Is Mahathir telling the world that his daughter Marina is naïve to be a pawn of Bersih 3.0 and PR to topple the Najib government by violence?

Malaysians must thank former Prime Minister Tun Dr. Mahathir for furnishing the fifth evidence of the highest-level campaign to vilify and demonise Bersih 3.0 and Pakatan Rakyat and why the Hanif Omar “independent advisory panel” to investigate into Bersih 3.0 violence is totally unacceptable and should be scrapped altogether.

The four evidence were earlier  provided by the Prime Minister, the Home Minister and two former Inspector-General of Police, viz:

•	The wild and baseless allegation by the  Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak that Bersih 3.0 rally was coup attempt by the Opposition to topple the government;

•	The instant public support for Najib’s coup allegation by former Inspector-General of Police, Tun Hanif Omar who said he identified pro-communist individuals at Bersih 3.0 from demonstrations in the 1970s with futher allegation on the use of provocateurs and children in the Bersih 3.0 rally as tactics of the communists!

•	The equally instant public support for Najib’s coup allegation by another former Inspector-General of Police, Tan Sri Rahim Noor who went on to allege that Bersih 3.0 had used “Marxist” tactics as well as accusing the Opposition of wanting blood shed as it was not confident of taking over Putrajaya.

•	The allegation by Home Minister, Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Hussein in an interview with Sunday Star on May 20  that “democracy was hijacked” on April 28.

Mahathir’s blog two days ago that the Bersih 3.0 rally was a “preparation” and “warm-up” by Pakatan Rakyat for violent demonstrations to reject the results of the 13th general election should the opposition fail to win it is the fifth evidence of the highest-level campaign of vilification and demonization of Bersih 3.0 and Pakatan Rakyat involving the current and former Prime Minister, two IGPs and the current Home Minister, although they have not furnished one iota of evidence to substantiate their serious allegations in the past month.

What they have done is to collectively stack grounds to justify the case why the  Hanif “independent advisory panel” should be scrapped altogether as nobody expects the Hanif panel to be able to independent, impartial and objective when there is the highest-level involvement in the campaign of vilification and demonization of Bersih 3.0 and Pakatan Rakyat.

In fact, Hanif, together with Najib, Mahathir, Hishammuddin and Rahim Noor should be required to appear as star witnesses to substantiate their preposterous allegations before a truly independent and  credible inquiry into what went wrong at Bersih 3.0 on April 28 as to cause the deplorable incidents of violence and brutality, regardless of whether the victims are police personnel, media representative or peaceful protestors.

If the five – Najib, Mahathir, Hishammuddin, Hanif and Rahim Noor –  are unable to produce any evidence to substantiate their allegations against Bersih 3.0 and Pakatan Rakyat, then these five VVIPs  should have the decency to publicly retract their preposterous allegations and tender public apologies.

In this connection, is Mahathir telling the world that his daughter Marina is naïve to be a pawn of Bersih 3.0 and Pakatan Rakyat to topple the Najib government by violence?

Is he using the same brush to tar the 200,000 to 300,000 Malaysians regardless of race, religion, region, class, gender or age who had performed a supreme act of patriotism and national service in coming out peacefully on April 28 in support of a common national cause – a clean election and a clean Malaysia?

Mahathir should be commending Marina for her commendable public-spiritedness and patriotism in participating in both Bersih 3.0 on April 28 and Bersih 2.0 on July 9, 2011 instead of throwing brickbats as her and Malaysians who had  rallied to the Bersih cause.

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 27 May 2012, 8:28 am and is filed under
Bersih
,
Elections
,
Hishammuddin
,
Mahathir
,
Najib Razak
,
Police
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Removing Quotas in International Schools A Positive Development

by M. Bakri Musa

In striking contrast to the horrendously expensive and unbelievably stupid idea of sending our teacher-trainees to Kirby, the Ministry of Education’s other decision to remove quotas on local enrollment in international schools is very much welcomed and definitely positive. The Minister confidently assured us that because of the small number of students involved, the move will not impact our national schools. I respectfully disagree; his confidence is misplaced and analysis flawed. On the contrary, this measure will have a tremendous impact on our national schools and ultimately the nation, for good or bad depending on how it is managed.

            Consider the liberalization of higher education instituted in 1996. The rationale was to increase access and save foreign exchange by keeping at home those who would have gone abroad. It achieved both, the most successful of government initiatives. And it did not cost a sen except for the pay of government lawyers who drafted the enabling legislation.

            The policy’s impact however, went far beyond. It permanently and profoundly altered the academic landscape of our public universities. Their current emphasis on the use of English for example, is the consequence of the impact of these private universities. Local employers (other than governmental agencies of course) made it clear that they prefer these graduates over those from public universities because of their demonstrably superior skills in English.

            There were initial attempts at imputing ugly racial motives to this preferential treatment of private university graduates as most of them were non-Malays. That worked, but only temporarily. Ultimately the horrible truth was exposed. That realization was the impetus to the current greater use of English in public universities, with their erstwhile nationalistic Vice-Chancellors now fully embracing the move. They had to; the pathetic sight of their unemployed graduates was a constant and painful reminder.

            Yes, liberalizing higher education aggravated the inequities between Malays and non-Malays specifically with respect to their employability in the private sector. It did however, forced public universities to change their ways, as with emphasizing English. That ultimately benefited their students who incidentally are mostly Malays.

            Removing limits on local enrolment in international schools will have the same profound and irreversible impact on national schools and on Malays. Yes, initially it would aggravate gaps in educational achievements, again especially between Malays and non-Malays, but in the long run it would jolt Malay leaders to make the necessary adjustments to our national schools. Either that or face the prospect of future generations of young Malays doomed to perpetual mediocrity.

            Currently the locals in these international schools are children of the super-rich, and thus overwhelmingly non-Malay. Even the upper middle class (with slightly greater Malay representation) could not afford these schools. The concerns expressed that this liberalization would exacerbate educational inequities between rich and poor are therefore valid and reasonable. However, the rich are already different in many other ways; educational advantages for their children would just be another.

            It also bears reminding that the impact of any policy is dynamic. Yes, there will be the expected increased inequity initially but with time people adjust and you may get radically different reactions and consequences, as was seen with the earlier liberalization of higher education.

            Those harping on inequities ignore economic realities. There is demand for these international schools because they offer quality albeit expensive education. The imposition of quotas only aggravates the situation. Its removal would expand the market, enticing new players. Greater competition puts downward pressure on price, an economic truism that cannot be ignored. This is already happening in Thailand where international schools are found even in small towns and within the financial reach of the middle class, at least those families prudent enough to think of their children’s future and not on current conspicuous consumption. The lower costs in small towns would make these schools even more affordable.

            There are three ready markets for international schools. One would be the super-affluent Malaysians who already have children in schools abroad. That however, is a miniscule market; besides, those parents are not likely to change course. The cachet of an overseas education still sells. A much bigger market would be the next tier of the wealthy. Those parents value education and recognize only too readily the inadequacies of local schools. At present they would require special dispensation from the minister and other hurdles in order to enroll their children in international schools; money alone would not do it.

            Thus it is not a surprise that local students (especially Malays) in these schools are the children of Malaysia’s “Politburo” members. If you wonder how they could afford the costs based on their parent’s official pay, then you have not appreciated the culture of negotiated contracts, “Approved Permits,” and other quirks of the New Economic Policy, as well as the Malaysian way of doing business.

The third and also sizeable market would be those parents in Johore who now send their children to schools in Singapore. To be sure, Malaysian international schools are still considerably more expensive than the republic’s public schools, nonetheless after factoring in transportation and other costs, quite apart from wasted time and energy in commuting, these parents might well fork out the added expense and opt for the much superior local international schools. After all their reasons for choosing Singapore are to get an education in English and avoid local public schools; Malaysian international schools offer both.

To repeat because of the potential political significance, these three markets are essentially non-Malay. So expect a racial angle to the argument for reinstating the quota. If not handled skillfully, political pressure will build up to jettison the policy. Already the Parent Action Group for Education (PAGE), otherwise made up of liberal professional Malays, is already against the idea though for reasons other than race.

Ironically, PAGE advocates the greater use of English in national schools especially in the teaching of science and mathematics. Perhaps PAGE could be persuaded that international schools are but a backdoor path towards this objective (and beyond), albeit available only to those who could afford it. This path also conveniently sidesteps possible constitutional conundrum of having English-medium public schools. Fortunately, Malay language nationalists are not sophisticated enough to see through this.

In truth, the constitutional hurdle, like all man-made ones, is easily surmountable. Consider that the International Islamic University uses English. It overcomes this legal barrier by being registered under the Ministry of Trade and Industry, not Education, hence exempted from the language rule.

Expanding international schools would be a far superior move than simply bringing back the old English schools or increasing the number of hours devoted to the subject in our national schools, as many including PAGE are advocating. The deficiency with our national schools goes beyond its medium of instruction. International schools (especially those following the American pattern) have a very different curriculum and pedagogical philosophy, far from the stultifying ones that plague national schools.

