Judges who accept bribes – Fairuz must take action or resign as CJ

When I was speaking in Parliament on Wednesday during the debate on the Motion of Thanks on the Royal Address and touching on the judiciary as another institution which had suffered in the last 50 years of nationhood in terms of loss of public confidence in its independence, impartiality and integrity, DAP National Chairman and MP for Bukit Glugor Karpal Singh interrupted me to raise a specific question.

Karpal asked whether I agree that  as the Chief Justice of Malaysia, Tun Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim had made it very clear that there are judges who are corrupt, it has become the duty and responsibility of the Chief Justice  to lodge a police report to enable a full investigation to be conducted to ascertain as to who are the corrupt judges.

In my response, I expressed my  full agreement  that to protect the good name of the judiciary,  Tun Ahmad Fairuz should either lodge a police against the corrupt judges who “accept bribes” which he had stated publicly or resign as Chief Justice.

There is actually another option open to the Chief Justice — which is to invoke Article 125(3) of the Federal Constitution to set up a judicial tribunal for the dismissal of the judges who accept bribes.  This Article provides that the Chief Justice, after consulting the Prime Minister, is empowered to represent to the Yang di Pertuan  Agong for the establishment of a tribunal for the removal of a judge for judicial misconduct.

Tun Ahmad Fairuz must  take action against the  judges he had accused of taking bribes, whether by lodging a police report or invoking Article 152(3) of the Federal Constitution, and if he not prepared to do either, he should  resign as Chief Justice to protect the reputation and  integrity of the Malaysian judiciary.

There can be nothing more serious against the reputation and integrity of judges than the  charges which the Chief Justice had levelled  in his speech during the swearing-in ceremony of eight new judicial commissioners on March 1  – that there are judges who accept bribes.

Tun Ahmad Fairuz had said:

“It is only logical that such despicable characteristics would only kill the possibility of justice and impartiality shown by the rest of the judges.  Therefore, if these judges are unable to tear away from such bad characteristics, it would be best for them to withdraw from the judiciary.

“Such a behaviour gives honour to the Malay proverb: ‘Janganlah kerana nila setitik rosak susu sebelanga (Because of a drop of dye, the whole pot of milk is ruined).”

In his speech, Ahmad Fairuz had castigated various forms of “inappropriate behaviour” and  judicial misconduct, such as:

	Judges who were often seen socializing with lawyers, prosecutors and corporate figures while hearing their cases in court; and

	Judges who  were “constantly angry and foul-tempered”, who portrayed themselves as being the most brilliant or perfect judge in court; and

	Judges who accept bribes.

The question of judges who “accept bribes”  being asked to “tear away from such bad characteristics” or leave the judiciary does not arise, as such judges have committed crimes of corruption  must be exposed and prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

Ahmad Fairuz would be betraying his office to uphold the law as the Chief Justice if he fails to take appropriate action against the corrupt judges, or he had publicly made baseless and unsubstantiated charges of corruption against judges serving under him.

Only some six months earlier, the Chief Justice had dismissed suggestions that  judges who lacked integrity and honesty had been appointed by the authorities.

Speaking at the Judges’ Conference in Putrajaya, attended by 83 judges of the Federal Court, Court of Appeal and High Courts nationwide on August 22, 2006, Ahmad Fairuz declared:  “Don’t say that they are dishonest. Don’t say that they are without integrity.  Give me proof and then we shall take action”.

Now, it is the Chief Justice himself who is saying publicly that there are judges who are not only guilty of “inappropriate behaviour” as putting themselves in the compromising position of socializing with lawyers, prosecutors and corporate figures while hearing their cases in court, but that there are judges who are guilty of the gross judicial misconduct and  heinous crime of  accepting bribes.

Where is the “action” he had promised last August?

The Chief Justice’s shock expose that there are judges who accept bribes, and his failure for over three weeks  to take follow-up action to clean up the judiciary of corrupt judges, are the latest setbacks to the losing battle to restore national and international confidence in the independence, impartiality and integrity of the judges for close to two decades since the Salleh Abas judicial crisis in 1988.

Malaysia has probably the most imposing court complexes in the world, not only the Palace of Justice in Putrajaya (housing two Federal Courts and six Courts of Appeal), but very soon, another world’s biggest court complex cost RM300 million in Jalan Duta housing 30 High Courts, 21 Sessions Courts and 26 magistrates’ courts.

But what is the use of these monstrous edifices when sorely lacking is the essence and the moving spirit of justice?

During my continued speech on the Royal Address on Thursday, I had referred to the case of the whistleblower in the judiciary, Justice Datuk Syed Ahmad Idid Syed Abdullah, the High Court judge who authored the 33-page anonymous letter about corruption and abuse of power in the judiciary in 1996, implicating 12 judges.

