now if this were to indeed happen, then we would be left with two political coalitions: The PR that is more pluralist but with a significantly small Malay-Muslim component, and a BN that is less pluralist but with a strong Malay-Muslim component. This may suit the needs and interests of some of the more religiously conservative and racially-minded members of the PR, but it would spell disaster for the country as Malaysia would, for all intents and purposes, be split along both racial and religious lines: the teleological conclusion to five decades of divisive racial and religious politics finally playing itself out in the fragmentation of the nation as a whole. In such a situation, the PR would indeed break apart, but the highest cost (both political and ethical) will be incurred on PAS – that would henceforth be seen and justly condemned for betraying the People’ Declaration and selling themselves to serve their own short-sighted sectarian ends.

Tuan Guru Nik Aziz Nik Mat – who knows better for he was one of those who entered the BN in the 1970s when PAS was brought into the coalition by Asri Muda – is right when he reminds the members and leaders of his own party not to fall into the trap of the BN/UMNO, and to abide by the terms and agenda of the PR. Nik Aziz remembers how PAS was sold short, betrayed and ultimately hung to dry by UMNO; and how it took the party 12 years to put itself back together before they finally regained control of Kelantan in 1990.

The ‘Young Turks’ of PAS today would do well to listen to the wise counsel of the man who is, after all, their spiritual leader and guide, for Nik Aziz knows what he is talking about on this matter. Should PAS’s leaders continue to make such unilateral demands, they will only be helping UMNO/BN weaken the collective resolve and accommodative spirit that brought the Pakatan Rakyat together in the first place, and by doing so be helping further UMNO/BN’s objective of maintaining its hegemonic grip on the country. And so for all our sakes – the Malaysian people’s and for PAS’s sake as well – do rein in these wild horses and keep the PR convoy in line. The road to a plural, democratic, inclusive and equal Malaysia is and can only be a long one, and we don’t need hot-headed unilateralists to take us off track. The March 2008 elections was an election for a new Malaysia, and not a theocratic sectarian state, be it in the communitarian mould of UMNO or PAS.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 17 June 2008, 12:15 am and is filed under
Farish Noor
,
PAS
,
UMNO
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


SAPP bombshell – a second political tsunami in next few days?

Sabah Progressive Party (SAPP) has dropped a bombshell when its president Yong Teck Lee announced that its two MPs, Dr. Chua Soon Bui (Tawau) and Eric Majimbun (Sepanggar) would move a
no-confidence motion against Prime Minister
Abdullah Ahmad Badawi when Parliament resumes on Monday.

But will the  bombshell land in Parliament on Monday?

With the ruling coalition commanding unbroken two-thirds parliamentary majority in the 11 general elections since Merdeka in 1957 until the recent political tsunami of the March 2008 general election, there had never been any no confidence motion against the Prime Minister in Malaysian parliamentary history.

The Parliamentary Standing Orders do not have special provision for a no confidence motion.

In the circumstances, a no confidence motion may be regarded as an ordinary motion under Standing Order 27 which requires notice of 14 days to be given – making it impossible for such a no confidence motion to be tabled on Monday, June 23, 2008 as the earliest would be July 2 if the no confidence motion is submitted today.

Standing Order 18 which allows an MP to move a motion to adjourn the House to discuss a definite matter of urgent public importance will be inappropriate and unhelpful as  it only allows one hour debate on the specified issue without any vote being taken at the end of the debate.

The only way for a  no confidence motion to be tabled and debated on Monday is for the Speaker  ito treat  it as a substantive and extraordinary motion which should take precedence and priority over all parliamentary business which does not need to comply with the requisite 14-day notice and publishing it as the first item of parliamentary business after Question Time in the Parliamentary Order of Business on  Monday.

In doing so, however, the Speaker is likely  be in direct loggerheads with the government of the day and must be prepared to pay the consequences of such decision.

I see little possibility of SAPP’s No Confidence Motion against  Abdullah as Prime Minister being tabled and debated on Monday unless there is a second political tsunami in the next few days, with waves of  support from other  Barisan Nasional  MPs from Sabah, Sarawak and Peninsula Malaysia making it a credible parliamentary move.

Whether the SAPP no confidence motion is tabled and debated in Parliament on Monday, its very announcement has set off political shock waves in the country confirming the longstanding, widespread and deepseated discontent of the people of Sabah at their unfair treatment by Umno leaders, whether at Federal or State level.

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 18 June 2008, 4:32 pm and is filed under
Abdullah Ahmad Badawi
,
Parliament
,
Sabah
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


No confidence motion – will incipient revolt by BN MPs in support of Yong Teck Lee be crushed by BN SC emergency meeting?

Following the bombshell by Sabah Progressive Party (SAPP)  president Yong Teck Lee yesterday announcing that its two MPs Dr. Chua Soon Bui (Tawau) and Eric Enchin Majimbun (Sepanggar) would move a no-confidence motion against Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, many questions are swirling for answer, including whether it is possible for a no confidence motion to be moved in Parliament on Monday when it looks procedurally impossible as up to yesterday no such notice of motion had been submitted to Parliament.

In fact, although a proper motion of no confidence has not been submitted to date to Parliament, it is not impossible  to duplicate a no confidence vote in Parliament on the Barisan Nasional government on Monday.

Whether a no confidence motion could be moved, debated and voted upon in Parliament on Monday, however academic it appears, is however not the foremost question created by Yong Teck Lee’s announcement yesterday.

The most important question from the SAPP action, which has dealt another mortal blow on the Barisan Nasional government after the March 8 “political tsunami”,  is:

Will the  declaration by the   two SAPP MPs of no-confidence  in Abdullah as Prime Minister  trigger support from other BN MPs in Sabah, Sarawak and Peninsular Malaysia or will the incipient revolt by disaffected BN MPs be crushed with SAPP expelled by BN today with the engineering of a SAPP Baru?

The Barisan Nasional supreme council will be holding an
emergency meeting
 in 90 minutes’ time at 2.30 pm over Yong Teck Lee’s shock announcement yesterday.

Even if SAPP is expelled from Barisan Nasional and a SAPP Baru engineered from SAPP elements who dissociate themselves from Yong Teck Lee’s action, and the incipient revolt of the  other disaffected  BN MPs from Sabah, Sarawak and Peninsular Malaysia snuffed out with a “regime of white terror” by a show of power and intimidation, the Barisan Nasional government will only further alienate itself from the support and sympathy of the people of Sabah, Sarawak and Peninsular Malaysia by ignoring the long-standing popular grievances of Malaysians all over the country.