On a related issue, if there were to be a blossoming of Arabic or Indonesian International Schools as a consequence of this liberalization, with Malays flocking to enroll their children, then we would be no further ahead. Indeed we would regress even worse. The two education systems are not worthy of emulation.

Western international schools enjoy two complementary advantages. One is of course their superior curriculum, facilities and teaching, quite apart from the international ambience. The other and perhaps more important is that the quality of local schools is atrocious. The recent rescinding of the policy of teaching science and mathematics in English only made matters worse. Consider that today’s Malay elite would rather send their children to Garden International School over supposedly exclusive Malay College Kuala Kangsar.

Where public schools are excellent, few locals would opt for private schools, as in Alberta, or international ones as in Finland. The clamor for Malaysians wanting to send their children to international schools reflects a much greater and more basic problem – our lousy national schools. Seen from this angle, for PEMANDU, the government’s transformation program, to view the growth of international schools as positive could only be construed as misplaced and misguided. Only if you are convinced that our national schools are beyond redemption would you consider this a positive development. And I do.

Next:   Consequences to the Growth of International Schools

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 27 May 2012, 6:45 pm and is filed under
Bakri Musa
,
Education
,
English
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Mahathir jangan dijadikan contoh dan ikutan

— Aspan Alias

The Malaysian Insider

 May 28, 2012

28 MEI — Betulkah pandangan Dr Mahathir jika PR kalah dalam pilihanraya nanti negara akan huru-hara? Satu lagi yang menjadi persoalan ialah kata-kata Mahathir yang jika Umno kalah dan ditewaskan Melayu akan hilang kuasa politiknya? Kenapa Mahathir alih-alih terlalu sayang kepada Umno pula? Kenapa Mahathir alih-alih dan tidak semena-mena  terlalu sayang kepada orang Melayu yang selama ini beliau pandang rendah? Persoalan-persoalan yang saya ajukan ini jangan di salah fahamkan.

Saya bertanya perkara ini, kerana orang Melayu telah hilang identiti asalnya oleh kerana Mahathir. Apabila Mahathir kembali bercakap pasal masa depan orang Melayu dan tentang ketakutannya kepada huru hara negara ini, ia amat bertentangan dengan apa yang beliau lakukan selama ini, terutamanya semasa menjadi Perdana Menteri selama 22 tahun dahulu. Segala yang beliau lakukan semasa sedang seronok berkuasa dahululah yang menjadi penyebab berlakunya apa yang berlaku pada hari ini.

Saya mempunyai keyakinan tinggi yang Mahathir sedang begitu panik dengan pergerakan perubahan yang sedang berlaku dalam minda rakyat termasuk minda orang Melayu. Yang pastinya Mahathir tidak mahu seboleh-bolehnya melihat Umno ciptaan beliau kecundang dihadapan mata beliau semasa beliau masih hidup ini. Kalau di nilai dari sudut mana pun, mahu tidak mahu Mahathir merupakan orang yang “accountable” terhadap kekeruhan politik negara kini.

Kecelaruan politik negara tidak akan menjadi begini buruk dalam sekelip mata dan tidak adil jika Mahathir dan konco-konconya meletakkan semua kesalahan kepada kelemahan Abdullah Ahmad Badawi sahaja. Malahan naiknya Abdullah Ahmad Badawi itu adalah kerana kesalahan Mahathir sendiri kerana Mahathir sememangnya mahukan Abdullah menjadi PM kerana beliau menyangkakan Abdullah boleh beliau pengaruhi dalam pentadbirannya.

Apabila Abdullah tidak mahu mendewakan beliau semasa menjadi PM maka Mahathir merasakan yang Abdullah telah mengecewakan beliau kerana tidak menurut kehendak dan kemahuan peribadinya. Maka Abdullahlah yang menjadi kain buruk dan tidak elok kepada Mahathir sampai kehari ini. Sememangnya Abdullah tidak mempunyai kelayakan untuk menjadi PM tetapi kehendak Mahathirlah yang menjadikan beliau (Abdullah) menjadi PM yang dianggap oleh Mahathir sendiri sebagai PM yang tidak berguna.

Mahathir begitu berjaya melaksanakan pemerintahan “pecah dan perintah” selama ini kerana dengan “pecah dan perintah” itu boleh menyematkan kuasa yang beliau genggam itu. Dengan pemerintahan secara ini beliau telah berjaya mendapatkan kehendak peribadi beliau, iaitu untuk menjadi kuat seorangan dan yang lain-lain di kelilingnya hanya kumpulan “yes men” yang menawarkan peranan untuk menjadi pahlawan untuk mempertahankan beliau (Mahathir)

Mahathir terlalu “obsess” untuk menjadi orang kuat berseorangan ini kerana beliau memerlukan pembodek-pembodek di sekeliling beliau untuk menjaga kehendaknya sehinggakan beliau seolah-olah menjadi maharaja yang dikelilingi oleh mereka yang buta hati tanpa memikirkan “consequence” perlakuan ini terhadap masa depan politik, rakyat dan negara.

Mahathir gagal untuk menjadi seorang “statesman” tetapi hanya sekadar seorang “warlord” politik semata-mata. Beliau tidak akan lagi berjaya untuk diakui sebagai negarawan sampai bila-bila. Kata-kata dan tindakan beliau membuktikan yang beliaulah yang dalam kegusaran jika PR memerintah seolah-olah beliau mempunyai “stake” yang begitu besar jika PR memerintah.

Kata-kata ugutan beliau itu samasekali tidak mempunyai kredibiliti dengan menuduh huru-raya yang akan berlaku jika PR kalah. Sebaliknya petanda awal menunjukkan Umnolah yang akan menghuru-harakan keadaan jika PR menang. Di mana-mana pihak PR mengadakan perhimpunan untuk berceramah khususnya yang dilakukan oleh PKR, samseng-samseng Umno mengganggu sehinggakan berlaku kecederaan kepada yang hadir seperti yang berlaku tiga hari yang lepas di Lembah Pantai.

Ceramah Anwar Ibrahim diganggu oleh samseng upahan Umno dengan membaling batu serta telor kearah penceramah dan yang hadir sehinggakan mencederakan beberapa orang yang berada di situ. Banyak pihak berpendapat yang Mahathir amat takut jika Anwar menjadi PM selepas pilihanraya yang akan datang kerana sebab-sebab yang semua pihak tahu.

Mahathir mahukan kepimpinan hari ini untuk terus memerintah walaupun beliau sendiri yang mengakui yang Umno itu sudah busuk sampai ke ususnya. Beliau jika mengakui yang tinggal dalam Umno hanyalah yang kurang pandai (bodoh) kerana yang pandai sudah masuk PAS, yang bijak menyertai PKR dan yang pintar menyertai DAP.

Itulah sebabnya Mahathir mahukan Umno masih memerintah kerana pada beliau yang tidak pandai (bodoh) sahaja boleh membela beliau sehingga ke akhir hayat beliau.

Kepada rakyat yang ramai-ramai yang telah mengambil keputusan untuk melakukan perubahan teruskan usaha itu dengan tata-cara yang baik. Sampai sahaja PRU undi sahaja mana-mana calon dalam PR kerana bak kata Mahathir yang pandai, yang bijak dan yang pintar sememangnya berada dalam Pakatan rakyat.

Mahathir amat takut PR akan mampu membuktikan pentadbiran negara yang lebih baik di bawah PR jika PR memerintah Putrajaya, kerana bukti yang akan ditunjukkan oleh PR itu akan membuatkan Umno baru ini tidak boleh bangun lagi sampai bila-bila.

Sampai ke hari ini Mahathir serta pemimpin Umno yang lain tidak mengeluarkan kenyataan tentang budaya samseng yang sedang berkembang dalam Umno pada masa ini.

Saudara, segala yang berlaku pada hari ini menunjukkan yang Umno itu memang sudah sampai kepenghujung hayatnya. Hanya rakyat terpaksa memilih diantara dua pilihan: untuk bersama dengan parti yang akan hilang kuasa atau dengan pihak yang mengambil alih dan akan melakukan segala usaha untuk membentuk kerajaan yang menghormati undang-undang, tidak rasuah, dan mempunyai aras “governance” yang tinggi serta beretika. Jika Pakatan Rakyat yang memerintah, sudah pasti budaya samseng akan tiada lagi dan sesiapa boleh berpolitik secara selamat dan aman damai.

Sementara menanti kejayaan itu, penyokong-penyokon PR jangan sekali-kali melatah. Gunakan pemikiran yang bernas dan jangan sekali-kali menggunakan “buku lima” atau pun batu-batu dan kekasaran terhadap mereka.

Seperti kita melayani orang yang hendak meninggal, kita mesti hormat kepada tubuh yang akan berpisah dengan nyawanya. Apabila tiada lagi orang itu, aman damailah hendaknya kita. tentu rakyat akan merasakan nikmat hidup dengan aman damai dibawah naungan kerajaan yang baru.

