Najib not quite the Hulu conqueror (2)

By
Bridget Welsh

Najib Razak and the BN won bragging rights in Hulu Selangor. A win is a win. The BN had the advantage up-front with its machinery and resources for this large semi-rural constituency and it used these effectively.

To date, the focus has been on BN’s use of financial incentives to woo voters. This has been a long honed practice, especially in the rural areas. It is nothing new, and part of any by-election. To understand the dynamics on the ground, one has to look further.

To attribute Najib’s victory on money politics obscures important transformations taking place within the BN. The use of ethnic politics and new messaging underscored the BN’s campaign.

The BN’s efforts may have helped secure a win, but the long term points worryingly to further political challenges.

Comparatively, this election mattered more for the BN, especially Najib. Najib has staked his political future on a victory. Since he assumed office in April 2009, Najib has lacked his own political mandate. Hulu Selangor, with the slim 2008 majority of only 198 votes, gave him an opportunity to show both the public and, even more important, his own party that he could win.

It is thus not surprising that the dominant message in the BN campaign was focused on him, from the posters to the unprecedented prominent role he played in the campaign. The prominence of his concept 1Malaysia reinforced the Najib connection.

To date, Najib has staked his future on improving the economy. Najib needs political room to implement difficult policy decisions that go to the core of the future of the country – economic reforms. He needs to cut the use of subsidies, improve state revenues, remove ethnic-based preferences (aka the NEP) and generate new sources of growth.

Without economic reforms, the country faces serious obstacles in maintaining its competitiveness. These reforms will not be easy to carry out. He will need public support. Sadly, the size of the victory does not give Najib adequate political space for hard economic decisions.

Focus on Najib’s personality

Najib’s personal battle involved more than the public and his policy measures. Listening to Najib on the campaign trail, it was clear that the election was centred on damaging his political enemy – Anwar Ibrahim.

With innuendos such as “main belakang” and references to how US President Barack Obama personally supports him, Najib used the opportunity to continue the battle for national leadership that is playing out in the courts and through censure motions in Parliament.

The BN’s use of personal attacks on Zaid Ibrahim is an extension of the series of attacks on members of PKR from Anwar downwards. Najib and the BN engaged in an all-out war against the opposition because the increasing power of the opposition has become personal to them, a challenge to their positions and wealth.

The prime minister’s focus on personality rather than his deliverables suggested an element of insecurity on Najib’s part. One of the reasons for this insecurity involves increasing pressure from within Umno itself.

Deputy Prime Minister Muhyiddin took the opportunity to cast a shadow on Najib’s victory by contrasting the target of 6,000 with the slim victory of 1,725.

In fact, Muhyiddin is not far off from traditional patterns of BN – largely Umno – support in this seat. By showing that Najib did not make this target, he has maintained the pressure from inside Umno on Najib to meet the needs of the party and address many of the concerns of the ultra-Malay chauvinist agenda.

Najib faces a real challenge of securing the support for economic policies and simultaneously building security for his party members who are concerned with their own positions Najib’s personal battleground – from Pakatan and Anwar to Umno and Perkasa – was played out in Hulu Selangor, and it is long from over.

The intensity of the BN campaign reflected this high stakes involved. The BN went all out and it translated on the ground to hard work, zeal and pressure in local communities. Many in the Malay Felda areas of Ulu Bernam, for example, expressed fear of being ostracised for supporting the opposition. Many villagers were genuinely afraid of the implications of not voting for BN.

This was the product of the hard court press of the BN machinery, which was well-oiled from beginning of the campaign and much stronger in localities, especially in Batang Kali. The opposition lacked the same networks to exert pressure, and some Malay and Indian villagers wisely opted to follow along rather than challenge the local BN campaigners.

It is striking to see the low voter turnout in many Malay areas, as many stayed home in a quiet protest rather than oppose the BN machine. It was not a surprise that tensions were high in areas, with small fights on election day as a result of how the national intensity was translated on the ground in rural communities.

Umno throws its weight

There was another unspoken weapon held over the heads in this campaign. It involved the component parties – MIC and MCA. They were called to deliver or face further encroachment in their power base by Umno. Weakened and riddled by factionalism, both the MIC and MCA struggled to show that they had support among their respective traditional constituencies.

At stake was the future of seat allocations, ministerial positions and even more intense issues of their future in the BN as threats of bypassing these parties altogether were banded about, largely as rumours. They reinforced a real sense that Umno was throwing its weight around.

This was most obvious for MIC, as the emasculation of the party through the candidate selection illustrated publicly the weaker role it plays in BN. The MIC branches – those that opted to campaign for P Kamalanathan – understood it was a matter of their survival not just in Hulu Selangor but nationally. Umno was waiting in the wings to take over the seat.

For MIC, they may have won a respite for their seats and gained a potential settlement of the Maika scandal in the process.

The leadership of the party remains at question, as does the fundamental fact that the MIC has a long way to go to bringing Indians back into the BN fold.

One cannot ignore the fact that any gains have to be seen within the lens that this has been a MIC seat for over 10 years before 2008 and they won less than an estimated 60 percent of the Indian vote. This is not quite a national mandate for the MIC.

For the MCA, reeling from battles inside its own ranks, the cracks spilled over into the campaigning, with party president Chua Soi Lek’s late arrival on the ground in a constituency that had considerable popularity within the MCA for Ong Tee Keat. The MCA faced real pressures to show its relevancy and did not win recognition in this contest as Chinese voters overwhelmingly rejected their efforts.

Chua said it best when he talked about the need to address issues nationally and move beyond its grassroots campaigning in villages to secure votes.

The reality is that some of its own party workers are not loyal to the party in the voting booth. MCA had less to lose short term in the contest, but in the longer term serious questions of relevancy and its ability to effectively represent Chinese Malaysians loom.

Both the MIC and MCA have to face the fact that the BN has changed. Umno is more in control than ever before. Non-Malay voices inside the BN coalition are apparently being ignored and this was evident in the campaign itself. Logistically, substantial BN cooperation – touted as the new campaign strategy – was minimal, as parties focused on their communities. Rarely did they work together, except with Najib’s visits.

In order for the non-Malay component parties to win back support they need to show that they are respected and appreciated by Umno, that Malays in Umno believe that Indian and Chinese leaders and members within BN should be genuinely included. This did not come across during the campaign, and is a even more serious challenge nationally as Umno interferes in these parties as factional fights over leadership develop.

Ethnic politics within the BN itself was also a factor shaping the Hulu Selangor campaign. The MIC won the most as some Indians did come back to support the BN, while the MCA faces even more obstacles as a result of the further erosion of Chinese support.

BN rebrands itself

The BN campaign in Hulu Selangor was not just well-oiled and highly politically motivated, it was one of its best campaigns. It challenged the core of Pakatan Rakyat’s identity. First of all, the BN fought to undermine Pakatan’s call for “change”.

They focused on local sentiments of neglect and blamed the new Pakatan state government. While this did not fully resonate, the fact that the area was under multiple sovereignty undercut the ability of the opposition to rally voters along the same lines as they did in 2008.

The BN slogan “Mampu Berubah” (Ability to change) – illustrated the recognition that they have to change. While most saw this cynically, some voters acknowledged this new tone. Clearly the arrogance of Umno before 2008 was not repeated in their Hulu Selangor campaign messages. Instead they used the slogan “Yes We Can”.

Another key dimension that was challenged was the multi-ethnic composition of Pakatan. The BN used the 1Malaysia concept to portray that it was inclusive. While the campaigning on the ground was racial – vote for the Indian in Indian areas, voting for Pakatan is a vote for a Chinese government in Malay areas, voting for BN is a vote for Malay power – to paraphrase comments made at BN rallies and reports from voters – the 1Malaysia umbrella was multi-racial and Najib’s campaign efforts were as well.

The issue here is that the BN worked to try to win back the label of being the multiethnic representative that assured “stability”. Voters reported mixed acceptance of this message, but it clearly was more sophisticated and goes to the heart in challenging Pakatan which has aimed to portray itself as more multi-ethnic.

The final element was an attempt by the BN to portray themselves as ‘Generation-Y’. Najib’s campaign was linked with a new generation of leaders and an attempt to reach out the young. The idea was to showcase a new generation of Malay leaders for Malaysia.

This also goes to the heart of another dimension of Pakatan’s support, as it has presented itself as young and its engaging of the younger voters has resulted in greater political support.

These new themes in the BN campaign show that BN is changing how it is packaging itself. On the ground, many of these messages were not effectively delivered by the BN campaigners, who are locked in historic molds of race-based campaigning, use of incentives and mind-sets of entitlement. Yet, one cannot ignore that the BN at the top showed the most innovation and ingenuity this campaign.

Further polarisation

There was a cost for the political use of these messages. 1Malaysia aims at inclusiveness. It has now become a BN political tool used for political expediency. It now serves to alienate many rather than engage, in part due to the fact that people used the slogan while simultaneously adopting tactics of race and character assassination.

From Hulu Selangor onwards, Malaysian voters may potentially be increasingly become polarised around the 1Malaysia concept. This does not bode well for inclusion across races. In order to win over voters in the long term, the BN needs to implement real changes within itself and in its engagement with voters. The campaign remained highly racialised even as the messages were not. A slogan is not enough.

Further by associating himself with the Hulu Selangor campaign, Najib has entered the fray of election politics like never before. The new messages revolve around his leadership. They have the potential to raise his own personal stakes in future by-elections.

Ironically, he may have made himself more vulnerable politically. He won Hulu Selangor in a tight race, but he now will have to face even more battles ahead as he has yet to fully emerge as the conqueror.