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 19 June 2008, 1:03 pm and is filed under
Abdullah Ahmad Badawi
,
Parliament
,
Sabah
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Govt motion on price increases on Monday can be turned into “no confidence motion” if there are the numbers

After a marathon meeting, Sabah Progressive Party (SAPP) President Datuk Yong Teck Lee has received
endorsement
by SAPP supreme council for his call for a vote of no confidence against Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi.

Up to now,  Parliament has not received any notice from any Member of Parliament for  a no-confidence motion.

However, it is not necessary to have a proper motion of no confidence to create a “no confidence” vote in Parliament on the Prime Minister and the government-of-the-day.

I have been informed that the first item of parliamentary business after the 90-minute question time on Monday will be a motion by the Minister for Domestic Trade and Consumer Affairs Datuk Shahrir Abdul Samad seeking support for the measures taken by the government over price increases of food, oil and commodities, including reduction of oil subsidies.

This  government  motion on price increases in Parliament on Monday  can be turned into a no-confidence motion if there are enough numbers in Parliament  to defeat it.

The motion on price increases to be moved by Shahrir reads:

“
Bahawa Dewan ini
,

Prihatin
akan kenaikan mendadak harga minyak, makanan dan komoditi lain di pasaran dunia, yang merupakan fenomena global di luar kawalan Kerajaan.

Menyedari
 bahawa fenomena kenaikan harga ini membawa impak negatif yang besar kepada kesejahteraan rakyat serta kemajuan ekonomi negara.

Memahami dan menyokong
langkah Kerajaan untuk menstruktur sistem subsidi minyak dan gas yang menjejas kewangan Kerajaan dan tidak dapat ditanggung tatkala harga minyak di pasaran global terus meningkat tinggi, agar beban ke atas ekonomi negara dapat dikurangkan dan subsidi dapat diagihkan dengan lebih saksama kepada mereka yang benar-benar memerlukannya yakni golongan miskin dan berpendapatan rendah dan sederhana.

Menyokong
 langkah-langkah yang dilaksanakan oleh Kerajaan untuk mengurangkan beban ke atas rakyat yang disebabkan oleh kenaikan harga minyak, makanan dan komoditi, agar kesejahteraan hidup rakyat terus terjaga.

Menyedari
keazaman dan usaha Kerajaan untuk terus mempertingkatkan pertumbuhan ekonomi dan memperjuangkan agenda pembangunan nasional, walaupun persekitaran di peringkat global semakin mencabar.

Bahawa
 Dewan yang mulia ini menyeru kesemua lapisan rakyat Malaysia, para peniaga dan pengilang serta parti-parti politik agar tabah dan bersatu padu dalam menghadapi cabaran global ini serta memelihara keamanan, kestabilan dan kesejahteraan kita bersama”.

                This entry was posted on Friday, 20 June 2008, 6:08 pm and is filed under
Parliament
,
Sabah
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


RPK’s bombshell allegation on Altantuya murder – Abdullah, Najib, Rosmah cannot remain silent

The Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, the Deputy Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak and his wife Datin Seri Rosmah Mansor cannot remain silent on the latest bombshell of blogger
Raja Petra Kamaruddin
.

In a
statutory declaration
on June 18, 2008, Raja Petra accused Rosmah as among three individuals who were present when Altantuya was murdered on Oct 19, 2006.

Raja Petra alleged in his statutory declaration: “I have been reliably informed that between about 10pm on October 19, 2006 and early hours of the following day, the night Altantuya Shaariibuu was murdered, three other people were also present at the scene of crime.”

He named the two other individuals as one acting colonel Aziz Buyong, who is described as ‘a C4 expert’ and the latter’s wife, known only as Norhayati, who is also said to be Rosmah’s aide de camp.

Raja Petra further alleged:

“My informer states that Aziz was the person who placed the C4 on various parts of Altantuya’s body witnessed by Rosmah and Norhayati.

“I make this statutory declaration because I have been reliably informed about the involvement of these three people who have thus far not been implicated in the murder nor called as witnesses by the prosecution in the ongoing trial at the Shah Alam High Court.

“I also make this statutory declaration because I am aware that it is a crime not to reveal evidence that may help the police in its investigation of the crime.”

Raja Petra said he had  been “reliably informed” that the Prime Minister “has received a written report from military intelligence confirming what I have revealed and this report was subsequently handed over to his son-in-law Khairy Jamaluddin for safekeeping”.

Raja Petra also claimed that “one of the Rulers has been briefed about this matter” and “is fully aware” of the allegation.

The credibility and legitimacy of the Abdullah premiership and government will suffer a mortal blow if Abdullah, Najib and Rosmah remain silent on  Raja Petra’s bombshell allegations.

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 21 June 2008, 1:04 pm and is filed under
Abdullah Ahmad Badawi
,
Crime
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


“First-world infrastructure, first-world mentality”?

(This is from the blog of
Hannah Yeoh
, DAP Selangor Assemblywoman for Subang Jaya)

SMKSU Prefects’ Reunion

Friday, June 20, 2008

Few months ago, I was invited to the Prefects’ Reunion of SMK Subang Utama to be held next week. I just received news that I could no longer attend the function because I’m an assemblyman from Pakatan Rakyat.

Two prefects have confirmed that the teachers have issued a threat to the prefects to withdraw their invitation to me and if not, the event would be cancelled.

I am upset with this. Let me explain to you why this threat by the teachers is so fundamentally wrong:-

this is a private function to be held outside the school; every past and present prefect is entitled to attend this event; and

I was the Head Prefect for 1995/1996 and was one of the pioneers to start this yearly reunion for the prefects.

I am not a criminal or a bad role model. All I did was this, exercised my right to vote, exercised my right to stand for election, to stand up for my generation and to fight corruption. As a young person, I am not afraid to stand up for righteous principles, not afraid of intimidation by the ‘supposedly powerful’ groups but today I am told that I am not a welcoming sight at a function which I championed and fought for many years ago.

In school, we were taught to be good role models and to be someone successful someday who will contribute positively back to the society. I have done just that. The very same people who taught me these values are now telling me that I am no longer accepted because I’m an assemblyman from Pakatan Rakyat.

Blogging about this brings tears to my eyes. Why? This is such a sad state for our schools to be in, for our young generation to endure and succumb to irrational threats like this. For 50 years, we were told not to question, not to challenge and not to speak up – even if it impinges on your fundamental rights.