Kita buktikan yang pihak PR tidak melakukan apa yang Mahathir pernah lakukan dan itu pun sebabnya kita berjuang untuk menunjukan kelainan memerintah jika tidak menjadikan agenda peribadi sebagai perjuangan kita.

Formula kita mudah sahaja: jangan jadikan Mahathir sebagai contoh dan ikutan. Selamat kita, insyaallah. — aspanaliasnet.blogspot.com

                This entry was posted on Monday, 28 May 2012, 9:42 pm and is filed under
Elections
,
Mahathir
,
UMNO
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Najib’s government still in weak position, says Dr M

By Shannon Teoh

The Malaysian Insider

May 28, 2012

KUALA LUMPUR, May 28 — Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad has warned Datuk Seri Najib Razak that the latter is still leading a weak government, repeating his call for federal polls to be held off until after the fasting month which ends in August.

The influential former prime minister told Bloomberg in an interview published today that the prime minister should delay plans for a general election that must be held within a year.

“Being weak, he has to respond to the criticisms. But when you are faced with this problem anything you do is not enough,” the long-serving former Barisan Nasional (BN) chief said, adding that Najib inherited a weakened coalition, which won Election 2008 by the narrowest margin since independence.

Najib took over from Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi in April 2009, ostensibly to reduce the record loss of 82 federal seats and five state governments with some observers saying that only a return to BN’s customary two-thirds majority can guarantee Najib’s hold on power.

Najib has promised a raft of democratic reforms to give the public more freedom but critics say they are piecemeal at best with some new legislation being more repressive than the laws they replaced.

The PM is still managing the aftermath of Bersih’s third rally for free and fair elections held on April 28 and his administration sued the electoral reform movement last week over damage to government vehicles alleged to have been caused by protestors who clashed with riot police.

Police fired tear gas and water cannons, arresting 512 people after some tried to breach the barricade blocking them from Dataran Merdeka, which the court had barred to the public over the weekend, as violence erupted between rally-goers and the police.

A survey by independent pollster Merdeka Center revealed last Friday that 92 per cent of voters want the electoral roll cleaned up before elections are held, while 48 per cent agreed that the present electoral roll was inaccurate.

Dr Mahathir also told the international business wire in an interview earlier this month that Najib should take more time before holding the next election in order to win more support from groups such as the country’s ethnic Chinese, which largely back the opposition Pakatan Rakyat.

Najib said earlier this month the election will be held “very soon” amid rumours that he would dissolve Parliament before its resumes in June.

But The Malaysian Insider reported today BN was now looking at a September election as internal surveys show it could win up to 146 parliamentary seats with at least 80 sure wins, more than the 140 won in Election 2008 but short of the 148 for a two-thirds majority.

The Najib administration has focussed on various demographics but a proposal to abolish a federal education fund by PR could cause support to sway among the youth, a key component in the electorate and comprising at least 20 per cent of the 12 million-strong electoral list.

Nearly 60 per cent of the new voters are Malays, the dominant community in the country.

                This entry was posted on Monday, 28 May 2012, 11:45 am and is filed under
Elections
,
Mahathir
,
Najib Razak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Totally bizarre – Hanif’s insistence to head the “independent advisory panel” into Bersih 3.0 violence

It is totally bizarre – former Inspector-General of Police Tun Hanif Omar’s insistence to head the “independent advisory panel” into Bersih 3.0 violence when he should have recused himself and even advised the other panel members to withdraw or better still, the Cabinet should have scrapped the panel altogether and given full support to the Suhakam public inquiry into the human rights violations at the Bersih 3.0 rally on April 28.

The very fact that the Hanif panel had cancelled a earlier planned press conference after its first meeting today and decided instead  to merely release a media statement is eloquent proof that Hanif and the panel members are fully aware that they do not enjoy public confidence that they will be able to act fairly, independently and impartially in the inquiry into the Bersih 3.0 violence, regardless of whether the victims were police personnel, media representatives or peaceful protestors.

For the past month, the government had launched a high-level campaign to vilify and demonise Bersih 3.0 and Pakatan Rakyat and the Hanif panel is regarded as an key part of this “demonization” campaign.

Hanif himself played  an important role in the demonization campaign  from the very beginning when he gave blind and unthinking support to the wild allegation by the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak that Bersih 3.0 rally was an attempted coup d’etat by the Opposition to topple the government.

Adding insult to injury, Hanif even said he identified pro-communist individuals at Bersih 3.0 from demonstrations in the 1970s and spoke to the media on the use of provocateurs and children in the Bersih 3.0 rally as “tactics of the communists”.

How can Hanif live down these highly prejudicial views on Bersih 3.0 unless he is going to retract and repudiate them?

In defending his appointment and reiterating  today that his track record has proven that he acts with integrity, Hanif has missed the point altogether.

If Hanif  refuses to  retract and repudiate what he had said  about Bersih 3.0, he should be appearing as a “star witness” before any Bersih 3.0 probe to substantiate his highly prejudicial views instead of heading a panel to find out what actually happened on Bersih 3.0.

If no evidence is found in the probe, is Hanif prepared to declare publicly that both the Prime Minister  and he himself were wrong in alleging that Bersih 3.0 rally was an attempted coup d’etat by the Opposition to topple the government?

Now with the former Prime Minister, Tun Dr. Mahathir taking the demonization campaign to a new pitch  with his preposterous allegation that the Bersih 3.0 rally was a “preparation” and “warm-up” by Pakatan Rakyat for violent demonstrations to reject the results of the 13th general election should the opposition fail to win it, public distrust and rejection of the Hanif panel is even stronger.

Datuk Seri Najib Razak has often quoted what he said when he became Prime Minister three years ago, that “the era the government knows best is over”.

This is a test whether he would walk his talk and accept that Malaysians do not want a Hanif panel.

Najib should act decisively to convince Malaysians that the government is serious and sincere in wanting a credible, impartial and comprehensive inquiry into the Bersih 3.0 violence, where there will be no cover-up or demonization campaign in the form of an inquiry, by dissolving the Hanif panel and pledging  full government  support to the Suhakam public inquiry into Bersih 3.0.

                This entry was posted on Monday, 28 May 2012, 5:27 pm and is filed under
Bersih
,
Elections
,
Police
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Umno needs to rediscover its soul

— C.L. Tang

The Malaysian Insider

May 28, 2012

MAY 28 — Malaysia, or Malaya at that point in time, was fortunate that the pioneer leaders of Umno were a group of exemplary visionaries. It has the fortitude and humility to be inclusive and fair, mindful of the great urgency for all Malaysians of all races to be united as they embark on building a newly independent nation.

Not unlike the founding fathers of America who laid a strong foundation for the former British colony to thrive, Malaysia might have gone the way of other failed states had these Umno visionaries not forged a strong partnership among all its constituents, regardless of race and religion.

Indeed, it is no small miracle that we have advanced so much since independence. For a small nation made up of such diverse colours and ethnicity, we were the envy of many former colonies and new nation states that failed to replicate our stable, harmonious growth.

However, this golden age of Umno, and along with Malaysia, began to ebb and deteriorate along with the quality of its leaders.

The gentlemanly conduct, open mindset and non-confrontational nature, which was the soul of early Umno, is now replaced by a hawkish, non-compromising stance of Umno Baru “leaders”.

These so-called leaders preach moderation, democracy and fairness, essentially the principles upon which their predecessors built this nation, but ignore breaches of these concepts by their members.

A gentlemen’s party is now marred by thuggish acts of intimidation and at times violence. By condoning mock funerals, meeting disruptions, home invasions, stone throwings, car smashings, Umno is now causing the breakage of the very seams that are holding this nation together, the seams that its founders worked so hard to foster.

A party that has grown so arrogant that it thinks it has the exclusive right to govern Malaysia in perpetuity.

We now have a federal “democracy” where three million party members have a stronger say in the direction of this country than the 30 million citizens due to the party’s far-reaching influence and entrenched positions at all levels of federal government, agencies and institutions.

If the current crop of leaders has its early founders’ pedigree and moral standards, Malaysians need not worry too much. However, with so many scandals, corruption cases and abuses allegedly carried out by its associates seemingly swept under the carpet, it is no wonder there are so much scepticism and defeatism in the air.

From being the saviour of Malaysia to becoming the architect of its early success, Umno has now become a impediment to its further progress. True, PM Najib Razak has enacted a host of good economic initiatives and reforms which are far-sighted, but has not responded decisively to stamp his 1 Malaysia commitment when the principles are flouted by his party members and his government.

Umno and Malaysia’s fate are so closely entwined that the chains binding them cannot be easily broken without social upheavals and economic costs.

All is not lost however. We can only hope Umno can re-discover its soul, and find within itself the confidence to trust the people of Malaysia and respect their opinions and decisions. Until that day comes, unfortunately, Malaysia will struggle to reach its true potential, just as Umno struggles to discover its original calling.