DR BRIDGET WELSH is associate professor of political science at Singapore Management University.

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 1 May 2010, 5:00 am and is filed under
Election
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Not a single Human Rights Commissioner for more than a week an indictment of the cavalier and contemptuous attitude of Najib administration to democracy and human rights

The country has been without a Human Rights Commissioner for more than a week – which is an indictment of the cavalier and contemptuous attitude of the Najib administration to democracy and human rights.

The appointment of all the Suhakam Commissioners expired last Friday and the vacuum or even void in Suhakam for more than a week is not only a terrible reflection of inefficiency and incompetence of the Najib administration but it could not have come at a worse time as there were serious violations of human rights in this one-week period.

The most heinous human rights violation is undoubtedly the national furore over the trigger-happy police killing of 14-year-old Form III student Aminulrasyid Hamzah in the early hours of Monday some 100 metres from his Shah Alam Section 11 house and the shameful episode where the Inspector-General of Police Tan Sri Musa Hassan tried to hold the nation to  ransom threatening to call off police off the streets and not to enforce the law in retaliation against widespread public criticisms over the Aminulrasyid killing.

The police is facing the worst crisis of public confidence  its history – all because of police refusal to accept the key recommendation of the Dzaiddin Police Royal Commissionn in 2005 to set up the Independent Police Complaints and Misconduct Commission (IPCMC) to create an efficient, incorruptible, professional world-class police service.

If the IPCMC had been set up and had been able to command public confidence and support, the system of good governance for the police would have been put in place and the  tragic case of the police shooting and killing of Aminulrasyid would  be handled without causing an immediate plunge of public confidence – to the extent that Aminulrasyid’s neighbours shouted in protest against the trigger-happy police action: “This is not Manchester or Los Angeles, this is bloody Malaysia!”

Public confidence have plunged further with the Attorney-General Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail sending back the police investigations papers on Aminulrasyid’s killing back to the police while the Inspector-General of Police is publicly canvassing for an inquest.

Why should there be an inquest when the PAS MP for Shah Alam Khalid Samad  has produced a second witness on the trigger-happy police shooting of Aminulrasyid.

With the evidence quite clear-cut, why is there no immediate prosecution for murder or at least homicide charge?

These are grave human rights issues which should engage the attention of the Human Rights Commission – but unfortunately, there is not a single Human Rights Commissioner for this period until now, and Suhakam can only operate for house-keeping purposes by its staff.

It is a great disappointment and even grave dereliction duty that Suhakam has been silent on the Aminulrasyid killing – and the Suhakam commissioners cannot be blamed because there is not a single one of them.

This is a shame and an outrage for which the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak must bear full responsibility.

The vacuum and void in Suhakam has happened at a time when there is gross violation of media freedom as in NTV7 and  RTM, which should be subjects for Suhakam action and rectification.

At present, Suhakam is only an empty shell as there is  nobody empowered in it to protect human rights of Malaysians from these violations.

Najib should explain whether  he is going to continue the Suhakam vacuum and void for some time and if not, when the new appointments would be made.

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 1 May 2010, 6:35 pm and is filed under
Human Rights
,
Najib Razak
,
Police
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


DAP leaders’ visit to Tawau, Marotai and Kalabakan – tweets

Boarding AA 4Tawau 2k ppl #SaveSabahSaveMalaysia Dinner org by DAPSriTanjong SA JimmyWong Also attending MPs TunkuAziz TonyPua Nienchin Hiew

12:14 AM Apr 30th

Serdang DAP MP TeoNieChing renders song 2flag off fund collection #Sibu byelection #212 @Tawau DAP #SSSM dinner JimmyWong Hiew TonyPua spoke

6:58 AM Apr 30th

BION In Tawau last wk lawlessness contd 1who withdrew RM60k from BankBumiputera was robbed near bank At police station he was told 2lodge rpt when robber had been nabbed!

9:02 AM Apr 30th

Labour Day Malaysian workers twin challenges: 1fair fruits of labour in workplace 2workers’ power 2create a more just equal prosperous Msia

2:38 PM Apr 30th

Walkabout SinOnMarket Tawau DAP MPs TunkuAziz TonyPua NienChing Hiew SA Wong During 2008 GE innovated breakfast ceramah here Roaring success

5:31 PM Apr 30th

Lunch @renowned “Ayam Jagong” shop KedaiKopiFohChong (No. 7294 Jalan Apas 5 1/5 ms Tawau Lama) famous 4ikan batu/ wild boar Memorable makan

9:07 PM Apr 30th

Opened new TawauDAP branch At pc spoke on #Aminulrasyid case PakLah’s unsatisfactory explanation on RM320bil sell-out of BlockL/M 2Brunei

9:26 PM Apr 30th

At Kg Serundung Baru Tawau Pesta Menuai w KongHongMing TunkuAziz AhmadThamrin TeohNienChing JimmyWong Msg 4change going out 2 Sabahans

10:06 PM Apr 30th

Where is d best? RT @OneZahir: @limkitsiang should try famous sang yuk mien !!

12:15 AM May 1st

At KedaiKopi Yung Lee Fatt @Jln Apas mile3 Tawau best paus available Crowded clientile Tawau has many culinary delights waiting 2bdiscovered

12:32 AM May 1st

#SSSM Cry 254 claimants Kg Serundung Laut, Tawau: Stayed/worked on NCR land 4six generations threatened by alienation 2 outsider companies

1:55 AM May 1st

Msg #SSSM reached Malay kampongs in Sabah Ceramah at Marotai with PAS Sabah depy commissioner Hamzah Abdullah At ceramah 78 Malays join DAP

12:26 AM May 2nd

Good sang yuk mien @KedaiKopiHingLee next 2Grace Hotel. Shd b in Tawau GoodFoodList RT @Sky2404: Try it,around Fajar that area!! @OneZahir

07:36 AM May 2nd

Regret time does not permit have 2b next visit But tried something ppl from Peninsula don’t know – breadfruit Nutritious tasty RT @KEVINLOO

08:21 AM May 2nd

Testing out w TunkuAziz NienChing JimmyWong notorious RM565 million 179km Kalabakan Highway – KongHonhMing lodged 2ACA rpts but no action

08:49 AM May 2nd

Travelled less than 1hour TunkuAziz already dubbed it Kalbakan Jalan Runtoh Why is it notorious? World’s most expensive gravel road! #sssm

09:14 AM May 2nd

At KgMurut UluKalabakan anthr marginalised group after 47yrs Sabah in Msia Greatest concern NCR Why Sabahans feel strangers in own land?

10:13 AM May 2nd

Calls from Kerk/ChongEng both surprised in Sabah interior, frmr concerned abt Chinese press rpt Ch press ystrdy n 2day not reached here yet

10:21 AM May 2nd

Yes ordinary bumiputras in SabahSwakMalaya marginalised by UMNOputras RT @KarimRaslan Murut marginalised group// they are bumiputra as well.

11:23 AM May 2nd

Visited Nov 1963 Kalabakan Incident Memorial where 8 army personnel were killed in first flare-up of Indonesia Confrontation

12:54 PM May 2nd

RM565million Kalabakan-Sapulut road must rank as Highway Rip-Off of Sabah as it is 179km gravel road instead of permanent bituminous #SSSM

01:56 PM May 2nd

Auditor-General2008 strictures Kalabakan-Sapulut Rd as Sabah Highway RipOff ignored No action taken Will demand answer in Parlmnt in June

02:03 PM May 2nd

Blackout agn Tawau shortly b4 departure 4airport 2LCCT Traffic lights KO Proof SESB is Sabah Electricity Sure Blackout! Crying shame #SSSM

03:55 PM May 2nd

2board AA End 3rd #SSSM Tour Tawau-Marotai-Kalabakan by DAP leaders after Kk-KBelud-Tuaran n Keningau-Tambunan-Sipanggar-Penambang Next

05:31 PM May 2nd

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 2 May 2010, 11:10 pm and is filed under
Sabah
,
Twitter
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


What the Chinese want

By
Kee Thuan Chye

In the mood for celebrations?

Every time the Barisan Nasional gets less than the expected support from Chinese voters at an election, the question invariably pops up among the petty-minded: Why are the Chinese ungrateful?

So now, after the Hulu Selangor by-election, it’s not surprising to read in Utusan Malaysia a piece that asks: “Orang Cina Malaysia, apa lagi yang anda mahu?” (Chinese of Malaysia, what more do you want?)

Normally, something intentionally provocative and propagandistic as this doesn’t deserve to be honoured with a reply. But even though I’m fed up of such disruptive and ethnocentric polemics, this time I feel obliged to reply – partly because the article has also been published, in an English translation, in the Straits Times of Singapore.

I wish to emphasise here that I am replying not as a Chinese Malaysian but, simply, as a Malaysian.

Let me say at the outset that the Chinese have got nothing more than what any citizen should get. So to ask “what more” it is they want, is misguided. A correct question would be “What do the Chinese want?”

All our lives, we Chinese have held to the belief that no one owes us a living. We have to work for it. Most of us have got where we are by the sweat of our brow, not by handouts or the policies of the government.

We have come to expect nothing – not awards, not accolades, not gifts from official sources. (Let’s not lump in Datukships, that’s a different ball game.) We know that no Chinese who writes in the Chinese language will ever be bestowed the title of Sasterawan Negara, unlike in Singapore where the literatures of all the main language streams are recognised and honoured with the Cultural Medallion, etc.