I am not insisting to attend this function and neither am I insisting to be a special guest at the function. I am telling you – students, graduates, working adults and parents, if you choose to remain silent and succumb to threats like this, there is little hope left for Malaysia. It could be your daughter/son who’s in my place. Remember the young ones are watching. Some are being brain-washed. Some are now confused – here you have a 29 year old assemblyman who is speaking up against corruption for the sake of our nation and they’re told that this is not a welcoming figure and that she is not accepted at school or private functions.

I was a little exhausted prior to this because of work, complaints and issues but this has caused my heart to stir. It has sealed my heart for a cause. The cause is this – to continuously speak up against oppression in this nation. My conscience tells me I am right before God, I have not acted unfairly towards others by stealing taxpayers’ money and I am inspiring the young to stand up for what is right.

Our education system is trying to breed students who cannot think for themselves, issue threats when everything else fails. I am the ex Head Prefect of my school and I am entitled to attend the reunion to meet up with my fellow schoolmates, to catch up on old times and share some old jokes. I am now denied that right.

How many of you would stand alongside me for this cause?

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 22 June 2008, 8:03 pm and is filed under
Education
,
Politics
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


All eyes on Parliament – everyone asking, confidence or not?

All eyes are on Parliament, with everyone asking, will there be  a no confidence vote  or not, although there is no such motion in the Order Paper.

However, as I had blogged last Friday,  it is not necessary to have a proper motion of no confidence to create a “no confidence” vote in Parliament on the Prime Minister and the government-of-the-day.

This is the reason for the buzz and excitement in the House, with the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi sitting through the entire Dewan Rakyat sitting since question time up to now (12.40 pm) which has never happened before, especially as the Prime Minister did not stand up to answer the two  questions addressed to the Prime Minister during question time.

I am sure the Prime Minister, Cabinet Ministers and veteran parliamentarians are aware that the motion moved by Domestic Trade and Consumer Affairs Minister Shahrir Abdul Samad seeking support for the government’s measures over food, oil and commodities price increases, including the reduction of oil subsidies, will become a “no confidence motion” if it is defeated.

It has even been speculated that the real reason for the motion on price increases today  is to provide an opportunity to demonstrate that the Prime Minister enjoys a parliamentary majority, an indirect way of showing  that he still commands confidence in Parliament.

I do not doubt that the Prime Minister has still the numbers in Parliament to get the government motion  passed today, although the front-bench seems to be on tenterhooks.  But any time, when a government bill or government motion is defeated, particularly when on a substantive issue, then it would tantamount to a no confidence motion!

                This entry was posted on Monday, 23 June 2008, 12:54 pm and is filed under
Parliament
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Emergency debate in Parliament on Raja Petra’s allegations on Altantuya murder

I have given notice for an emergency debate tomorrow on Raja Petra Kamaruddin’s allegations on the Altantuya Shaariibuu murder case.

My notice for an adjournment of Parliament tomorrow reads:

“That the House gives leave to  MP for Ipoh Timor  YB Lim Kit Siang to adjourn the House under S.O. 18 (1) to discuss a definite matter of  urgent public importance –  the statutory declaration  dated June 18, 2008 by blogger Raja Petra Kamaruddin implicating the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister’s wife over the case of  murder of Mongolian beauty Altantuya Shaariibuu.

“Raja Petra alleged that he had been reliably informed that between about 10pm on October 19, 2006 and early hours of the following day, the night Altantuya was murdered, three other people were also present at the scene of crime, viz:

(a)	Datin Seri Rosmah Mansor, wife of the DPM;

(b)	Acting Colonel Aziz Buyong (then Lt. Col) a C4 expert;

(c)	Aziz’s wife, Norhayati, described as ‘one of Rosmah’s ADC’.

“Raja Petra alleged that Aziz was the person who placed the C4 on various parts of Altantuya’s body witnessed by Rosmah and Norhayati.

“He said these three people have thus far not been implicated in the murder nor called as witnesses by the prosecution in the ongoing trial at the Shah Alam High Court. He was  aware that it is a crime not to reveal evidence that may help the police in its investigation of the crime.

“Raja Petra said he had  been “reliably informed” that the Prime Minister has received a written report from military intelligence on the matter and which was  handed over to his son-in-law Khairy Jamaluddin for safekeeping. One of the Rulers had also  been briefed about the allegations.

“The credibility and legitimacy of the Abdullah premiership and government will suffer a mortal blow if the Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Minister  and Rosmah continue to remain silent on  Raja Petra’s bombshell allegations in his statutory declaration.”

The
Star
 today carried a report the police will be investigating into Raja Petra’s allegations.   This does not in any way absolve the responsibility of the Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Minister and Rosmah from making an immediate clarification on Raja Petra’s allegations, which is the basis for my notice for an emergency debate in Parliament.

The
Star
 report today is as follows:

Cops to probe RPK’s claims

By LOURDES CHARLES

KUALA LUMPUR: Police will be calling up Malaysia Today editor Raja Petra Kamaruddin to investigate allegations in his recent statutory declaration on purported facts related to the murder of Altantuya Shaariibuu.

Inspector-General of Police Tan Sri Musa Hassan said the three individuals named in the document filed on June 18 would also be called up.

In the declaration, Raja Petra claimed that the trio – one of them a prominent woman – were present at the scene during the murder of the Mongolian translator in October 2006.

Copies of the two-paged declaration together with the identity of the trio have been posted on various blog sites.

In the document, Raja Petra said he was “reliably informed” of these allegations.

Musa said the matter could be sub judice as the Altantuya murder case was still being heard.

He also said Raja Petra must be “brave enough to face the consequences if he is bold enough” to make the allegations.

Meanwhile, the Attorney-General’s Chambers has lodged a police report against Raja Petra over the statutory declaration.

Attorney-General Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail said the allegations were “highly defamatory” and if found untrue, those making the allegations would have to face the consequences.

“We want to investigate because we want the truth. As far as I am concerned, we have to look at it seriously.”

“If it’s true, we will act accordingly. If not, the writer will be investigated,” he said, adding that the report was lodged in Putrajaya on Saturday.

Raja Petra said he expected to be called up.

He said he was bold enough to face the consequences.

                This entry was posted on Monday, 23 June 2008, 2:36 pm and is filed under
Abdullah Ahmad Badawi
,
Crime
,
Parliament
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Reporters “wild and dangerous beasts” who must be caged in Parliament?

Are reporters “wild and dangerous beasts” who must be caged in Parliament so that they do not run wild to “ambush” Ministers and MPs?

This is my protest  in Parliament at the end of question time over the new restriction  barring media representatives access to the lobby with an obscene barricade of  the area.