                This entry was posted on Monday, 28 May 2012, 12:42 pm and is filed under
Najib Razak
,
UMNO
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Black day for Internet users

— CPI

The Malaysian Insider

May 29, 2012

MAY 29 — The Evidence (Amendment) (No. 2) Act 2012 will come into operation in a few days on June 1. The impact of this hastily and stealthily rushed legislation could be devastating.

De facto law minister Nazri Abdul Aziz denies that amendments to the Evidence Act were a means for the government to curb online dissent by making Internet anonymity more difficult to maintain or ignorance to be used as an excuse.

Instead Nazri claims that the law was tightened because “we don’t want [anonymous or pseudonymous] people to slander or threaten others,” according to a report in the Sunday Star.

However opposition leaders such as DAP secretary-general Lim Guan Eng are unconvinced.

Lim said that the amendments, which were passed during the last sitting of the Dewan Rakyat and the Dewan Negara, “will make it easier for the government to launch selective prosecutions of members of the opposition and civil society”.

According to him, a person is traditionally presumed innocent until proven guilty but the Evidence Act 2012 reverses this truism. Lim illustrates with a personal example: “In other words, I am responsible for anything posted on my website and the burden is on me to prove my innocence, not on the prosecution to prove my guilt.”

Lim also believes that the BN government would practise double standards in exercising the provisions of this legislation.

His misgivings are not entirely without basis, bearing in mind the several occasions when Malaysian authorities have been accused of filtering politically sensitive sites and most recently interfering in the Astro rebroadcast of BBC and Al-Jazeera’s live coverage of the Bersih 3.0 rally.

Nazri’s statement, “Under the amended Act, we shift the burden to the owner of the laptop or account so that we can get to the source [of the slanderous or seditious comments]”, prompted the Malaysian Bar to also express concern with regard to the presumption of guilt contained in the Act.

Internet Society Malaysian Chapter chairman Julian Vincent has pointed out that the amendments could be open to abuse by the investigators.

“In the Internet environment where the websites even of the largest organisations are susceptible to hacking and manipulation, it is dangerous to have this presumption [of guilt] in place.

“The society expresses its hope that the Cabinet will revise the current text and work to address privacy considerations and protect citizens’ rights and civil liberties in any future cyber security legislation,” he said.

Internet users across the board have criticised the amendments as unfair, concurring with the expert views that websites and social networking accounts (Facebook, Myspace, etc) or even e-mail could be easily hacked to post defamatory comments.

Despite the assurances by Nazri, an outspoken minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, the Netizens active on chat forums — as well as those who frequently forward chain mail and are addicted to Facebook or Twitter — harbour deep reservations about this newly revised law.

As it is, bloggers, such as Mohd Nur Hanief Abdul Jalil and Chan Lilian (Lim Guan Eng’s aide), have not been spared investigation by state officers for lese majeste and sedition respectively.

The public unease plays against the backdrop of reader participation in the relatively more free-wheeling news portals as compared with traditional media which has been subjected to pervasive state control.

Centre for Independent Journalism executive officer Masjaliza Hamzah has termed the amendments as a threat to freedom of expression and media freedom.

“The amendments are clearly an indirect way to control online content as it makes online sites responsible for comments posted by readers; forget about disclaimers on the comment section.

“This may force some sites to stop the comment feature because having to vet comments themselves may become untenable, and if this happens, it has a huge impact on the interactive nature of online media favoured by readers,” she is reported to have said.

Furthermore, Malaysia suffers the ignominy of appearing on the list of countries under surveillance as Enemies of the Internet, i.e. where authoritarian governments have employed censorship or filtering circumvention methods as well as systematic repression of Internet users.

The international watchdog body, Reporters Without Borders, had rated Myanmar, China, Iran, North Korea, Saudi Arabia and seven other countries as Enemies of the Internet in its RSF 2012 report.

The bottomline is that any repressive piece of legislation which can be misused by the powers-that-be to prohibit or curtail legitimate freedom of expression by its opponents is, in essence, a bad law.

Should ever Pakatan Rakyat successfully occupy Putrajaya, they could just as easily turn the tables on Barisan Nasional politicians and supporters by abusing this same law.

A lawyer-cum-blogger-cum-Tweeter, Foong Cheng Leong, dissects the presumption of fact relating to criminally libellous or seditious publication, explaining why repercussions for Internet users are indeed grave.

On the controversy surrounding the Act, Foong writes:

“In summary, the new amendments force an innocent party to show that he is not the publisher. Victims of stolen identity or hacking would have a lot more problems to fix. Since computers can be easily manipulated and identity theft is quite rampant, it is dangerous to put the onus on Internet users. An Internet user will need to give an alibi that it wasn’t him. He needs to prove that he has no access to the computer at that time of publication and he needs to produce call witnesses to support his alibi.”

His article can be read in full at the Loyar Burok website.

Finally, it is necessary to ask the Prime Minister Najib Razak the question as to why he has reneged on his word.  Only last year he had repeated the Mahathir era promise made when Cyberjaya and the Multimedia Super Corridor were launched — that Malaysia will never censor the Internet.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 29 May 2012, 11:03 am and is filed under
IT
,
Lim Guan Eng
,
Media
,
Najib Razak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Cabinet tomorrow should cut the Gordian Knot and end the rigmarole of two Bersih inquiries – dissolve  Hanif panel and give full support to Suhakam inquiry

The Cabinet tomorrow should cut the Gordian Knot and end the rigmarole of two Bersih inquiries – by dissolving the Hanif Omar “independent advisory panel” and giving full support to the Suhakam inquiry.

Yesterday, former Inspector-General of Police Tun Hanif Omar announced the ten terms of reference of the “independent advisory board” into Bersih 3.0 violence.

Notably absent from the “independent advisory board” terms of reference is whether it is to establish Bersih 3.0 rally was an attempted coup d’etat by the Opposition to topple the government, that there were pro-communist individuals at Bersih 3.0 from demonstrations in the 1970s and whether there was use of provocateurs and children ala-“tactics of the communists” in the Bersih 3.0 rally or whether the panel is to take these three allegations as “accepted and proven truths” as Hanif himself had publicly endorsed them.

Hanif had  defended his appointment, saying that his track record has proven that he acts with integrity.

It is precisely because Hanif should cherish his reputation of integrity that he should recuse himself as head of the Bersih 3.0 panel, as there is no way he could come out of it with his integrity unscathed after he had publicly made known his anti-Bersih 3.0 views.

In fact, the Cabinet tomorrow should ask the Home Minister, Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Hussein for full explanation and evidence that the Bersih 3.0 really was an attempted coup d’etat by the Opposition to topple the government as he had a week before April 28 dismissed Bersih 3.0 as “not a security threat” and “not an issue as it had gained little traction with the public”.

When did Bersih 3.0 transform from “not a security threat” and “not an issue…with little traction with the public” into a sinister anti-national conspiracy including a coup attempt to topple the government?

Clearly, both the political and security establishments in government had made grave errors  of misjudgment and failed to realize the massive support of Malaysians for the Bersih 3.0 campaign for a clean election.

They  should not compound this pre-Bersih  3.0 misjudgment with a more colossal  post-Bersih 3.0 error by demonizing 250,000 patriotic Malaysians, regardless of race, religion, class, region, age or gender, who had peacefully gathered in support of a clean election as anti-national trouble-makers out to oust the elected system of government.

Najib and the Cabinet were able to make amends and realize that they were wrong in their mishandling of Bersih 2.0 and initial reactions to the outpouring of 50,000 Malaysians who are gathered peacefully on July 9, 2011 for free, fair and clean elections.

Are Najib and Cabinet incapable of making amends in their misjudgment and colossal mistakes in mishandling of Bersih 3.0 with some 250,000 Malaysians gathering peacefully on April 28 in support for free, fair and clean elections – with the first step the government dissolution of the Hanif panel and full support to the Suhakam inquiry?

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 29 May 2012, 4:27 pm and is filed under
Bersih
,
Elections
,
Hishammuddin
,
Najib Razak
,
Police
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Call on Cabinet to initiate an All-Party Conference to nip in the bud the political culture of aggression, thuggery and violence which will mar the holding of free, fair and clean general election

The Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak is at it again – making sweet-sounding highfalutin speeches at international forums but doing the very opposite in the country.

Addressing the 26th Asia Pacific roundtable last night, Najib called on Asian countries to reject the use of force and violence in resolving conflicts.

What struck Malaysians is not his call on Asian countries to reject the use of force and violence in resolving conflicts, but his conspicuous silence and his government’s failure  in the past month to stand up and be counted to condemn and dissociate themselves from a new political culture of aggression, thuggery and violence disrupting Pakatan Rakyat functions and activities.

As a result, Malaysians are reminded of his other sweet-sounding highfalutin speeches at international forums calling for a Global Movement of Moderates to unite against extremists, but inside the country, his three-year premiership has seen the unprecedented manifestation of extremism not only officially sanctioned but carried out with impunity and immunity when laws of the land are violated.