We have learned we can’t expect the government to grant us scholarships. Some will get those, but countless others won’t. We’ve learned to live with that and to work extra hard in order to support our children to attain higher education – because education is very important to us. We experience a lot of daily pressure to achieve that. Unfortunately, not many non-Chinese realise or understand that. In fact, many Chinese had no choice but to emigrate for the sake of their children’s further education. Or to accept scholarships from abroad, many from Singapore, which has inevitably led to a brain drain.

The writer of the Utusan article says the Chinese “account for most of the students” enrolled in “the best private colleges in Malaysia”. Even so, the Chinese still have to pay a lot of money to have their children study in these colleges. And to earn that money, the parents have to work very hard. The money does not fall from the sky.

The writer goes on to add: “The Malays can gain admission into only government-owned colleges of ordinary reputation.” That is utter nonsense. Some of these colleges are meant for the cream of the Malay crop of students and are endowed with the best facilities. They are given elite treatment.

The writer also fails to acknowledge that the Chinese are barred from being admitted to some of these colleges. As a result, the Chinese are forced to pay the exorbitant fees to attend private colleges. Furthermore, the Malays are also welcome to enrol in the private colleges, and many of them do. It’s, after all, a free enterprise.

Plain and simple reason

The writer claims that the Chinese live “in the lap of luxury” and lead lives that are “more than ordinary” whereas the Malays in Singapore, their minority-race counterparts there, lead “ordinary lives”. Such sweeping statements sound inane especially when they are not backed up by definitions of “lap of luxury” and “ordinary lives”. They sound hysterical, if not hilarious as well, when they are not backed up by evidence. It’s surprising that a national daily like Utusan Malaysia would publish something as idiosyncratic as that. And the Straits Times too.

The writer quotes from a survey that said eight of the 10 richest people in Malaysia are Chinese. Well, if these people are where they are, it must have also come from hard work and prudent business sense. Is that something to be faulted?

If the writer had said that some of them achieved greater wealth through being given crony privileges and lucrative contracts by the government, there might be a point, but even then, it would still take hard work and business acumen to secure such phenomenal success. Certainly, Syed Mokhtar Al-Bukhary, who is one of the 10, would take exception if it were said that he has not worked hard and lacks business savvy.

Most important, it should be noted that the eight Chinese tycoons mentioned in the survey represent but a minuscule percentage of the wider Chinese Malaysian population. To extrapolate that because eight Chinese are filthy rich, the rest of the Chinese must therefore live in the lap of luxury and lead more than ordinary lives would be a mockery of the truth. The writer has obviously not met the vast numbers of very poor Chinese. Even the middle-class ones don’t enjoy luxury when so much of what they earn go towards their children’s education.

The crux of the writer’s article is that the Chinese are not grateful to the government by not voting for Barisan Nasional at the Hulu Selangor by-election. But this demonstrates the thinking of either a simple mind or a closed one.

Why did the Chinese by and large not vote for BN? Because it’s corrupt. Plain and simple. Let’s call a spade a spade. And BN showed how corrupt it was during the campaign by throwing bribes to the electorate, including promising RM3 million to the Chinese school in Rasa.

The Chinese were not alone in seeing this corruption. The figures are unofficial but one could assume that at least 40 per cent of Malays and 45 per cent of Indians who voted against BN in that by-election also had their eyes open.

So, what’s wrong with not supporting a government that is corrupt? If the government is corrupt, do we continue to support it?

To answer the question then, what do the Chinese want? They want a government that is not corrupt; that can govern well and proves to have done so; that tells the truth rather than lies; that follows the rule of law; that upholds rather than abuses the country’s sacred institutions. BN does not fit that description, so the Chinese don’t vote for it. This is not what only the Chinese want. It is something every sensible Malaysian, regardless of race, wants. Is that something that is too difficult to understand?

Some people think that the government is to be equated with the country, and therefore if someone does not support the government, they are being disloyal to the country. This is a complete fallacy. BN is not Malaysia. It is merely a political coalition that is the government of the day. Rejecting BN is not rejecting the country.

A sense of belonging

Let’s be clear about this important distinction. In America, the people sometimes vote for the Democrats and sometimes for the Republicans. Voting against the one that is in government at the time is not considered disloyalty to the country.

By the same token, voting against Umno is also voting against a party, not against a race. And if the Chinese or whoever criticise Umno, they are criticising the party; they are not criticising Malays. It just happens that Umno’s leaders are Malay.

It is time all Malaysians realised this so that we can once and for all dispel the confusion. Let us no more confuse country with government. We can love our country and at the same time hate the government. It is perfectly all right.

I should add here what the Chinese don’t want. We don’t want to be insulted, to be called pendatang, or told to be grateful for our citizenship. We have been loyal citizens; we duly and dutifully pay taxes; we respect the country’s constitution and its institutions. Our forefathers came to this country generations ago and helped it to prosper. We continue to contribute to the country’s growth and development.

Would anyone like to be disparaged, made to feel unwelcome, unwanted? For the benefit of the writer of the Utusan article, what MCA president Chua Soi Lek means when he says the MCA needs to be more vocal is that it needs to speak up whenever the Chinese community is disparaged. For too long, the MCA has not spoken up strongly enough when Umno politicians and associates like Ahmad Ismail, Nasir Safar, Ahmad Noh and others before them insulted the Chinese and made them feel like they don’t belong. That’s why the Chinese have largely rejected the MCA.

You see, the Chinese, like all human beings, want self-respect. And a sense of belonging in this country they call home. That is all the Chinese want, and have always wanted. Nothing more.

The Utusan Malaysia article:

Orang Cina Malaysia, apa lagi yang anda mahu?

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 2 May 2010, 11:04 pm and is filed under
Kee Thuan Chye
,
nation building
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


47 years in Malaysia – why Muruts feel strangers in their own land?

On Sunday, 2nd May 2010, DAP leaders  including DAP Deputy Chairman Senator Tunku Aziz, DAP MP for Serdang, Teoh Nien Ching and DAP Sabah Assemblyman Jimmy Wong, DAP Sabah Publicity Secretary Dr. Edwin Bosie and I visited Kampong Murut, Ulu Kalabakan.

It was a long bumpy ride from Tawau to Kalabakan but worse is to come in the next stretch of the Trans-Borneo Highway, from Kalabakan to Sapulut which I have termed as the Highway Rip-off of Sabah – as a 179km permanent bitumunous road with sealed pavement turned out, after prolonged delays, into a gravel road!

The video clip is my speech asking why Muruts feel strangers in their own land while foreigners have  come to regard themselves as owners of the Land Below the Wind.

                This entry was posted on Monday, 3 May 2010, 12:30 pm and is filed under
Sabah
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Are Umno leaders to issue the “Get Out from BN!” order to MCA Ministers if MCA cannot recapture Chinese support?

The New Straits Times headline today ‘
MCA must prove it can recapture Chinese support
‘ has come as no surprise, considering the utterances and threats which have become the staple diet of some UMNO leaders who are suffering from a terminal denial syndrome refusing to admit that the biggest problem faced by Barisan Nasional post-March 8 political tsunami stem from Umno and not the other BN component parties.

In fact, what is surprising is that the warning  had not been made by Perkasa, which seemed to have received the out-sourcing of such chores from Umno, but from none other than Umno Vice President Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Hussein after the general assembly of 30 Umno branches in Cameron Highlands yesterday.

The question is: Are Umno leaders going to issue a “Get Out from BN” order to MCA Ministers if MCA cannot recapture Chinese support?

I myself was surprised to read of the
admission
 by the MCA President Datuk Dr. Chua Soi Lek in the Star last Friday that MCA leaders accept that MCA only had 14% Chinese support in Hulu Selangor at the start of the recent by-election.

May be this is a good stratagem by Chua to show that he had successfully clawed back Chinese voter support in Hulu Selangor from 14% to 25-28% in the by-election campaign, favourably reflecting on his leadership qualities, instead of having to explain why MCA support among the Chinese voters had fallen from 38% in 2008 general election to 25-28% in the by-election!

Be that as it may, will Hishammuddin lead the Umno campaign to issue the “Get Out from BN” order to MCA if MCA cannot recapture Chinese support?

Has Gerakan been issued with a similar warning  from Umno leaders to recapture Chinese support or faces the consequence?

If MCA had only 14% Chinese voter support in Hulu Selangor at the start of the by-election, what is Gerakan’s Chinese voter support? One or two percent?

Only Gerakan leaders will know whether they have received such warnings from Umno, although the Gerakan President Tan Sri Dr. Koh Tsu Koon is publicly preparing the ground for an Umno Chief Minister to be installed in Penang – i.e. if Barisan Nasional topples Lim Guan Eng as Penang Chief Minister and the Pakatan Rakyat Penang State Government.

MCA National Vice President and Health Minister Datuk Liow Tiong Lai has recommended in his twitter an article by Tan Siok Choo on “
Umno-MCA relationship was more than gratitude
’.

Siok Choo writes about her grandfather Tun Tan Cheng Lock and father Tun Tan Siew Sin. Nobody, would have believed that Cheng Lock or Siew Sin would have tolerated any “MCA must prove it can recapture Chinese support” nonsense from any Umno leader – raising the question the different calibre in the MCA leaderships of today as compared to its founding generation.

Now, the MCA leadership have their hands full just coping with the Umno out-sourced outfit, Perkasa, not to mention the lordly pronouncements and warnings from the Umno national leadership!