At the beginning of the Parliament meeting today, Penang Chief Minister and DAP MP for Bagan Lim Guan Eng had protested against the ruling as tantamount to a clampdown on press freedom.

In calling for the withdrawal of the clampdown on parliamentary reporters, he said: “There is no justification whatsoever for restricting reporters to a small corner as if they pose a grave danger to security and a threat to the safety of parliamentarians. No MP has ever suffered personal injury or threats from reporters accredited to cover the Parliament.

“By imposing such restrictions merely for the personal comfort and conveniences of certain individuals would contravene the basic spirit of democracy and respect the sanctity of Parliament where reporters can carry out their duties to communicate debate on policy in an accurate and professional manner.”

Regrettably, Guan Eng was booed by Barisan Nasional MPs for taking up the cudgel on behalf of parliamentary reporters, who  have also protested and launched a boycott of all press conferences or events outside the parliamentary chamber.

Deputy speaker  Datuk Wan Junaidi Tuanku Jaafar, who was presiding over the sitting,  was non-committal, saying that he would have to first discuss the matter with speaker Tan Sri Pandikar Amin Mulia and the other deputy speaker, Datuk Ronald Kiandee.

At about 11.05 am, I left the chamber together with Guan Eng and other DAP MPs to the Speaker’s Chamber to discuss the new press restrictions with Pandikar Amin, but was told that the Speaker would only come in for the afternoon session.

When I returned to the Chamber as I have a motion to adjourn the House to discuss Raja Petra Kamaruddin’s statutory declaration which had named three persons who were also at the scene of the murder of Mongolian national Altantuya Shaariibuuu in October 2006, which is slated after question time at 11.30 a.m, I saw on my table a letter from the Speaker rejecting in chamber my Standing Order 18 application on the ground of the on-going murder trial of Altantuya.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 24 June 2008, 3:02 pm and is filed under
Media
,
Parliament
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


PM and DPM – time to have new advisers after another round of savage but avoidable battering to their credibility with delayed denials

The
Prime Minister
, Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi and
Deputy Prime Minister
, Datuk Seri Najib Razak, have finally broken their silence on blogger Raja Petra Kamaruddin’s statutory declaration with the “mind-boggling” accusation that Najib’s wife, Datin Seri Rosmah Mansor was among three individuals who were also present when Mongolian national Altantuya Shaariibuu was murdered on Oct 19, 2006.

Raja Petra also alleged that the Prime Minister “has received a written report from the Military Intelligence” confirming his allegations   and this report was subsequently handed over to his son-in-law Khairy Jamaluddin for safekeeping”.

Raja Petra also claimed that “one of the Rulers has been briefed about this matter” and “is fully aware” of the allegations.

Abdullah and Najib should have broken their silence and made their denials five days ago when Raja Petra’s allegations in his statutory declaration dated 18th June 2008 first  surfaced on the Internet, reported by Malaysiakini and picked up by the blogs.

This was why I had issued a media statement four days ago on Saturday calling for public responses from Abdullah, Najib and Rosmah to Raja Petra’s statutory declaration, warning that “the credibility and legitimacy of the Abdullah premiership and government will suffer a mortal blow if Abdullah, Najib and Rosmah remain silent on  Raja Petra’s bombshell allegations”.

This was also why I had given notice to Parliament on Sunday to invoke Standing Order 18 to seek an emergency debate on Raja Petra’s allegations to safeguard  the credibility and legitimacy of the government.

Although my Standing Order 18 motion was rejected by the Speaker yesterday on the ground of sub judice with the ongoing Altantuya murder trials – quite irrelevant to the intent of my application –  the Prime Minister spoke up yesterday followed by Najib today.

If Abdullah and Najib had instantly responded to Raja Petra’s “mind-boggling” allegations five days ago, there would have been no need for me to invoke Standing Order 18 for an emergency debate of a matter of urgent, definite public importance and the  reputation, credibility and legitimacy of the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister would have been saved from another round of savage and haemorrhaging battering in the court of public opinion not only in the country but also world-wide.

It is time that the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister have new advisers as both are not being well-served by their present coterie  of political advisers – whether stationed in the Putrajaya fourth storey or not.

In his response yesterday, Abdullah dismissed Raja Petra’s allegations that he  had seen a military intelligence report on the murder that backed the allegations.

The Prime Minister said: “No, I can’t remember receiving anything. He can say anything but I have not seen it.”

As Abdullah’s statement gives room for doubt as to whether the Prime Minister’s memory could be faulty, it has made it imperative for  Khairy to respond, as Raja Petra alleged that the written report from  the Military Intelligence to the Prime Minister “was  subsequently handed over to his son-in-law Khairy Jamaluddin for safekeeping”.

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 25 June 2008, 2:05 pm and is filed under
Abdullah Ahmad Badawi
,
Parliament
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


PR status & citizenship for foreign spouses

(The following is the reply given  in Parliament by the Home Minister, Datuk Seri Syed Hamid Albar yesterday to my question on the long-standing PR problem. Lets have your reaction as to whether you find the answer satisfactory or not. It was given as a written answer as the question did not come up for oral reply during the 90-minute Question Time.  It was placed No. 49 out of 95 questions yesterday, which saw only eight questions answered on the floor during the Question Time.)

Tuan Lim Kit Siang
minta Menteri Hal Ehwal Dalam Negeri menyatakan hasil langkah-langkah untuk mempercepatkan pemprosesan pengeluaran (i) TarafPenduduk Tetap (PR) dan (ii) kerakyatan kepada pasangan asing rakyat Malaysia; mengapakah ujudnya aduan mengenai kelewatan yang keterlaluan dan sila berikan bilangan PR dan kerakyatan yang dikeluarkan dalam tempoh 20 tahun ini.

Jawapan:
Pemberian taraf Pemastautin Tetap Malaysia merupakan ‘satu anugerah dan bukan hak’ yang boleh dituntut oleh warganegara asing. Dalam mempertimbangkan permohonan untuk taraf Pemastautin Tetap (PT), Kerajaan memberi keutamaan kepada aspek keselamatan negara dalam membuat keputusan. Berdasarkan kepada faktor ini,  kerajaan sangat berhati-hati untuk membuat pertimbangan dan keputusan. Oleh yang demikian, setiap permohonan di WAJIBKAN melalui proses tapisan keselamatan oleh pihak Polis Di Raja Malaysia (PDRM). Di samping siasatan yang dijalankan oleh PDRM, pemohon dan penaja juga akan ditemu duga bagi memastikan bahawa maklumat yang diberikan adalah benar, dan juga untuk mengelakkan sebarang penyelewengan yang mungkin terjadi. Ini juga adalah bagi memastikan bahawa pemohon adalah tulen.