The latest incident of growing political culture of aggression, thuggery and violence was the disruption of the Pakatan Rakyat ceramah in Lembah Pantai last Thursday, and other recent incidents include the vandalism and thuggery at the PAS ceramah in Kampung Sayong Lembah, Kuala Kangsar; the high-tea event in Merlimau, Malacca to feature Bersih 2.0 co-chairperson Datuk Ambiga Sreenivasan; the campaign of intimidation to violate the privacy of Ambiga outside her house at Bukit Damansara, Kuala Lumpur and the Perkasa  “funeral rite” in front of Penang Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng’s house in Penang.

All Malaysians are struck by  Najib’s glaring and prolonged silence on the escalation of incidents of aggression, thuggery and violence particularly at Pakatan Rakyat events and functions which made his call last night to Asian countries to reject the use of force and violence in resolving conflicts sounds so hollow.

The question Malaysians are asking is whether Najib is prepared to walk the talk and renounce the use of force and violence in resolving conflicts in the country, and in particular, to retract his “crushed bodies, lives lost” declaration in his speech at the 2010 UMNO General Assembly to defend UMNO power at all costs in Putrajaya as well as a  pledge to accept the verdict of the Malaysian voters in the next general election including a peaceful transition of federal power from Barisan Nasional to Pakatan Rakyat?

The Cabinet meeting tomorrow will provide Najib with the opportunity to prove that he is not making sweet-sounding highfalutin speeches at international forums but doing the very opposite in the country by specifically speaking out clearly against the political culture of aggression, thuggery and violence.

An independent, impartial and credible Election Commission should be convening a Roundtable Conference of Political Parties to check the political culture of aggression, thuggery and violence as such incidents will undermine the holding of any free, fair and clean election in the forthcoming 13th General Election.

This, unfortunately, is not a feasible proposition as the Election Commission has lost public confidence and credibility as an independent and impartial body which could be trusted to carry out its constitutional mandate to conduct free, fair and clean elections, and this is why the sixth of the Eight Demands of Bersih 2.0 is “Strengthen Public Institutions”.

Recently, the Deputy Prime Minister Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin claimed that the government already agreed to implement seven out of Bersih 2.0’s eight demands, but this was immediately rebutted by Bersih 2.0 which said that the govermment was only acting on one of its Eight Demands.

On its sixth demand on “Strenthening Public Institutions”, this was Bersih 2.0’s response in its statement dated 24th May 2012:

“6. Strengthening Public Institutions

“The situation with respect to this has in fact deteriorated, with the controversy surrounding the membership of UMNO by both the Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson of the EC still unresolved. In addition, there are comments by the Deputy Chairperson of the EC to the effect that he still considers himself a ‘government servant’, which implies he is still obedient to the will and instructions by government. This is contrary to his position as a member of the EC, which should be independent of government.

“This begs the question: If the EC has failed to perform its most basic duty of managing and protecting the integrity of the electoral roll, how can the EC still be entrusted to implement major and crucial reforms for the electoral system? The EC has proven that it is not independent and no longer commands public confidence. The EC must resign immediately and be replaced by new members who command public confidence.”

In these circumstances where the Election Commission cannot be expected to be the independent and impartial body entrusted with the duty to conduct free, fair and clean elections, the Cabinet tomorrow should take the decision to convene an All-Party Roundtable Conference to nip in the bud the rise in the political culture of aggression, thuggery and violence which if left unchecked, will mar the holding of free, fair and clean election.

DAP and Pakatan Rakyat are prepared to fully play our role to eliminate the political culture of aggression, thuggery and violence.

The question is whether UMNO and Barisan Nasional parties are equally committed to the  peaceful democratic and constitutional  process as to make an All-Party Roundtable Conference to end the politics of aggression, thuggery and violence a success.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 29 May 2012, 2:06 pm and is filed under
Bersih
,
Elections
,
Muhyiddin Yassin
,
Najib Razak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Najib’s sweeping reforms: Winds of change or hot air?

— Justina Chen

The Malaysian Insider

May 29, 2012

MAY 29 — Since Malaysia Day last September, the administration of Prime Minister Najib Razak has undertaken a whirlwind of legislative and policy reforms, making Mr Najib arguably the most reformist Malaysian prime minister ever.

Political pundits remark that the rushed reforms which were undertaken without consultation with key stakeholders are a sign that a general election is imminent, perhaps to be held in less than two months.

Over the course of the last six months there have been a record number of legislative reforms including: repeal of the infamous Internal Security Act; amendments to the University and University Colleges Act and the Printing Presses and Publications Act; announcement of a minimum wage policy as well as the passing of the Security Offences Bill and Peaceful Assembly Act.

Despite the current air of optimism, the sincerity of the government to effectively implement lasting reform has repeatedly been called into question. Government critics cite the lack of consultation and the short time frame within which legislative reform has taken place as evidence that the reforms are merely political ploys designed solely to gain traction with voters.

Whatever the agenda, the many legislative and policy revisions have only occurred at the surface level, yet to be backed up by structural changes reinforced by increased transparency, scrutiny and other monitoring mechanisms. The second and most important component of political reform will involve reorganisation of Malaysia’s enforcement agencies and institutions, namely the police, judiciary and bureaucracy. If this second stage fails, political reforms will remain only as idle rhetoric.

The government’s conduct at the recent Bersih 3.0 rally for free and fair elections indicates that this second stage of reform is far from completion. Although the Peaceful Assembly Act came into force just days prior to the rally, there was little adherence to its provisions.

Before the rally, police rejected organisers’ notification of a peaceful sit-in and obtained a court order to stop it taking place. This ruling was blatantly in breach of Section 14 of the newly enacted Peaceful Assembly Act, which declares police can only impose conditions but not ban a planned peaceful public assembly from taking place. The police could have imposed restrictions or conditions on the date, time and duration of assembly; the place or manner of the assembly. Failure to comply with such restrictions is an offence under the act, punishable with a fine up to RM10,000.

In the absence of the police imposing lawful conditions upon public demonstrations, any public assembly can proceed as planned.

Instead of utilising the new law, police employed heavy-handed measures including the unrestricted use of tear gas, unlawfully destroying video-recording devices, and in some cases the unwarranted use of excessive violence against individual demonstrators.

One hope for a viable sustainable democracy in Malaysia will involve a systemic overhaul of government institutions resulting in greater transparency and accountability. The prospects of this happening under the current Najib administration are questionable due to the deep-rooted culture of corruption and rent-seeking in the upper echelons of government.

The recent National Feedlot Corporation (NFC) scandal sheds light on a 2007 government allocation of RM250 million for a cattle rearing project which lost millions of ringgit every year. Beyond the monetary wastage, the scandal became yet another symbol of the nepotism that runs rife in the tender for government projects: the NFC was chaired by Mohamed Salleh, the husband of Women, Family and Community Development Minister Shahrizat Abdul Jalil.

Common practices such as awarding government contracts without open tenders, limited access to information and a close connection between businesses and politics have only further developed an ethos of corruption.

The sad truth is that key institutions, big corporations and the civil service are all embedded with supporters of the ruling government, whose interests are too deeply entrenched to allow for reform from the inside-out.

It has also been an uphill battle for the Pakatan Rakyat opposition party to gain a foothold on the political scene. Despite the “political tsunami” in the 2008 general elections which saw, for the first time, the demise of the ruling Barisan Nasional’s two-third majority in parliament, politics in Malaysia are stunted by ethnic and religious divisions — evidenced by the lack of a clear manifesto of any political party. In the absence of a two-party system, democracy is doomed to be a pipe dream.

However, this pessimism need not set the tone for Malaysia’s democratic future. There are signs of an emergent political maturity evidenced by inaugural debates between members of opposing political parties. A widely televised political debate on the issues faced by Malaysian Chinese was held in February between the president of the Malaysian Chinese Association — the main Chinese party in the ruling Barisan Nasional coalition — and the secretary-general of the opposition Democratic Action Party.

While state-controlled media remain hesitant to report the true sentiments of a large proportion of the electorate, the internet has had no such qualms. Alternative news sites such as Malaysiakini and The Malaysian Insider have done much to equalise the flow of information. There has also been an awakening from political apathy, predominantly among younger, urban voters. This new generation of voters, increasingly disillusioned with economic and social disparities caused by government policies, is expressing its concern via the aforementioned alternative news and political blogs. It was this demographic that turned out in full force during the Bersih 3.0 rally.

In the past, Malaysians have been reticent about their political views. The more than 100,000-strong crowd at the rally suggests that this reticence is falling away.

The manner in which the 13th general election is conducted will set the stage for Malaysia’s democratic future. This will be the final test for the Najib administration’s sincerity in providing true reforms for Malaysia and leading the country into a more democratic future. Many Malaysians fear that the next election will be the dirtiest yet, with the ruling government using all possible tricks and manipulation at its disposal to gain a favourable outcome including the use of “phantom” votes and blatant gerrymandering.