Instead of full and thorough investigation into the serious allegations by a High Court judge, Syed Ahmad Idid was victimised and force to resign from the judiciary.

But Syed Ahmad Idid has been able to preserve and maintain national and international  respect for his integrity, which is why his is not only appointed  director of the Kuala Lumpur Regional Centre for Arbitration in 2004, but also recently appointed as an arbitrator until 2010 to the Permanent Court of Arbitration of Slovenia.

I had also referred in my speech in Parliament  to a police report which was lodged earlier in the week about corruption in the top judicial and government circles, implicating a former Chief Justice, a former Attorney-General, a former Inspector-General of Police, and judges (retired and two still in service) and asked whether there would be  full, thorough and satisfactory investigations into the report.

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 24 March 2007, 11:06 am and is filed under
Corruption
,
Court
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Malaysia-US FTA – Questions for Rafidah

On Tuesday, Minister for International Trade and Industry, Datuk Paduka Rafidah Aziz, gave a 21-page reply to questions on the Malaysia-US FTA talks and developments.

Rafidah said that the sovereign right of the government to make and implement certain national policies for the interests of the rakyat and country is one of the fundamental issues that are non-negotiable for Malaysia in any bilateral FTA.

Malaysian sovereignty

I want to raise 3 matters of vital public importance that are on the negotiation list.

First is the issue of the
mandatory labelling of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and products containing GMOs
. The Biosafety Bill that has passed the first reading in this House is necessary to safeguard public health and the environment. An important provision is the one that requires mandatory labelling, and we understand that Draft regulations for labelling of genetically modified food are ready and notified to the WTO. For consumers who may have allergenic reactions to certain GM products or have religious reasons to reject such products labelling is essential.

I raise this because the US Trade Promotion Authority  (TPA) Act expressly states that labelling of biotechnology products is a practice that should be eliminated as it decreases US export opportunities when consumers choose not to consume GM food.

The US Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO) and the AMCHAM Malaysia/US Chamber of Commerce have opposed mandatory labelling of genetically modified products or foods in their public submissions to the US Trade Representative. In particular, AMCHAM Malaysia/US Chamber of Commerce state that such labelling  “should be firmly opposed by the U.S. in the FTA Negotiations”.

Many countries (such as Japan, China and many European countries, and even Australia which signed an FTA with the US) already require mandatory labelling. This is consistent with the WTO Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade which states that “technical regulations shall not be more trade-restrictive than necessary to fulfil a legitimate objective”.

The legitimate objectives include “national security requirements,

prevention of deceptive practices
, protection of human health or safety, animal or plant life or health, or the environment” (emphasis added). The prevention of deceptive practices includes product information and labelling, so it is clearly within our sovereign right to have mandatory labelling of GMOs and GM products.

Under the Codex Alimentarius Commission, the joint WHO/FAO body regulating international food standards, the Committee on Food Labelling has been discussing a global standard for mandatory GM food labelling. The draft standard on GM labelling has support from a majority of the Committee, including Malaysia.

Is this one of the areas of national sovereignty that will be non-negotiable?

The second issue is the availability of
affordable generic medicines
. Data exclusivity is on the list of negotiation issues.

I have spoken before on the so-called “WTO TRIPS Plus” provisions in FTAs already signed between the US and other countries. These are controversial and most trading partners have caved in believing that they will gain more trade and investments. Increased medicines costs from such provisions have been projected and warned by studies by the WHO and other UN agencies, as well as the World Bank.

Data exclusivity is not required under any international law. It is also widely acknowledged as one of many ways that big pharmaceutical corporations are trying to reduce and even eliminate competition from the generic medicines sector.  In Malaysia our domestic generic industry contributes more investment and income to the nation than foreign companies, and data exclusivity will harm our industry.

Is data exclusivity also a non-negotiable issue for Malaysia?

The third issue is
capital controls
. In her interview on RTM 1 this week, Rafidah stated that capital controls are a non-negotiable sovereign right and that they are not part of an FTA.

However, all USFTAs with an investment chapter have a provision requiring free transfers of capital.  This includes profits, dividends and all transfers related to covered investments (which are very broadly defined). This requirement to allow free transfers of capital effectively prevents capital controls.

This prohibition on capital controls can be enforced in USFTAs via the investor suing the host government at an international tribunal.