Kesemua langkah-langkah ini adalah amat penting bagi memastikan pemohon adalah seorang yang bebas dari gejala-gejala yang tidak sihat yang mungkin akan mengancam keselamatan negara. Hasrat kerajaan adalah bagi memastikan supaya hanya warganegara asing yang benar-benar ingin bermastautin di negara ini diberikan taraf Pendudukan Tetap. Di samping itu, semua syarat-syarat dan prosedur yang ditetapkan bertujuan untuk meminimumkan kebarangkalian berlakunya penyalahgunaan kemudahan yang disediakan seperti “marriage of convenience”.

Keutamaan kepada faktor keselamatan ini merupakan salah satu daripada sebab mengapa terdapat kelewatan memproses permohonan Penduduk Tetap. Selain daripada itu, terdapat juga faktor-faktor lain seperti kegagalan oleh pemohon untuk membuat ‘follow-up’, pemohon bertukar alamat dan tidak dapat dihubungi, maklumat tidak lengkap, penaja tidak dapat dihubungi dan sebagainya.

Dalam mempertimbangkan permohonan taraf Penduduk Tetap, Kerajaan sentiasa memberi keutamaan kepada pasangan asing rakyat Malaysia. Pertambahan dalam rakyat Malaysia berkahwin dengan warganegara asing telah meningkatkan permohonan untuk taraf Penduduk Tetap oleh warganegara asing. Kerajaan juga sedar bahawa terdapat rungutan-rungutan dan rasa tidak puas hati di kalangan pemohon di atas kelewatan memproses permohonan untuk taraf Penduduk Tetap. Oleh yang demikian, kerajaan sedang dalam mengkaji semula syarat dan prosedur yang ada untuk mempercepatkan proses pertimbangan dan keputusan untuk kategori pasangan asing kepada rakyat Malaysia.

Berhubung dengan kelewatan pemprosesan keputusan permohonan taraf kewarganegaraan Malaysia, setiap permohonan kewarganegaraan dikehendaki melalui beberapa prosedur seperti yang termaktub di dalam Perlembagaan Persekutuan.

Permohonan kewarganegaraan secara masukan di bawah Perkara 19(1) Perlembagaan Persekutuan contohnya, memerlukan pemohon bermastautin di Negara ini selama sekurang-kurangnya 12 tahun, berniat hendak bermastautin tetap, berkelakuan baik dan menjalani ujian bahasa. Setiap permohonan kewarganegaraan akan diteliti dan diperbaharui supaya pemberian taraf kewarganegaraan hanya diberikan kepada mereka yang benar-benar layak.

Dalam tempoh 20 tahun, sehingga Mei 2008, jumlah pemegang Kad Pengenalan Pemastarutin Tetap Malaysia adalah sebanyak 371,281, manakala sejumlah 19,511 bukan warganegara telah diberi taraf warganegara Malaysia.

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 25 June 2008, 8:10 am and is filed under
Parliament
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


9MP Mid-Term Review – BN Ministers/MPs struggling to keep awake

Barisan Nasional Ministers and MPs had never found it more difficult than today to keep awake to go through a major government policy speech in Parliament  – the tabling of the Ninth Malaysia Plan Mid-Term Review by the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi.

Even BN MPs who wanted to  thump  the table to create an atmosphere of support for the Prime Minister found little cause to do so, except for two or three occasions when Sabah and Sarawak were mentioned.

The only time the Barisan Nasional Ministers and MPs perked up were at the end of Abdullah’s speech, when he deviated from the prepared text distributed by  the Treasury to make a political attack on those who wanted to “grab power” despite the general election result of March 8, 2008.

If the Ninth Malaysia Plan Mid-Term Review Report is intended to give new hope and inspiration to  Malaysians that the Abdullah administration has heard the message of the March 8 political tsunami, and is prepared to strike out in new directions to enable the country to face the challenges of globalization, the result is a negative one.

Neither Abdullah nor the Ninth Malaysia Plan Mid-Term Review was frank  – making no reference of  the shelving of the RM2 billion Penang Monorail and RM1.5 billion Penang Outer Ring Road projects, although they were reported by the media yesterday and confirmed by Economic Planning Unit (EPU) officials.

Is this because Abdullah finds it difficult to rebut charges that such cancellations do not have vengeful and vindictive motives – especially when Abdullah could recently announce billion-ringgit angpows to Sabah and Sarawak to placate Sabah and Sarawak feelings of alienation and marginalisation?

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 26 June 2008, 2:44 pm and is filed under
Abdullah Ahmad Badawi
,
Parliament
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Religion and the Social Contract: Can Religion be reconciled with Civil Society?

By
Farish A. Noor

Modern nation-states are, for all intents and purposes, artificial entities that are the product of consensus and rational agency. Practically every modern nation-state in the world today traces its history to some founding moment and a founding document that lays down the terms of the social contract that brought together a disparate community of individuals to form a pact, which in turn sustains the nation as a whole and lends it  sense of identity and cohesiveness over time.

Now of course the foundational moment of many a nation-state today is lost in the mist of history and some might ask the question of how and why should an agreement made by a handful of men (and it is nearly always men, not women, mind you) who lived centuries ago be relevant to the citizens of today? America’s founding moment, for instance, lay in the midst of battle and the struggle of the American colonies to break free from the yoke of British imperialism then. However even a cursory glance at the documents of the past will show that America’s founding fathers were a small band of landed white American capitalists, land-owners and slave-traders who cared little for the fate of the thousands of African-Americans who were the descendants of slaves brought there from Africa. Equally scant attention was paid to the plight of the native Americans who in time would be marginalised and corralled into their reserves and left out of the mainstream of society, relegated to the status of ‘savage natives’ unfit for modernisation. Likewise women who made up half of the colonies’ population are hardly mentioned in the founding documents of what later became the United States of America.

Be that as it may, there remained enough scope for expansion and development in the American Constitution to allow the country to adapt to the changing realities of the time, and crucial articles of the Constitution – which guarantee equality and freedom of speech, for instance – paved the way for the American Civil Rights movement and the American Feminist movement that came into being by the mid-20th century.

As in the case of the United States, so was it the case in many other secular democracies in the developed part of the world where social upheavals and transformation were facilitated by the looseness of their respective Constitutions, that in turn allowed for the continuous revision and re-reading of its meaning and intent. What is crucial to note in all these cases is the fact that the advances in terms of civil and political rights in these countries occurred via recourse to the Constitution and the rule of law. At no point was the Constitution rejected outright simply because the founding fathers of the nation all came from the same elite strata of white, middle-classed men.