These fears will prove unfounded if the government ensures that the elections are conducted fairly by ensuring electoral transparency, inviting international observers to monitor the polling and results, and by scrubbing the electoral roll of nonexistent voters. Whether the slew of recent reforms is due to a genuine concern for Malaysia’s democratic future or from fear of losing the forthcoming election, it is clear that the public pressure exerted by ordinary Malaysians is slowly changing the political landscape of Malaysia. — The Bangkok Post

* Justina Chen is a research and policy analyst at the Centre for Public Policy Studies, Malaysia. This article was originally published by the East-West Centre in Asia Pacific Bulletin Number 165, on May 24, 2012.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 29 May 2012, 9:59 pm and is filed under
Bersih
,
Elections
,
Human Rights
,
ISA
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Stop-work orders prove Pakatan strict on developers, says Penang CM

By Clara Chooi

The Malaysian Insider

May 29, 2012

KUALA LUMPUR, May 29 — Lim Guan Eng revealed today that the Penang Municipal Council (MPPP) had issued 259 stop-work orders on housing developments since 2008, claiming this proves that Pakatan Rakyat (PR) is stricter with developers than Barisan Nasional (BN).

The Penang chief minister pointed out that the number of orders issued by the council was a whopping seven times more than the 38 issued by the previous BN state administration from 2004 to 2007.

The Seberang Perai Municipal Council (MPSP) had issued 11 stop-work orders under PR’s rule from March 2008 until May 2012, whereas not one was issued under BN from 2003 to 2008.

“Facts have disproved BN’s claims that the Penang PR state government is the darling of developers at the expense of the public, especially those who need public housing,” Lim said.

“If given a choice, some developers would prefer the BN government which rarely issued stop-work orders, especially in MPSP where not a single stop-work order was issued.

“The huge increase in the number of stop-work orders issued proves that the PR Penang state government is more stringent in  upholding the rule of law, demanding strict compliance with technical requirements and more unforgiving than BN,” he added.

However, Lim stressed that despite PR’s stringent rule, the administration remains business-friendly, provided that all investors and businessmen comply by the rules.

He said there was “no point” for developers to try and wriggle their way out of sticking to requirements by claiming to have a close relationship with PR administrators as there is “no culture of corruption in Penang”.

“Rules are more important than any ‘friendship’ with state leaders,” he said.

Lim also refuted BN’s claims that property prices in Penang have soared because the state government had increased land premiums.

He pointed out that the Penang Land Office had maintained land conversion rates at the same rates as the previous BN government.

“Property prices are determined by market forces of supply and demand and public confidence in the state government.

“No governments in the world, including China and US, can force the property market to rise or fall in value,” he said.

Instead, Lim said the rise in property prices was due to rising public confidence in Penang’s “CAT” (competency, accountability and transparency) administration.

He said that to ensure sufficient affordable housing, the state government has allocated a minimum of RM500 million, which he said was the largest amount allocated by any state government in Malaysia.

The first phase of the programme, he said, would see 12,000 units built in Batu Kawan, Seberang Perai Selatan, while Phase 2 would see the 6,000 units built in the state’s remaining four districts.

Apart from this, said Lim, the private sector is also expected to contribute some 20,000 units of affordable housing.

“There is an element of double standards from BN which does not highlight that a bungalow unit in Johor Iskandar costs RM 3 million and is bought by foreigners, including Singaporeans.

“Unlike in Johor, Penang has boldly taken the lead by imposing a limit on all property purchases by foreigners in Penang to above RM1 million and landed properties in Penang island to above RM2 million beginning on July 1, 2012,” he said.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 29 May 2012, 2:37 pm and is filed under
Housing
,
Lim Guan Eng
,
Penang
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Bersih to snub Hanif-led probe panel

 By Clara Chooi

The Malaysian Insider

May 30, 2012

KUALA LUMPUR, May 30 — Bersih has joined the Bar Council in refusing to participate in the “Hanif panel” investigating police violence in the April 28 rally for electoral reforms, saying the probe would be “seriously flawed” under Tun Hanif Omar’s chairmanship.

Bersih co-chairman Datuk Ambiga Sreenevasan repeated the council’s view that Hanif’s involvement in the panel, following the latter’s criticism of Bersih 3.0 protesters as communist sympathisers, would affect the impartiality of the investigation.

“Our stand has not changed. It is not personal, we have nothing personal against Tun Hanif but we think it is seriously flawed as he is chairing it (the panel).

“Justice must be seen to be done and he has already made a pronouncement about Bersih in a negative light, so we think he should not even be there (in the panel), let alone to chair it,” she told The Malaysian Insider yesterday.

Following the Bersih 3.0 sit-in on April 28, Hanif alleged that communist sympathisers had participated in the rally and agreed with Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak’s claim that the demonstration was an attempt to oust the present government.

Justice must be seen to be done and he has already made a pronouncement about Bersih in a negative light”

Despite his views, Hanif was later appointed to lead Putrajaya’s six-man investigation panel on allegations of widespread police violence during the rally.

Ambiga also took the same view as the Bar Council on the legal standing of the panel, which she said could not be compared with the Malaysian Human Rights Commission (Suhakam).

She also pointed out that Suhakam was already conducting its own inquiry into Bersih 3.0, and it was not necessary to duplicate the process of investigation.

“And what powers does this (independent) panel have? What is its legal standing? Since Suhakam has said they will hold an inquiry, this is where we (Bersih) will be concentrating our efforts,” she said.

Hanif said on Monday that he was willing to meet the Bar Council as well as Bersih leaders as part of the panel’s investigation, adding that he wanted the inquiry team to be given a chance to carry out its duties without “suspicion” from any parties.

“With regards to concerns that there may be several parties like the Bar Council and Bersih who are unco-operative, I would like to state that the panel is only an alternative channel for those who want to co-operate willingly.

“I am prepared to meet the Bar Council or any other parties, including going to their office, for (everyone’s) mutual benefit,” Hanif had said in a statement.

Bar Council vice-president Christopher Leong told The Malaysian Insider yesterday that the council would not participate in the panel’s investigation, saying it was pointless to do so when Suhakam was also conducting its own probe.

“We do not see the purpose to duplicate the process… we already said earlier that we would participate in Suhakam’s inquiry. There is no public purpose served by duplicating the enquiry process,” he said.

The Najib administration had formed a bi-partisan parliamentary select committee for electoral reforms after Bersih 2.0 last July, which agreed on 22 recommendations for the Election Commission (EC).

But Bersih and opposition parties had argued the recommendations do not cover cleaning up the electoral rolls to prevent fraud and the alleged existence of “phantom voters”.

Despite complaints of gerrymandering over the years, the nascent opposition pact Pakatan Rakyat (PR) won 82 federal seats and five state governments in Election 2008, which Barisan Nasional said was proof of clean and fair elections.

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 30 May 2012, 8:13 am and is filed under
Bersih
,
Elections
,
Police
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Let 2012 Hari Kaamatan and Hari Gawai usher the greatest empowerment of Kadazandusun and Dayak communities in 13th General Election in shaping the destiny of Malaysia in next 50 years

Wishing Hari Kaamatan and Hari Gawai to all Kadazandusun and Dayak communities in Sabah and Sarawak.

Hari Kaamatan and Hari Gawai this year is taking place at a momentous period in the nation’s history, with the country geared to hold its 13th General Election which will decide whether Malaysia is ready to take her place as one of the normal democracies in the world where power transition at the national level is determined through the ballot box and accepted as part and parcel of the parliamentary democratic process.

For quite some time, the conventional wisdom is that the 13th General Election will fall in June this year, but now all the political calculations have to be reworked after the unprecedented support of a quarter of a million Malaysians for Bersih 3.0 in the streets of  Kuala Lumpur and by tens of thousands of Malaysians in over 80 cities across the globe.

This spontaneous outpouring of support for the Bersih campaign for a clean election had  caught the Najib administration by surprise as the intelligence it  received before April 28 was that Bersih 3.0 had “little traction” with the people and could not muster more than the crowd of Bersih 2.0, which brought out   some 50,000 people.

The June date for 13th General Election is out, leaving July and September as the most likely months.

Former Prime Minister, Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad, who is increasingly calling the shots in the three-year Najib premiership, has warned Najib not to hold the federal polls now  as the latter is still leading a weak government, suggesting that the best time for Najib should be “sometime” in the months before the year end  after the Aidilfitri celebrations.

Regardless of when is  the 13 General Election date, what is clear is that despite all the hullabaloo about the 120,000 crowd at the 66th UMNO anniversary at Bukit Jalil Stadium on May 11 as a counter show-of-force to the 250,000 turn-out for the April 28 Bersih 3.0 rally and the so-called two million youths’ gathering in Putrajaya last week, one fact is undeniable – that  Najib just does not have the  confidence that he will not be the last UMNO Prime Minister let alone regaining two-thirds parliamentary majority in the next general election.

As illustrated by public support for Bersih 2.0 on July 9 last year and Bersih 3.0 on April 28, Malaysians regardless of race, religion, region, class, gender or age have awakened to their citizenship rights giving them a new sense of empowerment.