                This entry was posted on Monday, 3 May 2010, 1:47 pm and is filed under
MCA
,
UMNO
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Call on Najib to release a full chronological order on the events resulting in the ceding of Malaysian sovereignty to Blocks L and M to Brunei and the position of Brunei’s territorial claim to Limbang

The statements by Wisma Putra, Petronas, the Prime Minister Dauk Seri Najib Razak and former Prime Minister Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi all have one common purpose – to avoid answering two important questions:

When and why Malaysia ceded away Malaysian sovereignty to two oil and gas-rich offshore areas in South China Sea, namely Block L and Block M, in favour of Brunei; and

Whether  and if so, when Brunei had surrendered its territorial claim of sovereignty to Limbang and recognized full Malaysian sovereignty instead.

Although Wisma Putra, Petronas, Najib and Abdullah know fully well that their statements would be scrutinized for answers to these two most important questions, all their verbiage have one common thrust to avoid answer to these two questions.

This can only raise suspicions to crisis point.

I call on Najib to release a full chronological order of the events resulting in the ceding of Malaysian sovereignty to Blocks L and M to Brunei and the position of Brunei’s territorial claim to  Limbang, whether and if so when, Brunei had surrendered its claim of sovereignty to Limbang.

Another former Prime Minister, Tun Mahathir had estimated that the worth of oil and gas rights for Blocks L and M are in the region of US$100 billion (RM320 billion) – no paltry sum for any Prime Minister or Government to trifle with to  avoid full public accountability.

As Prime Minister for 22 years, Mahathir’s statement that Blocks L and M had been claimed by Malaysia based on historical facts and that based on Malaysia’s sovereignty, Petronas had entered into a production sharing contract with Murphy Oil to start drilling to produce oil estimated at one million barrels, cannot be ignored.

Was Mahathir misinformed when he blogged last week that Abdullah had negotiated with the Sultan of Brunei to get back Limbang in Sarawak in return for the  surrender of the two Blocks to Brunei and that Brunei had beaten Malaysia in the diplomatic game in securing the sovereignty for the two Blocks L and M without surrendering its sovereignty claim to Limbang?

Najib should issue a White Paper to throw full light on this issue without any further delay.  The Battle of Prime Ministers over Malaysia’s sovereignty to Blocks L and M and to Limbang is not doing the Najib Administration and Tun Abdullah’s reputation any good.

                This entry was posted on Monday, 3 May 2010, 4:50 pm and is filed under
Abdullah Ahmad Badawi
,
Foreign
,
Najib Razak
,
Oil
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Coming Back Swinging!

By
M. Bakri Musa

It is the mark of a great leader that having encountered an obstacle, would bounce right back to plan the next offensive strategy.  The results of the Hulu Selangor by-election have yet to be officially ratified, and already Zaid Ibrahim has come out swinging to challenge the legitimacy of the election process and the validity of the outcome.  A flawed process produces flawed results.

            In springing right back, Zaid demonstrates an admirable ability to focus on winning the war and not be distracted by the loss of a battle.  That is the measure of a great general.

            Lesser leaders would have taken the easy path out.  Those with shaky integrity and even shakier commitment would readily switch sides at the first tribulation, with or without sweet promises.  There were many such examples in the recent Hulu Selangor by-election.

            Not Zaid.  He is suing the Elections Commission alleging that it “allowed intimidation, false information, and unfair and illegal electoral practices by the Barisan Nasional machinery.”  Additionally, Zaid is suing Utusan Malaysia for libel.

            I hope Zaid would also sue those irresponsible and malicious bloggers who posted doctored pictures of him for the sole purpose of offending Muslim sensibilities.  A few such suits would reduce the stench that has descended lately on the Malaysian blogosphere, and do it far more effectively than all the whining of Information Minister Rais Yatim.

            Those scumbag pseudo commentators need to be reminded, forcefully if need be as with a libel suit, that freedom of speech does not mean freedom to slander.  Even in America where freedom of speech is a religion, you are not free to indulge in false and malicious gossips, at least not publicly, and certainly not on the Internet.

            Thus far Zaid has restrained himself on the grounds that those whoring bloggers are anonymous, and that there are too many of them.  And like real whores, those bloggers are also being paid for their ‘services.’  I would argue that those are compelling reasons to go after them.  Zaid would render the nation a great service if his lawsuits were to reduce the number of these prostituting bloggers.  At the very least he would establish case laws on this new medium.

Get to Know Your Leaders

As Zaid rightly reminded us in his post-election press conference, “Every citizen has a fundamental right to vote.  But this right is meaningless if he is not able to exercise it because his name is removed from the electoral roll without his knowledge; or if he is intimidated or bribed or given all kinds of inducements to influence his choice.”

            Even if Zaid does not prevail in court, his lawsuit would expose the pathetic incompetence and willful negligence of our election officials.  That would be educational as well as entertaining.  I would love to see them squirm with their repeated “I was directed … !” or, “It is not my job!” responses during cross examination.

            Apart from exposing the corruption of our electoral process, Zaid’s lawsuit would also highlight the ethical lapses of our leaders.  If future elections were to be cleaner and fairer as a result of his legal actions, then Zaid would have done a great national service.

            He should view those legal expenses as an investment towards a better Malaysia.  Although it is within his capacity to fund the endeavor, I would suggest that he form a non-profit entity for the sole purpose of using the courts and legal challenges to expose corruption and incompetence, and to seek public support for that purpose.  Model it after the American Civil Liberties Union.  The response should be overwhelming; the public is fed up.  This would also be a productive way for people to channel their anger and help rid the pestilence of corruption in our society.

            Zaid is not limiting his battle only to the courtroom.  He has extended it into the far more consequential court of public opinion, in particular Malay public opinion, with his “Get To Know Your Leaders” campaign.

            Now that UMNO leaders like Mahathir has lowered the bar on what is fair and permissible in an election campaign, Zaid should not hesitate in exposing the hypocrisy of these leaders.  Before the election he assured his former UMNO colleagues that their secrets would be safe with him and that he had no intention of following the polluted path they had plunged into.  Now that they (and voters) have deemed those details legitimate campaign material, Zaid owes the public a duty in exposing the hypocrisy of those leaders.

            In labeling them as hypocrites, Zaid was deliberate in his choice of word.  That label has deep Quranic references and thus profound emotive implications with Muslims.  It is the most contemptuous condemnation.

            There are indications that this label may stick, with Malays responding strongly to it.  God knows, Malaysians are already immune to such labels as “corrupt,” “immoral,” or “incompetent,” as reflected by such individuals being repeatedly re-elected.  Isa Samad, Chua Soi Lek and Abdullah Badawi are ready examples.

            Take corruption.  Through their animal greed and perverted ethics, our leaders view the bounties of bribery and hogging of the public trough as Allah’s blessings; hence their ready acceptance of both, as with our ‘humble’ Imam of Islam Hadhari accepting the ‘gift’ of millions worth of prime public land to build his grandiose istana.  The label “corrupt” or “breach of faith” is foreign to such leaders, but only the label though, not the deeds.

            We are already seeing intimations of the severe sting of this new “hypocrite” label.  UMNO Youth’s Khairy Jamuluddin became unusually defensive and hostile when questioned on whether he had ever imbibed alcohol.  He never did answer.  Home Minister Hishammuddin was quick to disassociate himself from his party’s indulgence in this latest litmus test of alcohol abstention.  He knows that this one could strike close to home.

            In responding to a reporter’s remark that Mahathir had denied ever drinking alcohol, Zaid pointedly called him a hypocrite.  To a Muslim ear, that is a serious allegation; it is not enough for Mahathir simply to dismiss it.  He should sue Zaid for such a contemptuous and libelous statement.  For Mahathir to do anything less would be an admission that he is indeed a hypocrite.  Mahathir already had to defend his son’s directorship of a major brewing company.

            During the campaign Mahathir tried to draw the distinction with his owning of horses which were for riding versus Zaid’s, which were apparently for racing.  I am sure that those poor folks in Hulu Selangor, consumed with their daily survival, could now appreciate the differences in the two bourgeois hobbies.

            Zaid is determined to “out” these hypocrites among our leaders, as well he should.  I would go further and assert that Zaid owes the public a duty to do this.  As one who aspires to the leadership of our nation, he owes us a solemn obligation to play his part in cleansing our nation of this putrid mess.

            Zaid promised to “reveal which casinos they [UMNO leaders] go to, [and] which mistresses they keep.”  I sincerely hope that Zaid would not limit his exposé only to our political leaders but also to others, especially our royal rulers and their very public shenanigans.

            I hope Zaid’s initiative would open the floodgates for Malaysians who have solid evidence of these high-level chicaneries to come forward a la the Lingam tapes.  These leaders deserve our scorn.

            Zaid might just encourage some to ruffle through the public records in Las Vegas for those high rollers who have overestimated their skills and their assets.  There will be a few Malaysian names.

Premature Jubilation

Judging from the drooling editorials in the mainstream media, you would think that this recent event was an exercise in the overwhelming endorsement of Najib instead of a by-election of a rural constituency with no consequence on the national political balance.  Najib’s ministers too joined in with their chorus of cooing.  Never mind that despite the big guns that included Najib and Mahathir, and the millions spent on buying votes, all that Barisan could manage was to squeak through!

            Najib should heed the fate of his immediate predecessor, Abdullah Badawi.  He secured the greatest parliamentary majority in the 2004 elections, only to be humiliated with the greatest loss four years later, and then booted out shortly thereafter.  Far from being chastened by this narrow victory, Najib and his gang are already giddy about reclaiming Selangor and securing a two-third majority in the next general elections.

            A cautionary note was sounded by Ahirudin Attan, aka Rocky Bru, no critic of the administration.  He reminded those Barisan folks of the Ijok state by-election of 2007 that saw another MIC kid defeating a Pakatan big wig, Khalid Ibrahim.  Less than a year later in the subsequent general elections of 2008, that kid was sent into oblivion and the whole state fell to Pakatan, with Khalid becoming its chief minister.