The social contract that binds us together as citizens of a country therefore undergoes a constant process of challenge, re-interpretation, revision and recontextualisation. But this is the nature of a successful social contract in the first place, and like all good contracts it maintains the balance between its binding force and its ability to compromise and adapt.

The rise of religiously-inspired politics worldwide, however, poses a different sort of challenge altogether as the discourse of religion is often predicated on the vocabulary of absolutes. In countries like Malaysia, Pakistan, Bangladesh, India and even Thailand and Sri Lanka today where religiously-inspired politics is on the rise, we note with some degree of concern that the demands of the religious activists and religious communitarian parties are radically different from that of their secular counterparts for the simple reason that religious politics is often dictated by absolute demands and claims.

Whether it is India which is witnessing the slow resurgence of Hindutva politics, Thailand with the rise of Buddhist politicians demanding the creation of the world’s first Buddhist state, or in countries like Malaysia, Indonesia, Pakistan and Bangladesh where Islamist parties are calling for the creation of a theocratic state that does away with the secular constitution and a radical re-working of the social contract altogether, Asian nations today seem to be witnessing the diminishing of its secular civil space and public domain.

The rise of religious politics across the world is certainly not a simple phenomenon that can be summarily essentialised in one unitary paradigm. Movements for faith renewal like the Tablighi Jama’at, for instance, do not necessarily call for the creation of an Islamic state in the way that Islamist parties do. But in the case of those religious parties that explicitly call for a return to a theologically-determined mode of governance, serious questions need to be posed to them:

For a start, Religion’s emphasis on a singular, unitary interpretation of the truth based on an absolute understanding of the cosmos does not sit comfortably with the reality of many complex plural societies today. How, for instance, do religious parties hope to reconcile the need to maintain balance and equality between faith communities when almost every religion in the world preaches to its followers that it, and it alone, is the only source of truth in the world? Here lies the comical and ironic aspect of so many of the global inter-religious dialogues we see today, where representatives of the various faith communities can only come together for the sake of agreeing on their differences, and are unable (still) to accept that other faith communities may actually view the world from a different angle from them?

From this there emerges the related question of how to maintain equality and fair representation in such a theological state where one religion has assumed the mantle of governance and all other faith communities are relegated to the status of the ‘protected faiths’ that are ruled over? Pious wishes and wishful thinking aside, the sad fact of human history is that in all such cases religious rule often leads to the pitfall of majoritarian politics, where the members of the dominant faith community lord it over the rest.

In the midst of this, we need to ask: What of the social contract? Religious conservatives the world over tend to bemoan the social contract precisely because it was and is a social contract agreed upon in the context of society, or precisely, human society. Arguing from the basis that only God has the power to determine the fate of nations and states, they conclude that any contract agreed upon by human beings have to be necessarily flawed as they do not partake of the divine and absolute. In short, the social contract is of no worth because God did not have a hand in it.

Yet this overlooks the fact that it is precisely because social contracts are human-made, and therefore contingent, arbitrary and historically and culturally-determined that they have proven to be the adaptable tools that can be revised and instrumentalised to serve the needs of political development and social evolution and emancipation. In short, it is precisely because we know that the social contract is vulnerable that we can still work on it, improve it, expand it and develop it. The recourse to the vocabulary of absolutes, which is the favourite destination of religious conservatives – be they Muslim, Christian, Hindu or Buddhist – is fundamentally an attempt to expunge from politics the dimension of the political, the contestational, the negotiable. For religious conservatives, God spells the end of politics.

This desire to end the moment of the political however, needs to be exposed for what it is. Despite the use of pious language to disguise their intentions, we ought to realise that the appeal to the language of religious absolutes and absolutism is just one step to the erasure of civil politics and opens the way for the rise of religious authoritarianism. So let us keep God out of the picture for now. For all its faults and weaknesses, the social contract has still served its purpose of holding together our communities on the level of a shared public domain and the negotiation of individual rational agencies. And after all, wasn’t that why God gave human beings the ability to think in the first place?

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 26 June 2008, 11:25 am and is filed under
Constitution
,
Religion
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Agony of foreign spouses for PR – the worst cases

Lets have the worst cases of the agony of foreign spouses of Malaysians to get PR (permanent residence) status, so that Parliament and the government  can hear about them – with the Home Minister having to respond as well.

You can either write on this blog or email me.

A long-suffering foreign spouse has emailed her views and suggestions, which I am sharing here:

CURRENT SITUATION:

Visa rules

There are thousands of foreign spouses who are on Dependent or Employment visas renewable until last year on a yearly basis.

However since 2007, spouses are able to renew their visas for upto 5 years.

(Most often we cannot afford to pay the visa charges for 5 years at one time)

Spouses do not get Permanent Resident status even after spending more than 15 years in the country and we have Malaysian school going children.

Application for Permanent Resident Status

We have to separately put in our application for Permanent Resident Status.  I took with me one full suitcase of documents, they even require a wedding invitation – how many of you have kept your wedding invitations for 16 years??

Immigration officers are still uncertain as to where foreign spouses should apply for their PR status.  Federal or State?

After applying for PR status it still takes years for the approval to come through.

Employment

Foreign spouses are only  permitted to work on a spouse visa a very elegant term (with due apologies) for the “employment pass” and only with companies having a paid up capital of 200K and above. There is a lot of documentation to be provided which would put off any employer.

Foreign Spouses on Spouse Visa whose income is not taxable have to pay a Levy.

I have paid levy of up to RM4000 per annum.

It may be that it is also easier and less procedural for expatriates to get an employment pass than spouses of Malaysian citizens.

SUGGESTED RECOMMENDATIONS

To ease and better manage the vast number of foreign spouses in the country.

Visa Rules

A reasonable wait for foreign spouses to get their Permanent Resident Status would be a two year period, after marriage.   This would be very much in line with our neighbour Singapore and other modern democracies such as UK, USA and Australia.

Permanent Resident Approval

Upon completion of two years marriage and stay in the country, the Immigration authorities should verify details of marriage and stay in the country and offer PR status to the Spouses.

Employment

Foreign spouses should be allowed to work, without having to seek an employment pass/spouse work permit.

Foreign Spouses should be allowed to work in any company irrespective of the paid up capital, as such rules only serve to restrict their employment opportunities.

There is a cooling off period of six months when jobs are changed should be waived.  This is really uncalled for, to be treated like foreign maids.  Six months is a long time for us to remain unemployed – this should be done away with.