It is in this context of a new-found sense of empowerment by all Malaysians, regardless of race, religion, region, class, gender or age, that they have a right to determine their own future and those of their children and children’s children, that Hari Kaamatan and Hari Gawai this year have taken on special meaning.

Next year is the 50th anniversary of the formation of Malaysia but for half a century, the Kadazandusun and Dayak communities are among the marginalized groups and  communities in the country left out of the mainstream of national development.

Let 2012 Hari Kaamatan and Hari Gawai usher the greatest empowerment of Kadazandusun and Dayak communities in 13th General Election in shaping the destiny of Malaysia in next 50 years.

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 30 May 2012, 11:36 am and is filed under
Sabah
,
Sarawak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Proton is the price we pay for brainless patriotism

Koon Yew Yin

The founding of Proton National Bhd in 1983 was a big expensive mistake to begin with. Billions of ringgit from taxpayers have been lost in the process.

The haemorrhage could not be stanched until only recently when Khazanah Nasional Berhad sold off its 43 percent stake in Proton to DRB-Hicom a few months ago. Malaysians have been wondering – is this finally an end to the unhappy saga of the government’s foray into the production of a so-called ‘national car’ or will the burden on taxpayers and car owners be continued in other new ways?

A revisit of this white elephant project is necessary to generate a larger public discourse especially amongst taxpayers who should be more concerned as to where all the tax money they’ve been paying has gone to.

One simplistic assumption which appears to have been made by the initiator of the national car project Dr Mahathir Mohamad is that an industry that is growing yearly should be profitable. It is not. In fact, industry data shows that the total profits of all the car companies over the last decades amount to only a modest return, and that only for the fittest in the industry.

The British experience

Consider the case of British Leyland, a vehicle-manufacturing company formed in the United Kingdom in 1968.

It was partly nationalised in 1975 with the government creating a new holding company. The company incorporated much of the British- owned motor vehicle industry, and held 40% of the UK car market.

Despite containing profitable marques such as Jaguar, Rover and Land Rover, as well as the best-selling Mini, British Leyland had a troubled history. In 1986 it was renamed as the Rover Group, later to become MG Rover Group, which went into administration in 2005. This ended mass car production by British-owned manufacturers.

Today, many British car marques have transferred their ownership to foreign companies. For example MG and the Austin, Morris and Wolseley marques have all become part of China’s SAIC Motor Corporation Ltd.

Mistake avoidable

Why Dr Mahathir failed to learn anything from the disastrous British car industry experience is something that completely escapes many Malaysians. Surely any good leader would have gotten his officers to do due diligence.

If they had done so, they would have found that the industry even with year-on-year rises in sales is not guaranteed to generate good returns to shareholders. Notwithstanding its long tradition of successful car manufacture and the country’s highly developed economy, the industry in the UK still failed to make profits.

The reason for this situation is because one of the forces that limit profitability is the intensity of rivalry between car companies from around the world. This leads to oversupply and pressure on prices, further exacerbated by a high degree of freedom for new competitors to enter the industry.

Unless there is an enormous internal market such as China’s or the United States, and we can take advantage of the economy of scale, small producers such as Malaysia are forever doomed to a minor placing, or bankruptcy, in the marketplace.

Played out by Mitsubishi

As far as Proton is concerned, Mahathir’s mistake in ignoring the economic fundamentals of the industry was compounded by our lack of expertise or comparative advantage to produce cars. The anticipated technology transfer from Mitsubishi did not take place.

This should have been anticipated. Why should Mitsubishi transfer their know-how to Malaysia when it can control the pace of transfer to maximize its profits? In fact, the top management of Proton should ask Mitsubishi to open their books to see how much profit they have made from Proton since it began operation.

Mitsubishi knew that Proton could not do without them and they were quite happy to continue making money from Proton while the company here continued to bleed to death.

Equally important was the poor quality of management. Just before the privatization exercise, Proton had accumulated RM4 billion during Tengku Mahaleel Ariff’s tenure as chief executive officer but its cash reserves had dropped to RM600 million during his successor Mohammed Azlan Hashim’s stewardship, according to Mahathir.

To encourage people to buy Proton, the government increased the import duty for other cars and car parts. As a result, the consumers have suffered. For over 30 years we have had to pay higher prices for all cars including Proton. Even this has not been sufficient to save Proton which has been sold five times already.

Another question to ask is why few car manufacturers, until recently, seem to get into bankruptcy? If so, then prices can rise relative to cost and shareholders can get a fair return.

There are two main reasons. In some countries there is always the perennial optimism of managers and shareholders. In Malaysia, the reason is different. Here, our government has been changing rules and regulations to obstruct other cars from entering our market whilst providing special favours including an ever ready supply of financial assistance to keep Proton afloat.

The end result is that some Malaysians have ended up with more expensive cars of other brands whilst most Malaysians have had little choice but to buy Proton – a poor substitute.

This is the price we have to pay for brainless patriotism.

Proton’s and our never-ending problems

Ours is a sorry saga which is a classic case study on how not to set up a car industry. As with the national airline, I propose that a special course on our experience with Proton be offered in the Institute of Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad’s Thoughts.

What better way to honour the ex-premier than a post-graduate course on his pet project – the National Car – and inviting him to be a guest lecturer. I am sure he will have lots to share and many people to blame as to why the project has failed.

Earlier this year tycoon Syed Mokhtar Al-Bukhary was allowed to take full control of Proton. Since the sale, Proton’s problems have continued through its loss-making subsidiary, Lotus. In March, the conglomerate was forced to put in place a team of consultants to conduct an audit on the Lotus group of companies.

The need for this review was pertinent in light of the financial obligation of Lotus in the form of a £270 million (RM1.3 billion) syndicated loan taken at the end of 2010, for which Proton had given its corporate guarantee.

In March, Proton, in its third quarter results, noted that its subsidiary was in a technical breach of certain post-drawdown covenants on its long-term loan. For now, the loan amounting to RM1.01billion has been re-classified as a short-term loan as at Dec 31 until the receipt of approval for the extension of time.

Although the new owner of Proton undoubtedly has deep pockets (he is the 7th richest man in Malaysia) and owns a business empire that covers ports, the postal service, power, defence and financial services, besides automobiles, we can expect him to recoup his losses by raising the prices further on Proton thus burdening our car buyers, and by charging higher prices for the other goods and services that he is involved with.

In any way, the Malaysian consumer will continue to be suckered by the national car debacle.

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 30 May 2012, 11:56 pm and is filed under
Mahathir
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Sun setting on Penang’s factories?

By
Zairil Khir Johari
 | May 30, 2012

The Malaysian Insider

MAY 30 — With the general election closing in, the Penang Barisan Nasional (BN) leadership is certainly not short on promises.

Having recently assumed the hot seat, newly-minted state BN chairman Teng Chang Yeow has been eagerly peddling the coalition’s “alternative blueprint” for Penang, an election manifesto that includes a plan to restore free port status to the island while turning it into an international tourism hub, along with plans for an international financial centre, innovation park and aquaculture hub in mainland Seberang Perai.

And then, as if to prove that his fancy labelling actually carries some philosophical substance, he goes to great lengths to explain his vision of a post-industrial future for Penang, where he promises to transform the services sector into an engine of growth as a replacement to the manufacturing industry.

This is needed because, in his words, “the manufacturing sector has reached its peak in Penang. We have to look into other engines of growth.” He further adds that the state can no longer be dependent on manufacturing as there is a shortage of land, while acknowledging that the sector had helped build a strong foundation for Penang’s economy in the 1960s and 70s.

Other state BN leaders have echoed similar views, with Penang MCA adviser Datuk Koay Kar Huah opining that Penang is “oversaturated with manufacturing activities and it is time to consider other industries to stimulate its economy.”

I find this notion that manufacturing has reached a sunset stage, and thus should be replaced by service-based industries, an extremely flawed one.

The fact is that it is impossible to divorce production from knowledge because the best way to learn how to make something is to actually make it, as the Japanese, Koreans and Taiwanese have proven. Once we are able to make it, we can then move on to innovating, adding value to the product, financing it, marketing it and finally consuming it. In other words, services spanning research, design, engineering, legal, financial and sales are in fact complementary offshoots of manufacturing, and should not be seen as its putative replacement.

As leading Cambridge economist Ha-Joo Chang points out, high-income knowledge economies that appear to be services-based are in fact highly industrialised economies. Citing Switzerland and Singapore as prime examples, he notes that the two countries rank second and third in the world in terms of manufacturing value-add per capita, behind only the industrial machine known as Japan.

At the end of the day, no other industry is capable of generating the same multiplier effect, both in terms of jobs and support services, as manufacturing. It is precisely for this reason that the Obama administration is now on a huge manufacturing drive in a bid to reinvigorate the sputtering American domestic economy. As former General Motors vice chairman Bob Lutz says, “Making things makes money.”

What Teng and company are in fact trying to articulate is the concept of de-industrialisation in the context of a knowledge-based, post-industrial economy. The proposition they are putting forward is that the good old days of industry are gone and that future jobs will require working with our brains and not with our hands.