            Coming back swinging, Zaid Ibrahim is determined to let Barisan win only the battle but not the war.

                This entry was posted on Monday, 3 May 2010, 10:08 am and is filed under
Bakri Musa
,
Election
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Najib’s “Do not cover up” warning to Police over Aminulrasyid killing long overdue and a clear slap in the face of IGP and Home Minister

The screaming front-page headline of New Straits Times today tells it all –“
‘Do not cover up’ – Public wants transparent inquiry into boy’s shooting, says Najib
”.

The Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak’s
“Do not cover up”
 warning to the police over the fatal police shooting of 14-year-old Form III student Aminulrashyid Hamzah in the early hours of Monday last week 100 metres from his Shah Alam house is long overdue and a clear slap in the face of the Inspector-General Tan Sri Musa Hassan and the Home Minister, Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Hussein.

One is entitled to ask why the Prime Minister had only spoken after six days of national outrage at the police shooting of Aminulrasyid and outrageous government response and mishandling of the heinous killing, from the IGP downwards and even the Home Minister – but it is better late than never.

Speaking in Sibu, while expressing regret over the shooting of Aminulrasyid, Najib said the investigations must be open and transparent as the public demanded this.

He said:

“The public wants answers and I hope the police will fully cooperate in the investigations.

“The investigations should also satisfy the family of the victim as they have the right to know what really happened. I hope the police will cooperate and not cover up for anyone if they are wrong.”

It is sad that for the past week, both the IGP and Home Minister had outraged Malaysians because they are not seen as upholding the rights of Aminulrasyid’s family and the Malaysian public to answers for the fatal shooting and to demand full transparency and “no cover-up” of the investigations. On the contrary, they are perceived as openly trampling on Najib’s “People First, Performance Now” motto!

Only yesterday, it was reported that the police were believed to have fired almost 20 shots but only one hit and killed Aminulrasyid.

In a “People First, Performance Now” regime, why is the bereaved family and Malaysian public denied this information – and why has the Police yet to clear the name of Amirulrasyid and his family when the first official police version had described the Form III student as a “criminal” as well as the allegation rebutted by eye-witnesses that Amirulrasyid had tried to reverse to ram the police personnel?

Hishammuddin’s establishment of a “toothless” Special Panel into Aminulrasyid’s shooting death as an attempt at transparency is a bad joke, when the Chairman of the Special Panel, Deputy Home Minister Datuk Abu Seman Yusop admitted that the Special Panel had no powers to inquire into the death or even to make recommendations to the Police.

The Special Panel’s offence against “transparency” is compounded when Abu Seman could not announce the other members of the eight-member panel and the farce of his statement that politicians are not wanted on the Special Panel as they have special interests – forgetting that he is himself first and foremost a politician or he would not be Deputy Home Minister!

Abu Seman and the Special Panel suffered irreparable blow to their credibility when he dared not even murmur a criticism of IGP Tan Sri Musa Hassan’s inexcusable outbursts threatening to call the police off the streets in exasperation at public criticisms of the police over Aminulrasyid’s killing.

It is most deplorable that the IGP gave  blind support to the police shooting of Aminulrasyid when he should have assured Malaysians that all police personnel had been properly trained to abide by international standards for law enforcement officials set out in the United Nations Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials, where force may only be used when strictly necessary, requiring restraint when use of firearms is unavoidable and “in proportion to the seriousness of the offence” to “minimise damage and injury, and respect and preserve human life”.

It is because of IGP’s conspicuous  and colossal failures over these policy considerations that calls are again made for his removal as the top policeman in the country and not, as Najib said, over “a single incident” of Aminulrasyid’s shooting death.

It would appear that despite the Prime Minister’s call on the police for a transparent inquiry to satisfy legitimate public expectations, Najib appears to be a lone voice in the highest councils of state or there should be no obstacles or delay in the establishment of a Royal Commission of Inquiry headed by former Inspector-General of Police Tan Sri Hanif Omar into Aminulrasyhid’s shooting death and all other cases of police shooting deaths going back to 2005.

Najib should ask the Cabinet to decide on the establishment of a Hanif Royal Commission of Inquiry into Aminulrasyid’s death as well as into all cases of police shooting deaths since 2005, making recommendations to end the high incidence of official police “murders” from police shootings in Malaysia.

                This entry was posted on Monday, 3 May 2010, 10:12 am and is filed under
Najib Razak
,
Police
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Musa Hassan  – resign as IGP as the tearful eye-witness testimony of  traumatized 15-year-old Azamuddin on the police killing of Form III student Aminulrasyid has completely destroyed your credibility and authority!

I will like to tell Tan Sri Musa Hassan – resign as Inspector-General of Police as the tearful eye-witness testimony of  traumatized 15-year-old Azamuddin Omar on the police killing of his friend, Form III student Aminulrasyid Amzah some 100 metres from the latter’s house in Shah Alam a week ago has completely destroyed your credibility and authority.

If you love the Royal Malaysian Police Force, then you have no other option but to resign immediately to protect the police from the consequences of  your gross failures of police leadership as IGP.

For the love of the country and the police force, resign now as IGP!

Let a new IGP start the difficult, painful but not impossible process to restore public confidence in the police where they  regard the police as friend and protector and not as threat and even killer of innocent Malaysians, including school-children.

As final amends, in your resignation letter, make two recommendations to the Home Minister and Prime Minister, viz:

the establishment of a Royal Commission of Inquiry headed by former Inspector-General of Police Tan Sri Hanif Omar to inquire not only into the fatal police shooting of Aminulrasyid but also all police shooting deaths since 2005; and

endorse the proposal of the Dzaiddin Police Royal Commission for the establishment of the Independent Police Complaints and Misconduct Commission (IPCMC) as a key step to create an efficient, incorruptible, professional and world-class police service.  If the IPCMC had been set up in 2005 and not blocked in a campaign led by you,  Aminulrasyid will still be alive today for there would be a greater sense of professionalism among the police.

This is what I would like to tell Musa but I do not know whether he is  amenable to this drastic remedy I have proposed  to restore justice to Aminulrasyid and to redeem the good name of Aminulrasyid’s family and that of Azamuddin defamed by public police accounts describing the two schoolboys as “criminals”.

However the cost of Musa’s stubborn refusal to bow to public pressures will be a high one – causing even further estrangement of the police from the Malaysian public and  a sharper loss of public confidence in the Malaysian police.

The Malaysian Insider in its report today “
Anger against police over Aminul’s death building up on Facebook
” said that a week after the Form III boy’s tragic death, more than 60,000 fans had signed up on a Facebook demanding justice and expressing growing anger and concerns over cases of police violence.

It is a terrible indictment on the professionalism of the IGP that he continued to defend the police version that the two students were criminals when Azamuddin had lodged a police report and even given police statement on the same day of the tragic killing at 2 am the previous Monday.

Aminulrasyid has picked up Azamuddin in his sister’s car about midnight last Monday and they had gone to watch a football match (Chelsea vs Stoke) on TV as a restaurant in Section 7, Shah Alam.

Recounting the tragic course of events, Azamuddin was the lone passenger in the car when Aminulrasyid was shot in the back of his head, trying to flee home to seek protection from his mother and family.

Azamuddin categorically denied police claim and testified that Aminulrasyid did not try to ram policemen with his sister’s car.

The  Home Minister, Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Hussein should take heed of this mounting public anger, particularly from the young generation of Malaysians.

His reputation and credibility are also on the line if he refuses to act decisively and do what is right to ensure justice for Aminulrasyid, Azamuddin and their families and end the rigmarole of a Abu Seman Special Panel which has no powers to inquire into Aminulrasyid’s death or make recommendations to the Police and forthwith to support the establishment of a Tun Haniff Royal Commission of Inquiry into Aminulrasyid’s death.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 4 May 2010, 10:52 am and is filed under
Police
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Living 1Malaysia

By
Jacqueline Ann Surin
 | thenutgraph.com

ON the Sunday morning of 25 April 2010, when Hulu Selangor voters were going to the polls, I was sitting in a Sikh gurdwara in Kuala Lumpur. It was the fifth death anniversary of a dear friend, Datuk Krishen Jit. His spouse, Datin Marion D’Cruz, had organised for prayers to be said for him and had invited family and friends to be part of the ceremony.

I’m not Sikh but neither is D’Cruz or the dozen or so other friends who turned up that morning. In fact, among the friends who were seated in the gurdwara that morning were definitely Muslims, Christians, Buddhists, atheists and the non-religious. So, there we were, fellow Malaysians, united in our love for a friend who had gone before us, seated in a house of worship that was not of our respective faiths. We were not only respectful of the ceremony, we also stayed back together to eat a vegetarian lunch that had been cooked by the gurdwara. It was a 1Malaysia moment for me, if ever there was such a thing.

Which got me thinking: we already have 1Malaysia. In fact, we had it long before the administration of Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak launched 1Malaysia. So, what really is the 1Malaysia campaign all about? And what does it mean that our government has to pay millions of precious tax money in order to ensure 1Malaysia is a reality?

Before 1Malaysia

Before there was Najib and slick communications and public relations from Apco Worldwide, there was, for me, Bunga Manggar Bunga Raya (BMBR). BMBR was a dance theatre production directed by D’Cruz in 2007 to commemorate our 50th year of independence.

It celebrated Malaysians and Malaysian stories with equal amounts of dignity and respect for each other. Hence, it should not have been surprising at all that the promotional posters for BMBR were so organically multiracial. Twenty two Malaysian performers of different ages, colours, sizes, and sexual and racial identities all grouped under a solid wooden table that was our country. All proud that we were Malaysians performing Malaysian stories.