Do away with some of the humiliating rules.

Over stay

If for some reason we miss the date of renewal of visas, we are deemed to have overstayed, well how can we overstay in our own home? To add insult to injury we have to pay summons for overstaying in our own home.

Long Wait

For 16 years, I have been subjected to demeaning rules such as my Malaysian husband having to accompany me when I go to renew my visa.  It is acceptable for us to do this for one of two years, but for 16 years, it is degrading.

Marriage Search

When I changed employers I was asked to provide a Marriage Search, little did I know that such a thing existed?

Malaysia My Second Home

Right now priority is given for PR status to applicants of  ” Malaysia My Second Home”,  possibly because this is revenue earning, however shouldn’t due consideration be assigned to Spouses of Malaysian citizens who in effect have made Malaysia their home.

Opening Individual Bank Accounts

Foreign Spouses Housewives unable to open a bank account with some of the Banks, are often asked to open joint accounts with husbands.

Foreigners are required by banks to produce either a letter from their educational institution if they are students or their employer if there are expatriate employees.  So housewives get left out.

Double charges in Hospitals for foreigners, is there some way that spouses can get exemption?

Now we cannot even collect the rebate for the petrol hike. Our cars are used to ferry our Malaysian school going kids.

Spouses with Marital difficulties

Furthermore, Spouses who have marital problems, after 10-15 years in the country are put through unimaginable trauma, when sometimes they even have to leave the country without being able to extend their visa, without the custody of their children.

Most of these spouses cannot afford legal fees and their cases are not highlighted.

Option for Citizenship

There should also be an option for citizenship.

The law in other countries

What needs immediate attention is the immigration law itself for spouses of citizens.  Today in countries such as UK, USA, Australia and nearer home in Singapore, no more than 2 years of living together is required to secure PR status – marriage is not even a necessity in these countries.

Immigration Act, Procedures

I have browsed through the Immigration Act, however I could not find any references to foreign spouses.

Immigration procedures for foreign spouses change at an astonishing speed, only making it more difficult for them.

The procedures change from Putra Jaya to Damansara, from officer to officer.

In 1992 I was told that I could only apply for PR if I resided in the country for 5 years.

In Year 1997 I was told that I could not apply for PR status as I was on an employment pass and not a dependent pass.

Then I was told to go to Shah Alam, when I went there I was told that my husband’s residence is in Perak, then I was further pushed away and told to go to Damansara, who told me go to state.  Until today, no one seems to know the rule as to where the submission for application of PR could be made.

Finally I was able to submit my application in Pusat Damansara in August 2007.

Now I have been told that the rules have changed and spouses who have children who are below 6 years can apply, after being given a run around for 15 years,  I cannot reduce the ages of my children who are 14 and 9 years of age.

BENEFITS TO THE NATION

Highly Qualified Professional Spouses

This will also be beneficial to the nation as many spouses are highly qualified and are seeking the employment market.  Overseas spouses have even indicated that they are willing to return should it be easier to gain employment.

Good Governance and Best practise for Spouses augur wells for the community, the law makers and the Nation.

What do you think?

                This entry was posted on Friday, 27 June 2008, 2:51 pm and is filed under
Good Governance
,
Human Rights
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Question on Ketuanan/Kedaulatan Melayu

(On Wednesday, I asked the Prime Minister what steps he had taken to promote the Bangsa Malaysia objective of Vision 2020 in the face of worsening racial polarisation with greater communal clamour for “ketuanan Melayu” and “kedaulatan Melayu”.

Placed No. 29 out of 97 questions, it did not come up for answer on  the floor of the House in the 90-minute Question Time.

The following is the written answer from the Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz which completely avoided the question by not touching on the rising crescendo in the assertion for  “ketuanan Melayu” and “kedaulatan Melayu”:)

Tuan Lim Kit Siang
 minta Perdana Menteri menyatakan langkah-langkah yang beliau ambil untuk memupuk objektif Bangsa Malaysia sejajar dengan Wawasan 2020 memandangkan masalah polarisasi kaum kini semakin memburuk berikutan dengan bunyi riuh komunal mengenai “ketuanan Melayu” atau “kedaulatan Melayu”.

Jawapan:
 Sepertimana Ahli Yang Berhormat sedia maklum, perpaduan dan integrasi nasional sememangnya merupakan salah satu aspirasi utama Kerajaan. Kita percaya bahawa sebuah negara bangsa yang utuh hanya akan dapat lahir hasil daripada perpaduan yang teguh dan mantap.

Bagaimanapun, negara yang aman dan makmur tidak mungkin lahir dengan sendirinya. Atas kesedaran inilah maka Kerajaan senantiasa berusaha untuk memastikan agar pembangunan ekonomi negara terus berlangsung dengan pesat, di samping memastikan agar tiada mana-mana golongan yang merasakan mereka ketinggalan dalam arus perdana pembangunan negara.

Di samping memastikan kesaksamaan dan keadilan ekonomi di kalangan rakyat, Kerajaan juga turut berusaha untuk memupuk semangat kekitaan melalui system pendidikan, program-program perpaduan negara, program latihan Khidmat Negara dan pelbagai inisiatif lain.

Sesungguhnya Kerajaan percaya bahawa kita akan mampu membina sebuah negara yang aman, makmur dan bersatu padu sekiranya semua pihak dapat sama-sama berusaha untuk membina semangat perpaduan yang jitu dan kental.

Di samping itu, saya juga ingin mengingatkan semua pihak bahawa retorik yang bersifat perkauman – yang berpunca dari mana-mana kaum sekalipun – akan hanya menimbulkan suasana tegang di kalangan rakyat, yang pastinya akan membantutkan usaha ke arah mencapai matlamat perpaduan nasional. Saya percaya bahawa keadaan antara kaum tidaklah begitu buruk sebagimana yang didakwa oleh YB Ipoh Timur. Namun demikian, kita harus senantiasa berwaspada agar keadaan aman dan makmur yang sedia ada ini tidak akan diganggu gugat oleh mana-mana tindakan yang akan membawa kepada perpecahan dan perselisihan faham di kalangan rakyat.

                This entry was posted on Friday, 27 June 2008, 1:09 pm and is filed under
nation building
,
Parliament
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


9MP Midterm Review – Tsu Koon’s “beggar politics”

(Speech by DAP MP for Ipoh Timor Lim Kit Siang at the opening of the DAP Tebing Tinggi service centre, Ipoh on Saturday, 28th June 2008)

One result of the March 8 “political tsunami” which saw the end of the Barisan Nasional’s unbroken two-thirds parliamentary majority and its loss of five state governments, Penang, Perak, Selangor, Kedah and Kelantan, is a bout  of public soul searching by some Barisan Nasional leaders.