Taken at face value, such a premise may appear to make sense. However, further examination exposes a shallow and superficial logic. Firstly, would not better brains make our hands more efficient and result in better quality products?

Secondly, as the world progresses, would it not also be natural that consumption of technological goods will increase exponentially? As a result, more rather than less manufacturing will be needed to keep up with growing demand.

The key, therefore, is not in ditching manufacturing in favour of services but actually in seeking ways to create depth and specialisation, as well as to encourage higher productivity and use of technology in manufacturing.

Penang, with an established manufacturing base, must now seek not so much to broaden its range of products but to deepen its value chain. In other words, it is more about how we produce rather than what we produce.

 It is naïve to argue that manufacturing has peaked. One only has to look at how the once-mighty British economy has declined to see how de-industrialisation has resulted in post-industrial decay, loss of productivity, high unemployment, rising inequality and the displacement of an entire generation.

The truth is, manufacturing holds even more potential than it did a few decades ago. Far from putting it on the backburner, efforts should be invested into enhancing the use of technology and automation, increasing production capacity and training the required human talent. Value-added growth in manufacturing will eventually result in value-added services and correspondingly, higher-paying jobs.

So, is the manufacturing industry in Penang headed for a sunset? To the contrary, I think a new dawn has just arrived.

—

Zairil Khir Johari is a chocolate purveyor, chicken rice enthusiast and noodle lover. When he’s not preoccupied with any of the above, he is also a politician.

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 30 May 2012, 11:05 am and is filed under
Penang Government
,
Zairil Khir Johari
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


A country going rotten

— Othman Wahab

The Malaysian Insider

May 31, 2012

MAY 31 — Today is the day. If there was any doubt that Malaysia is ruled by the corrupt and assisted by the corrupt and that only regime change can save this country, today was the day where all the doubts were put to rest.

Today we saw the MACC give Shahrizat Jalil the all-clear, saying that she did not influence the RM250 million loan award to National Feedlot Corporation. But were her “expenses” paid by the NFC; did she benefit from the umrah packages bought by her family members aka directors of NFC.?

This probe was always going to be a whitewash because no Umno/BN bigshot is ever going to be convicted of anything, be it corruption or living beyond their means.

We knew that MACC was going to clear Shahrizat Jalil, and paint her as some aggrieved party. Poor thing. That they did it speedily while still investigating Taib Mahmud and Musa Aman should not surprise anyone.

The NFC case is a symbol of everything gone wrong with Umno and this country and the party elders believe that going to the polls with too many question marks over Shahrizat was untenable.

Still for the MACC to say that it cleared Shahrizat of any involvement in loan award is rich. It is like the police saying that they cleared the Nayati kidnappers of illegal parking along Mont Kiara.

But this was not all from the agency, in whose premises died Teoh Beng Hock and Sarbaini. They then said that they were re-opening a corruption investigation into Azmin Ali based on information given by the paragon of virtue, Ummi Hafilda!.

The same Ummi Hafilda who was discredited in Sodomy 1 and was part of the mayhem  at the fracas at the PKR rally in Lembah Pantai.

I am pleased that the MACC Advisory Panel is re-opening an investigation into Azmin Ali’s alleged corrupt practices.

Good for them but what about all the other reported corruption allegations?

No, the MACC like the police has only two functions: protecting those in power and going  after those identified as a thorn in the side of the establishment.

And yes, like Umno, they loves the likes of  Ummi Hafilda, Ibrahim Ali, Zahrain, Zulkifli Nordin, Nallakaruppan, Gobalakrishnan. This is no laughing matter because our country is being run by these people.

Are we prepared for them to dictate our future?

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 31 May 2012, 11:30 pm and is filed under
Corruption
,
Elections
,
UMNO
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Di dalam bermusuh sesama sendiri

— Aspan Alias

The Malaysian Insider

May 31, 2012

31 MEI — Umno bukan sahaja bermasalah untuk menentang parti-parti pembangkang, parti itu juga sedang berhadapan dengan masalah dalamannya. Masalah dalaman Umno bukannya kecil. Ia melibatkan pergerakan dalam yang dilakukan oleh sekumpulan pemimpin Umno yang veteran dan yang muda untuk menyusun kembali hiraki kepimpinan parti itu.

Dalam situasi menghadapi pilihan raya umum, Umno juga sedang membuat persediaan untuk mengadakan perhimpunan agong parti dan perhimpunan kali ini melibatkan pemilihan kepimpinan di setiap peringkat. Gerakan-gerakan yang dilakukan oleh pemimpin-pemimpin tertinggi parti dalam isu pemilihan kali ini amat besar ertinya dalam menentukan masa depan setengah pemimpin tertinggi parti dan pemimpin muda yang tidak sabar untuk menongkah arus dengan cita-cita besar menjadi Pemegang tampok kuasa suatu hari nanti.

Sejak akhir-akhir ini perkembangan dalam Umno telah menampakkan bibit-bibit perpecahan kerana ada usaha untuk mengenepikan Muhyiddin agar kekosongan itu dapat diisi oleh pemimpin muda yang inginkan menjadi pelapis kepada Najib yang mereka jangka akan terpaksa mengakui yang beliau telah gagal dalam segala “avenue” untuk terus memegang tampuk pentadbiran negara dan akan meletakkan jawatan sebagai Perdana Menteri.

Mengikut tradisi Umno Timbalan Presiden merupakan orang yang akan mengambil alih tampuk kuasa itu, tetapi sejarah negara kita ramai juga Timbalan Perdana Menteri yang tidak kesampaian hajat mereka untuk menjawat jawatan PM itu. PM di Malaysia boleh memasukkan orang lain dalam penjara dan juga berkuasa untuk mengelakkan diri sendiri dari dipenjara walaupun telah melakukan jenayah yang besar.

Najib khabarnya mahukan sepupunya yang “kureng” sedikit itu untuk mengambil alih kedudukan beliau jika beliau bersara. Maka Muhyiddinlah yang menjadi sasaran dalam senyap untuk mengambil giliran untuk diketepikan. Jika ini berjaya dilakukan maka dengan mudah boleh menyusun untuk meletakkan seorang calon Ketua Pemuda yang dikalahkan oleh Khairy untuk menyusul dari belakang untuk mengambil tempat Hishammuddin akhirnya.

Samada pemilihan parti atau PRU dahulu mempunyai impliksi besar terhadap parti. Jika pemilihan parti dilakukan dahulu maka muka-muka yang akan dicalonkan dalam PRU yang menyusul akan banyak berubah dari apa yang dijangkakan pada masa ini. Tetapi yang lebih munasabah ialah berlakunya PRU dahulu dan dalam persediaan untuk menyusun kembali hiraki parti selepas PRU itu maka masing-masing pemimpin tertinggi akan mengenengahkan calon-calon “winnable” masing-masing.

Apabila senarai calon-calon Umno diumumkan nanti maka bermulalah perpecahan yang besar kerana itu adalah budaya dan cara Umno pada masa kini. Keadaan dan situasi kelam kabut ini akan lebih serius lagi jika dibandingkan dengan pilihan raya yang lepas kerana kali ini ialah pilihan raya penentu nasib masa depan mereka yang sedang berusaha untuk menerajui parti sebagai jalan ke arah kuasa yang besar itu.

Tetapi ramai di kalangan pemimpin-pemimpin Umno juga merasakan apa-apa yang dirancang oleh setiap pemain politik besar dalam Umno itu akan gagal semuanya jika Umno kalah dalam pilihan raya yang akan datang ini. Seperti yang kita tersedia maklum rakyat pengundi sudah menunjukkan dengan jelas sikap mereka terhadap Umno sekarang ini. Ramai rakyat sudah tidak mempunyai keyakinan yang tinggi terhadap parti itu kerana isu berat yang menggunung sedang dihadapi olah parti itu di hadapan pengadil yang mutlak dalam demokrasi iaitu rakyat jelata.

Sebesar mana pun jawatan parti yang dipegang oleh seseorang itu, ia tidak memberi apa-apa makna kepada mereka jika parti kecundang dalam pilihan raya umum yang akan datang. Kita semua tahu yang kebarangkalian Umno tewas dalam pilihan raya kali ini adalah besar, malahan ada pihak yang berkeyakinan yang Umno akan hanya memenangi kurang dari 60 kerusi dalam PRU ke13 ini. Sekarang Umno hanya mempunyai 69 kerusi di dewan Parlimen.

Tetapi yang pasti menjadi tanggungjawab moral sebagai pemimpin, ialah dengan meletakkan semua jawatan parti dan kerajaan jika Umno memenangi kurang dari 69 kerusi dalam pilihan raya yang akan datang ini.

Kalau diikutkan hukum akal, parti itu akan kecundang. Hukum Tuhan tiada siapa yang tahu. — aspanaliasnet.blogspot.com

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 31 May 2012, 10:55 pm and is filed under
Elections
,
UMNO
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.