It is a poster to kill and die for if I were part of 1Malaysia’s slick public relations campaign. And guess what, instead of millions, Five Arts Centre only spent RM35,000 for the entire production. As performers, we didn’t get paid but money wasn’t the point for any one of us. I doubt the same can be said of the people working on the official 1Malaysia campaign.

For certain, even before and apart from BMBR, there are countless lived experiences where Malaysians feel united and equal despite of our differences. Where each person is treated with equal respect and dignity and offered the same opportunities to be heard, cared for and supported. Just read the numerous Found in Malaysia interviews that The Nut Graph has done for a sense of just how united Malaysians have been, can be and are. Mind you, these stories happened even without the 1Malaysia campaign’s influence.

Modelling excellence

najib holding a tiny tableIn Neuro Linguistic Programming, modelling is used as a way to achieve excellence. How can we model people who demonstrate expertise and excellence in what they do so that we, too, can achieve excellence?

I wish our government would ask the same question. How could it model Five Arts Centre, for example, so that the government can better understand what it takes to create spaces where Malaysians feel proud to be Malaysians and feel like they belong to this state? What can our government do to recreate the experiences, described in Found in Malaysia, so many Malaysians have had growing up in our country?

As it is, I know it’s a real challenge for me to buy into Najib’s 1Malaysia campaign. That’s because there are too many instances which don’t have any of the qualities that would make me and other Malaysians feel like we would all be treated fairly and equally with dignity and respect.

How can a non-Malay, non-Muslim Malaysian, for example, trust that Umno is sincere about the avowed aims of 1Malaysia when the party president, Najib himself, has defended a right-wing ethnocentric organisation like Perkasa? Or when Umno’s vice-president-cum-Home Minister Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Hussein legitimises violence against non-Muslims? Or when an Umno supreme council member who is also a member of the cabinet tells non-Muslims they have no right to use “Allah”?

During the Hulu Selangor by-election, two anecdotes really struck a nerve in me. One was when a Malacca Umno member told Shobana Subramaniam, the wife of the Barisan Nasional (BN) candidate, “Nanti lepas menang, boleh pakai tudung.” The other incident was when a Malay Malaysian man chased away two Chinese Malaysian journalists who were working in the BN’s operations centre in Kampung Sungai Buaya. The man shouted, “Kamu orang Cina, sini tempat Melayu.”

For certain, these would not be the first time when Malay Muslim Malaysians assume a political and cultural superiority over other Malaysians. Indeed, other racial and religious groups, if in power, are just as capable of lording over minority groups. The point though is that in Malaysia, this kind of superiority is entrenched within the dominant party in the ruling coalition. And really, it’s going to take much more than an expensive public relations campaign, codenamed 1Malaysia, to convince some of us that our Umno-dominated government knows how to treat each citizen with equal respect.

For now, I know that my Malaysian friends and I don’t need a government campaign to teach us to be respectful of others. We don’t need to be inundated by patriotic messages and jingles for us to love Malaysia and our fellow Malaysians. Indeed, my friends and I definitely didn’t need 1Malaysia in order to want to be in that gurdwara on a Sunday morning.

I reckon we already had 1Malaysia a long time ago. And the government’s attempt to package and sell a glitzy version of Malaysian unity seems like a false caricature of who we already are without any government inducement.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 4 May 2010, 12:06 pm and is filed under
1Malaysia
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


One week after Hulu Selangor

By
Ong Kian Ming
 | Malaysiakini

Last Sunday, I woke up in Durham, North Carolina to the news that BN was on its way to victory in the Hulu Selangor by-election with a small majority of approximately 1,500 votes. The final majority was 1,725 in BN’s favour.

A week later, as I sit here in Petaling Jaya, I’m still somewhat surprised, perhaps not so much by the fact that BN has emerged victorious in this crucial by-election but by the way in which this seat was won.

I had earlier predicted, with some confidence, that PKR’s Zaid Ibrahim would win this tough and hard fought race by a margin of between 1,000 to 1,500 votes.

My prediction was based on the following three assumptions in regard to racial voting: (1) that BN’s Malay vote share would not exceed 60%, (2) that its Indian vote share would not exceed 50%, and (3) that its Chinese vote share would not exceed 30%.

The polling station results showed that first two of three assumptions were wrong and that the BN’s Chinese vote share was far below that which was anticipated.

I had anticipated a small swing in the Malay vote in favour of BN, from approximately 55% to 58%. The swing in Malay support is consistent with a larger, national trend of Prime Minister Najib Razak’s increasing popularity among the Malay electorate.

I had assumed that the presence of split voting in favour of Zaid and the control of the Selangor state government by Pakatan would be able to prevent BN’s Malay vote share to rise above 60%. Even the last-minute handouts to the Felda settlers did not alter my assumption since these voters already vote for BN in large numbers in previous elections.

Using returns at the polling station level, I estimated BN’s Malay support at a surprisingly high 66%, still lower than the estimated 70% garnered at the state seat level in 2008, but most definitely higher than the upper limit of 60% that I thought the BN could achieve.

The anticipated Malay/Umno backlash against the selection of an MIC candidate did not materialise. The galvanising of the local Umno machinery in support for the MIC candidate was certainly surprising, especially given the initial poisoned political environment.

Indian and Chinese go separate ways

I had anticipated the unpredictable Indian vote to break in favour of the opposition by a 55% to 45% margin. I would not have been surprised if the Indian support for BN had gone up to 50%. Instead, the BN Indian support went up to approximately 54%.

Again, the Indian backlash from local factions who were supportive of G Palanivel did not occur perhaps because the former Hulu Selangor MP was promised the position of a senator. The enthusiastic and friendly demeanour of the MIC candidate, P Kamalanathan, probably helped swing the BN Indian support above the 50% mark.

Finally, I expected the Chinese vote to swing against the BN to perhaps 30%, a swing of approximately 5%, compared to the 2008 general election. Instead, my estimation of the BN Chinese support dropped to approximately 18%.

This level of Chinese support is reminiscent of the Bukit Gantang by-election, where the PAS candidate and former Perak MB won approximately 80% of the Chinese vote.

While Pakatan was successful in limiting BN’s Malay support in Bukit Gantang to less than 60% – an important factor in accounting for Nizar Jamaluddin’s victory there – it was not able to replicate such a feat in Hulu Selangor. But still, if prior to polling day, someone had said that the BN’s Chinese vote share would fall to 20%, most people would not have anticipated a BN victory.

Finally, a short note on the youth vote. While it is true that BN won the majority of the polling streams where younger voters cast their vote, one has to remember that most of these polling streams were in Malay majority areas.

In other words, it is hard to differentiate the overall Malay swing in favour of BN from a more specific claim that the younger voters were returning to BN in disproportionate numbers.

Furthermore, there was still a significant differential between the levels of BN support among the older and younger Malay voters (even though both groups of voters supported the BN at levels in excess of 50%).

Political repercussions for PKR

I have already said that I would not play the role of Monday morning quarterback and dissect, with a fine-tooth comb, the reasons for BN’s victory (or Pakatan’s loss). I do not find the kitchen-sink approach of throwing out a bunch of non-mutually exclusive factors or reasons particularly helpful, especially when it is difficult to ascertain the magnitude of importance for these factors.

Instead, I will discuss some of the political repercussions of the result, for BN as well as for the opposition.

I have struggled somewhat in deciding whether the Hulu Selangor by-election result was more crucial to the BN or to the opposition. Again, one could make arguments for both sides. My conclusion is that Hulu Selangor hurt the opposition, especially PKR, more so than it benefited BN. I say this for a number of reasons.

Firstly, Zaid Ibrahim, a man whom many thought was capable, in the medium to long term, of possibly leading PKR, if something should happen to Anwar Ibrahim, and by extension, the opposition coalition as a whole, has taken a significant but not mortal hit.

His inability to win over the Malay vote (or at least minimise BN’s gain among the Malays) will certainly have damaged his leadership credentials, especially among the ranks of disgruntled PKR leaders and members, who dislike Zaid for one reason or another.

It is not surprising that Zaid has chosen to contest the Hulu Selangor by-election results since this can potentially create the impression that the contest was won with ill-gotten political advantages and by doing so, salvage some of his political capital.

Zaid is down, but not out for the count. Not yet. He would probably stand a better chance of winning an urban seat in Selangor or Kuala Lumpur in the next general election where the issues which he is best positioned to bring up as a parliamentarian are more valued.

Secondly, the political pressure on Khalid Ibrahim will continue to pile, especially from within the ranks of certain PKR leaders who are hoping that he will be replaced as the menteri besar, sooner rather than later.

Unfortunately, many of these PKR leaders may not have considered the very real possibility that the battle to succeed Khalid may be a lost cause if Pakatan cannot win enough state seats in the next general election to maintain control of the Selangor state government.

Thirdly, the floundering PKR, which has suffered a deluge of defections and resignations since March 2008, did not receive the much-needed confidence boost that it needed as a sign of internal and external validation.

Perhaps, PKR will take this loss as a sign that things cannot proceed as they are within the party. But the post-election blame game has already indicated that this cannot be taken as a given.

Internal weaknesses

Ironically, PKR’s position within Pakatan may take a further hit in the unlikely, but not impossible event, that DAP manages to win the upcoming Sibu by-election.

All eyes will be on PKR to see how they respond to this electoral setback. The perception is that Anwar has somehow lost the plot in managing the party that was set up to champion his cause. The accusations that Anwar is more interested in traveling overseas to rub shoulders with foreign dignitaries than to pull up his sleeves to build his own party from within will undoubtedly continue.