One such public heart-baring was by the Gerakan Adviser Datuk Seri Lim Keng Yaik who confessed that as Umno did not give the other component parties equal standing, Gerakan, MCA and MIC were reduced to the status of “beggars” in the ruling coalition – resulting in their massive rejection by the electorate in the March 8 “political tsunami”.

Gerakan Acting President Tan Sri Dr. Koh Tsu Koon has proven his predecessor right about the “beggar politics” and “beggar mentality” of Gerakan vis-à-vis Umno in Barisan Nasional in his response to the RM3.5 billion Ninth Malaysia Plan Mid-Term Review deferring of the PORR and Monorail projects in Penang.

Tsu Koon should demand  a rightful say as an equal partner in the ruling coalition on major decisions particularly those affecting Penang, such as  the two “signature” Ninth Malaysia Plan  projects of the Barisan Nasional for Penang instead of concocting excuses to justify the deferral of the two projects, like  blaming the  Penang people for voting in a new state government  in the  March general election or criticizing the DAP Penang Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng for sending allegedly  “confusing signals” to the Federal Government.

If Yong Teck Lee of SAPP is prepared to forsake “beggar politics” in Barisan Nasional and could stand up for the legitimate rights and interests of the people of Sabah to the extent of facing disciplinary action by the Barisan Nasional Supreme Council, why is Tsu Koon not prepared to do more to defend the  legitimate rights and interests of the people of Penang and send a clear and unmistakable message to Umno that the March 8 “political tsunami” must mean an end to “beggar politics” in Barisan Nasional if Gerakan and all other component parties in BN  are to survive and remain relevant to the needs and aspirations of Malaysians?

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 28 June 2008, 3:43 pm and is filed under
Penang Government
,
Politics
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Parliamentary barricade against the press – WhoDun’It?

This is a Parliamentary WhoDun’It?

Who gave the directive to put up the barricade in Parliament on Tuesday to bar the reporters and photographers, leading to the 24-hour downing of tools and cameras by some 100 journalists boycotting all media conferences and events outside the debate in the parliamentary chamber?

The Speaker, Tan Sri Pandikar Amin said its not him. The Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, Datuk Nazri Aziz also said its not him.  I believe both.  Who then gave such a directive?

While this Parliamentary WhoDun’It awaits resolution, a parliamentary sideshow is being enacted.

The Malaysian Insider
 carried the following  story,

“Nazri dares backbenchers to get him sacked”
, which was picked up by the print media, deepening the mystery as to  who actually gave the directive to impose the barricades in Parliament treating journalists like “wild and dangerous beasts” who have to be caged and cabined!

Nazri dares backbenchers to get him sacked

KUALA LUMPUR, June 27 — Datuk Seri Nazri Abdul Aziz has upped the ante in his feud with the Barisan Nasional Back Benchers Club (BNBBC) over media curbs in Parliament, challenging them to get him sacked from the Cabinet.

“I am expecting the BBC to recommend to Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi to sack me as a minister,” said Nazri, who is minister in the Prime Minister’s Department and is in charge of parliament. The feud began when he accused the backbenchers for being childish and gangster-like for removing a security cordon that barred the media from the Parliament lobby last Tuesday.

The Parliament administration had placed the curbs and also restricted each media organisation to only five personnel for reporting duties, angering journalists and chief editors who decided to boycott events outside parliament business. Several BNBBC members removed the security cordon on Tuesday afternoon, persuading the media to stop their boycott.

“If they dare not do that on Monday, then shut up and don’t talk anymore,” Nazri said.

BNBBC chairman chairman Datuk Seri Tiong King Sing told reporters the backbenchers were insulted by Nazri’s remarks, particularly after they had checked with both Dewan Rakyat Speaker Tan Sri Pandikar Amin Mulia and Nazri about the barricade. Both claimed ignorance although Deputy Speaker Datuk Wan Junaidi Tuanku Jaafar claimed it was a joint decision by the speaker and his two deputies.

Tiong disclosed that the BNBBC would meet on Monday for their next course of action as Nazri had gone overboard with his statements. The feud between Nazri and the BNBBC is another headache for embattled Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi who is facing almost daily calls to quit and a threatened no confidence vote by two BN lawmakers from Sabah.

The
New Straits Times
today carried this report:

Nazri challenges BN backbenchers club to have him sacked

By V. Vasudevan

2008/06/28

KUALA LUMPUR: Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz has challenged the Barisan Nasional Backbenchers Club (BNBBC) to get him sacked from the cabinet. This is Nazri’s latest salvo at the BNBBC which is meeting on Monday to decide on its next course of action against Nazri, who had described the club as being “childish and gangster-like” when it removed barricades put up by parliament security in the Dewan Rakyat lobby last Tuesday.

“I am expecting the BNBBC to recommend to Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi to sack me as a minister. If not, they should just shut up,” said Nazri, who is still peeved over last Tuesday’s events when contacted by phone yesterday.

Nazri said the BNBBC’s behaviour on Tuesday was unacceptable. The security cordon was to restrict access to the Dewan Rakyat lobby and had resulted in a media boycott of all lobby activities such as press conferences and interviews.

Nazri said the BNBBC should not have felt inferior to the opposition, which had championed the media’s rights in the house.

“Look at the opposition, they raised it in the chamber and then they took it up with the speaker in his office.

“If they felt they were bested in the issue by the opposition, who is to be faulted here?”

Nazri said the behaviour of the BNBBC was unacceptable as both deputy speakers had already indicated in the house that the decision to cordon off the lobby from the press would be reviewed by the speaker.

“Against this assurance, they went and did what they did without any regard for procedure.”

The BNBCC, like their opposition counterparts, felt peeved with the barricades and decided to remove it themselves.

“Nobody seemed to know whose instruction it was to put up the barriers. We checked with everyone and all said they did not know. So we decided to remove them,” BNBBC chairman Datuk Tiong King Sing had said.

Nazri’s outburst at the BNBBC yesterday is a follow-up to his comments on Wednesday where he chided the club for removing the barricades.

“Don’t think just because you are with the BNBBC you can do what you like. Is this a gangster club? They should know their place in the house where the power is with the speaker,” he said

He warned the backbenchers not to resort to such actions again, saying the incident “embarrassed me”.

On Thursday, Tiong said the BNBBC would meet on Monday to decide on action against Nazri.

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 28 June 2008, 4:37 pm and is filed under
Media
,
Parliament
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.