Like it or not, even as PKR matures and new leaders emerge, this party is still Anwar’s to lead. If he can rally the party’s leadership around him, it is still not too late to introduce serious institutional reforms and bring in new blood within PKR in order to strengthen the party for the next general election.

The leadership of PKR would do well if they focused on their own internal weaknesses rather than to blame BN for carrying out the same by-election campaign strategies which have been part and parcel of the BN playbook for the past few decades.

ONG KIAN MING is ecstatic to be back in Malaysia for good after six years in the United States. He holds a PhD in political science from Duke University.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 4 May 2010, 5:00 am and is filed under
Election
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Powerless Special Panel into Aminulrasyid’s police killing neither fish nor fowl even with Tun Hanif as member – Cabinet tomorrow  should end “guerrilla” responses and take holistic decision on Tun Hanif RCI on all police shooting deaths since 2005

The Home Ministry is under great pressure. Because I have proposed a Tun Haniff Royal Commission of Inquiry into the police killing of 14-year-old Form III student Aminulrasyid Amzah in Shah Alam at 2 am the previous Monday, it has been announced that the former Inspector-General of Police Tun Hanif Omar has been roped in as a member of the Special Panel on Aminulrasyid’s death headed by Deputy Home Minister Datuk Abu Seman Yusup.

This is typical “guerrilla warfare” operation, making decisions on the run without an overall strategy.

The powerless Special Panel into Aminulrasyid’s police killing is neither fish nor fowl even with Tun Haniff as member, as well as other members including former Suhakam commissioner Denison Jayasooria, crime analyst Kamal Affendi Hashim, lawyer Muhammad Shafee Abdullah, Asian Strategy and Leadership Institute (Asli) chief executive officer Dr Michael Yeoh and UiTM deputy vice-chancellor Prof Abdul Halim Sidek.

The “guerrilla” response of the Home Ministry could be seen from the “on the run” chop-and-change as to what the Special Panel can and cannot do.

At first, Abu Seman said the Special Panel can neither inquire on its own nor make recommendations to the police.

After furious public criticism, Abu Seman now says that the Special Panel into Aminul’s death is empowered to call up witnesses and to review the procedures involving the discharge of firearms.

Abu Seman had said that politicians would not be appointed to the Special Panel on the ground that they would have “special interests”. As Abu Seman is himself a politician, would he step down and hand over the chairmanship to Tun Hanif?

Abu Seman now claims that the Special Panel is  “powerful” because it is empowered to scrutinise the investigation papers at any time without needing the approval of the police or Attorney-General’s Chambers.

Where did Abu Seman get such powers? How did a powerless Special Panel become a “powerful” panel overnight? On what basis are the powers of this Special Panel derived from, when the Cabinet had not met on the matter?

There is profound confusion as to the actual powers and terms of reference of the Special Panel which is neither fish nor fowl even with Tun Hanif as a member

The Cabinet tomorrow should boldly and decisively put an end to such “guerrilla” responses to the police killing of Aminulrasyid, as the repercussions have reached far and wide as to affect public confidence in the independence, efficiency and professionalism of the police force.

The Cabinet should end the  “guerrilla” responses to Aminulrasyid’s killing and take a holistic decision to establish a Tun Hanif Royal Commission of Inquiry on Aminul’s killing as well as into all police shooting deaths since 2005.

Will the Cabinet Ministers fail Malaysians once again?

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 4 May 2010, 4:02 pm and is filed under
Police
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Sabah villagers find a sympathetic listener in Lim

By
Queville To
 | FMT

KOTA KINABALU: Villagers in the east coast of Sabah who have problems getting the government’s attention have an international stage to turn to, said DAP veteran Lim Kit Siang.

Speaking to villagers of Kg Murut, Kalabakan in Tawau, Lim said the world now knows about the plight of the natives of Sabah.

He told the villagers that he had put out information (on his blog, among others) on issues affecting the natives of Sabah, including dispossession of their lands.

During his visit, a group of more than 50 villagers brought their complaints about the poor conditions they were living in and their worries about how they would soon become landless.

They claimed that much of their ancestral lands had already been taken over by plantation companies.

Lim, the Ipoh Timur MP, and several other DAP and PAS leaders arrived in the east coast state last Sunday on a fact-finding mission.

The delegation comprised senator Tunku Abdul Aziz Ibrahim, MPs for Serdang and Segambut, Teo Nie Ching and Lim Lip Eng and MP for Kota Kinabalu, Dr Hiew King Cheu, Sri Tanjung State assemblyman, Jimmy Wong and Tawau PAS chief Mohd Hassan.

Sabah DAP publicity secretary Dr Edwin Bosi said Lim had also assured them that he would raise their grievances at the next Parliamentary sitting.

“He (Lim) was sympathetic towards their plight and urged them to consider changing the government, saying that a Pakatan Rakyat government could give them and their children a better future.

“One woman who manages a stall told him (Lim) about the poor healthcare facilities and complained about the high cost of getting water and electricity supply. She claimed that it would cost her more than RM1,000 just to install a meter for electricity supply,” said Bosi.

Bumpy ride

Meanwhile, Lim also took the opportunity to highlight the deplorable condition of the main highway linking Sapalut to Kalabakan.

“It’s a rip-off,” he said as he travelled along the dusty, bumpy, gravel Sapalut-Kalabakan highway on the east coast of Sabah.

The project was a ‘design and build’ contract costing RM565 million and was supposed to be a 179 kilometres of permanent bituminous road.

The contractor was tasked with providing the design, scope of work and specifications to be approved by the government and built according to the approved design.

The government awarded the contract at the negotiated sum of RM565 million for 179 kilometres of sealed road with bituminous pavement.

The project was supposed to have been completed in early 2008 but the Auditor-General’s Report of the same year stated that the project had not achieved its objective.

Before the ‘design and build’ contract was given out, the existing road was a gravel road, built and maintained by timber operators for logging activities.

In March this year, the state government said that it had applied for an additional allocation of RM200 million to finance the Sapalut-Kalabakan project under the 10th Malaysia Plan.

Meanwhile, accusations of sub-standard work and poor quality workmanship have persisted.

Even in 2008, several of the newly-completed works were already in deplorable condition, according to engineers.

Based on the Auditor-General’s Report, the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) was urged in mid-2008 to investigate several irregularities.

Lim is not the first person to point to irregularities in the costly road project.

In 2008, senior PKR leader for Sabah Kong Hong Ming who is also an engineer said: “It is shocking and outrageous that the government could accept a RM566 million contract for 179 kilometres of bituminous trunk road only to end up with 179 kilometres of gravel road.”

Kong lodged two reports with the MACC (then known as the ACA) office at Tawau on July 3, 2008 and again at the ACA office in the state capital on Aug 11, 2008 listing out the many irregularities in the newly-completed road but no action has been taken thus far.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 4 May 2010, 3:23 pm and is filed under
Sabah
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


2010 World Press Freedom Day – will Najib usher a return of  Mahathirish media dark age ?

2010 World Press Freedom Day ignored by Najib Government as Malaysia stands on the crossroad with Najib deciding whether to usher a return of  the Mahathirish media dark age

The 2010 World Press Freedom Day celebrated worldwide two days ago was completely ignored by the Najib government, without any commitment to restore press freedom in Malaysia, as press freedom in Malaysia  is in fact facing the possibility  of worst censorship and repression since the retirement of Tun Mahathir as Prime Minister five years ago.

This is the result of no institutional changes to create a new environment and regime of press and information freedom during the period of premiership of Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi as Prime Minister.

Eleven years ago, when Abdullah was first appointed Deputy Prime Minister and Home Minister, there were high hopes that he would accord priority to restore public confidence in various key government  institutions by giving the Home Ministry a human face, including loosening up and removing the press controls  in the country to usher an era of free, fair and responsible  press in  Malaysia.

This was why on the occasion  of the World Press Freedom Day on May 3, 1999, some 600 journalists in Malaysia – which grew to over 1,000 journalists the following World Press Freedom Day 2000 –  presented a memorandum to Abdullah calling for the repeal of the Printing Presses and Publications Act  and other repressive laws fettering the development of a free and responsible press as well as the enactment of a Freedom of Information Act.

Abdullah had given a solemn undertaking to the Malaysian journalists at the time  that he would give their memorandum serious consideration.

But even when Abdullah became the Prime Minister in November 2003, he never graduated beyond “serious consideration” of the press freedom memorandum of over 1,000 Malaysian journalists.

Although there was an air and climate of  greater tolerance of press freedom, allowing an increase of publications as well as internet sites, there was no movement whatsoever towards dismantling the apparatus of media control, censorship and repression which remain basically intact for a new Mahathir to impose a new media darkness by invoking these instruments of  media control and censhorship in the country.

We seem to be at the moment in the nation’s history deciding whether there is going to be a return of the Mahathirish media darkness, with Najib flirting with the possibility of invoking the Mahathirish instruments of media censorship to consolidate his political power base in the country.

Already, international rankings for Malaysian press freedom are already at an all-time low.

Malaysia is at the lowest rating in the history of Reporters without Borders annual  press freedom index, with its 2009 rating dropping to 44.25 points when we were rated 39.02 in 2008, 41 in 2007, 22.25 in 2006, 33 in 2005, 39.83 in 2004.

Malaysia has not done any better in the 2010 world press freedom index compiled by Freedom House, placed No. 141 out of 196 countries and remaining in the bottom 32 per cent of countries which fall under the “not free” category. (Malaysia has imperceptible improvement of two places from  No. 143 for 2009).

Is there going to be the  coming of the new Mahathir media dark age under Najib?

Let this be decided by Malaysians and not by the Umno-Barisan Nasional leadership.

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 5 May 2010, 5:09 pm and is filed under
Media
,
Najib Razak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Late-night visit of Special Panel to Aminulrasyid murder site “a circus, just PR show” – an insult to Aminul’s memory and concerned Malaysians

The late-night visit of the eight-man Special Panel headed by Deputy Home Minister Datuk Abu Seman Yusop to the Aminulrasyid murder site in Shah Alam yesterday was a circus, just a public relations (PR) show to assuage public outrage rather than substantive investigation and is therefore an insult to Aminul’s memory and the intelligence of concerned Malaysians.

I watched the 14.26 minute Malaysiakini video clip of the Special Panel’s visit and I am reminded of my visit, together with DAP Secretary-General and Penang Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng to the bereaved Aminul family in Shah Alam Section 11, particularly the suffering mother Norsiah Mohamad last Wednesday, directly on   touchdown from our flight returning from Sibu.

The video of businessman, Wah Rahim Tajuddin, whose house was the exact spot Aminulrasyid had finally crashed into,  and whose son is a good friend of Aminulrasyid, showed him still very distraught emotionally when narrating to members of the Special Panel the events of the tragic early hours the previous Monday eight days ago.

At least Rahim did not break down and wept as he did when he recounted to me the shocking killing of Aminulrasyid which he did not know until the next morning, believing that the corpse he saw slumped head-down in the car was a criminal whom the police had killed.

As Rahim recounted,  Aminulrasyid was a good friend of his son and that he used to send the two boys together to their part-time jobs in McDonald’s.

They also used to play futsal until late to the point where he had to drag both of them home.

It was Rahim who expressed the worry of the Shah Alam residents and their fear of the police who, instead of ensuring their security and safety, are now a threat to their security and safety – particularly concerned that youngsters who watch football games at mamak stalls into the early hours of the morning risk dangers like the fatal one which befell Aminul.

It was also at this encounter at the Aminulrasyhid murder  scene last Wednesday that one of the neighbours shouted in anger, sorrow and despair “”This is not Manchester or  Los Angeles,  this is bloody Shah Alam” !

But when I watched the video of the Special Panel’s visit, one question bugged me: What was the purpose of the site visit as it served no purpose apart as being a circus and a PR exercise to deflect public anger not only at the police trigger-happy shooting and killing of a Form III student whose only offence was to drive underaged and without licence  but also  at the hamfisted mishandling of the Aminulrasyid killing by the authorities, particularly the Inspector-General of Police Tan Sri Musa Hassan and the Home Minister Datuk Seir Hishammuddin Hussein.

What is the use of the Special Panel’s visit to the murder site unless it has the powers to take over all investigations into Aminulrasyid’s killing and murder?

At first, Abu Seman had said that the Special Panel had no powers to inquire or even to make recommendations to the police; but after severe public criticisms, the Special Panel suddenly claimed super powers: to call up witnesses, to review the procedures involving the discharge of firearms and even to scrutinize the investigation papers at any time without needing the approval of the police or Attorney-General’s Chambers.

Under what law  did the Special Panel derive all these “quick silver” powers – turning into from a powerless to a super-powered Special Panel?

If the Special Panel is a genuine and not a fake high-powered monitoring and investigating body, the first thing it should have done is to demand explanations why the police had been so sloppy and slipshod in their investigations that their investigation papers into Aminulrasyid’s killing was sent back by the Attorney-General’s Chambers, demanding further investigations?

Abu Seman said clearly on video during the visit that the Special Panel hopes to meet once a week on  every Friday.  This is outrageous. If the Special Panel has become the most important body in the investigations into Aminulrasyid’s killing, it should be meeting every day and not every Friday!

The Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak and the Home Minister Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Hussein must end this rigmarole of the weekly Friday meeting of the Special Panel headed by Abu Seman.

If they are  serious about the Special Panel and serious in their assurance to the bereaved family and the country on wanting  to get to  the bottom of Aminulrasyid’s killing, then the Special Panel should take over all investigations of the case from the police in the form of  a public inquiry.

It was better late than never – just convert the Special Panel into a Royal Commission of Inquiry with former Inspector-General of Police Tan Sri Hanif Omar replacing Abu Seman as Chairman, and expanding its terms of reference from Aminulrasyid’s killing to all police shooting deaths since 2005.

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 5 May 2010, 12:14 pm and is filed under
Police
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Oil sovereignty: Why Sarawak not consulted?

Malaysia Mirror | Wednesday, 05 May 2010

KUCHING – The question of sovereignty concerning the state of Sarawak and the oil-rich Blocks L and M, which were signed away to Brunei, was raised by DAP state assemblyman for Bukit Assek Wong Ho Leng on Tuesday.

In a media statement, Wong, who is DAP Sarawak chairperson, questioned the role of the Sarawak government on this issue and why the Federal government did not consult the state government.

Wong called for a detailed explanation from the state government as to whether it was aware of such “trades” involving Limbang and Blocks L and M.

He said the state government needs to clarify immediately whether it has neglected the interest of Sarawakians by giving up the jurisdiction on the two disputed oil-rich blocks to the Federal government.

“If the oil-producing areas are located well within the territory of Sarawak, the Federal government would have to obtain the consent of the Sarawak state government, and the state government would have to give consent to the state assembly,” he said.

SUPP “marginalised”

He said the second provision of the Federal Constitution states: “If the Federal government is to change the state’s borders, it must obtain the consent of the state in order to do so.”

“If you recall, when the Federal government sought to establish Putrajaya as its own Federal territory, the Selangor government took this step and gave consent by consulting its own state assembly first, before making the huge decision,” he said.

Wong claimed that the BN government “had completely marginalised SUPP in its negotiations, and SUPP is powerless in its position to be involved”.

He said SUPP is not at all capable to be the state government if its unawareness of the negotiation had led to the ceding of Malaysian sovereignty of the two disputed blocks to Brunei.

He also questioned the previous Abdullah administration for reaching an agreement with the Brunei government to give away the oil sovereignty which “is tantamount to giving up part of its own territory.”

Revealed by Mahathir

Former Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad last week revealed that the two disputed oil-rich blocks are no longer rightfully owned by Malaysia which had incurred a possible loss in excess of up to RM320 billion.

Dr M had also accused his successor Abdullah Ahmad Badawi of giving away these rights to oil earnings for the exchange of Limbang in Sarawak. Both the Block L and M are situated offshore near Limbang.

Up till now, the Brunei government has not made it clear regarding its stand on the territorial disputes involving Limbang, according to Wong’s statement.

“Sarawakians deserve to know the truth about the handover of offshore oil blocks L and M to Brunei last March,” said Wong.

Wong said he would raise the issue at the May 17 state assembly with two other Pakatan Rakyat state assemblymen. —
Malaysian Mirror

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 5 May 2010, 11:48 am and is filed under
Foreign
,
Oil
,
Sarawak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Saudi clerics square off over gender mixing

By
 Paul Handley (AFP)

4th May 2010

RIYADH — Conservative Muslim Saudi Arabia’s battle over men and women freely mixing mounted on Tuesday as a powerful Islamic judge rebuked a hardline cleric over his attacks on anti-segregationist reformers.

In a column published on a website for judges, Riyadh criminal court judge Sheikh Issa al-Ghaith lashed out at cleric Abdul Rahman al-Barrak for his sweeping condemnation of anyone advocating lifting the country’s draconian Islamic laws against fraternisation between unrelated men and women.

“What does it mean to issue fatwas (Islamic edicts) that are difficult to implement and statements which make people go away?” Ghaith said.

“Anyone who disagrees is accused of hypocrisy and branded a hypocrite,” he said of conservatives’ views.

While Ghaith did not mention him by name, it was clear he was speaking about Barrak, one of the country’s leading conservative scholars, who in February labelled opponents of gender segregation as infidels who should be killed.

On Monday, Ghaith expressed similar sentiments in a direct response to a letter Barrak wrote last week that mixing constituted rebelling against god.

The letter was addressed to Ghaith, Justice Minister Mohammed al-Issa and the head of the Mecca religious police, Sheikh Ahmed al-Ghamdi, whose open pro-mixing stance got him fired and then mysteriously reinstated in late April.

Barrak called for the three to “Fear God! Do not be keys to evil.” He said they should resist the “so-called liberation of women,” which he likened to colonialism.

In other countries, he said, “This rebelling against God’s rules leads to widespread mixing between men and women, the worst of which is seen in education and places of work. It is also manifested in the opening of cinemas, and dancing and singing halls.”

The exchange reflected rising tensions between religious conservatives, who dominate justice and education in the oil-rich kingdom, and increasingly vocal reformers who want to end the ultra-strict laws controlling women.

Under Saudi Arabia’s harsh Wahhabi version of Islam, women are not allowed to go out without guardians; unrelated men and women cannot go to restaurants together; they are separated in offices; and women are not permitted to drive.

But the debate was ignited last year when King Abdullah inaugurated a new international science university near the Red Sea commercial city of Jeddah where men and women students and faculty freely work together.

The debate was spiced up on Friday when numerous newspapers published a photograph of the king surrounded by three dozen women at a conference held several weeks earlier.

Ghaith said on Monday that Barrak was “raising discord” and “inciting brother against brother,” invoking the king in his argument.

“We are an Islamic state and Islamic law is applied to all walks of life. Our ruler King Abdullah has done his duty well. So we are required to listen and obey,” Ghaith said.

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 5 May 2010, 7:18 pm and is filed under
Islam
,
Islamic state
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.