According to a book edited by Singapore’s chief negotiator for its USFTA, even on the day scheduled to hold a press conference to announce the successful conclusion of the Singapore-USFTA negotiations (19/11/2002), the capital controls issue still had not been resolved because there was a fundamental gap in positions regarding the free transfer of capital provisions:

The “free transfer” clause was a feature of all bilateral trade and investment agreements that the US had concluded to-date. Making an exception for Singapore would set a bad precedent for all of the US’s future agreements. The free flow of capital was a central tenet of US international economic policy and strongly subscribed to by the US Treasury in particular. . . in an exchange rate crisis that threatened to severely destabilise the economy, Singapore needed the flexibility to take all appropriate measures, including, as a last resort, restrictions on capital flows when conventional monetary policy tools might be inadequate.

So there were two more months of negotiations on capital controls alone in the case of Singapore. In the end, these extra negotiations got Singapore an annex which has some exceptions for certain capital controls, but it is not clear that it would be sufficient for an economy like Malaysia’s.

Is Malaysia likely to be able to get even Singapore’s level of exceptions for certain capital control measures?

Tariffs cuts

Rafidah said  that “In 2005 Malaysian exports were subject to import taxes and duties of RM16.1billion. It is estimated that through the FTA, in future the US will eliminate duties in the region of RM1billion”. This raises a number of questions:

1.	If this US FTA is supposed to bring such benefits to Malaysia, why does MITI’s own calculation estimate that it will only reduce the duties on Malaysian exports from RM16billion to RM15billion? How is this figure reached?

2.	Does this estimate of RM1billion saving take into account that the US is predicted by economists to import less in the years to come because of its trade deficit? Therefore there would be less ‘cake’ to share among all the countries seeking to export to the USA.

3.	The US President (executive) only has the power under the current Trade Promotion Authority Act (due to expire in June 2007) to cut industrial tariffs that are more than 5% by less than 50%. US trade analysts think it will be politically difficult for the US Government to cut tariffs, particularly in sensitive sectors, given the US trade deficit is reaching levels that may cause the US$ to crash [Malaysia currently enjoys a trade surplus of US$24 billion a year with the US which they want to reverse.]

Do predictions that there will be greater market access for Malaysian products take into account that the US market share for Malaysia is likely to shrink:

a.	Because other USFTAs will reduce US tariffs for imports from those countries so Malaysia may be competing with them

	eg USFTAs already signed but not yet in force (eg Peru, Colombia, Panama) and

	USFTAs currently being negotiated (eg South Korea) and

	Future USFTAs (eg with the rest of ASEAN as President Bush has said he is aiming to do)

b.	If the WTO’s Doha Round is concluded, US tariffs will be cut (by a line by line ‘Swiss formula’) for exports from all 149 WTO Member countries to the US.

4.	What will Malaysia have to give up to obtain this RM1billion savings in duties?

a.	According to the US Government, Malaysia’s average bound tariff is nearly four times higher than the USA’s and 1/3 of Malaysia’s industrial goods tariffs are unbound. “Unbound” means that Malaysia can raise these tariffs whenever it likes, as high as it likes, for example for revenue or industrial development reasons.

b.	Based on other USFTAs, Malaysia will have to reduce all of its tariffs on US products to 0% and lock them there. Even if the USA also did this (which is unlikely and not legally possible under the TPA), it is a much greater sacrifice for Malaysia as it has to bind all of its unbound tariffs at 0% and also make a much bigger reduction because it is starting from higher tariffs than the USA.

c.	Even if this RM1billion in duties on Malaysian exports is saved, how much more will the US save when Malaysia has to reduce or eliminate its tariffs on US exports? Ie how much revenue will the Malaysian government lose if it eliminates its tariffs on all US products?

d.	Malaysia is currently enjoying a trade surplus with the US. A USFTA may cause Malaysia’s trade balance with the US to worsen, for example the US National Association of Manufacturers predicts it could double its exports to Malaysia in the first two years of a USFTA.

Is the US asking for all of Malaysia’s tariffs on US products to be eliminated and bound at 0%? Have the above questions been considered in MITI’s predictions of tariff gains for Malaysian exports?

Can MITI provide the detailed cost-benefit studies done?

Have these studies also estimated the costs and will those estimates also be made public?

Textiles

Malaysia’s textile industry is singled out as a major beneficiary in a FTA with the US.

The TPA states that if industrial tariffs are more than 5%, the US negotiators can only offer cuts of less than 50%.

Cuts beyond this must be done by Congress passing legislation and given the closeness with which CAFTA and the Oman-USFTA passed Congress, the Democrats’ control of Congress and the current anti-free trade mood in Congress, it is not guaranteed that Congress will agree to such tariff cuts.

US trade analysts think it will be politically difficult for the US Government to cut tariffs, particularly in sensitive sectors.

Can the the full study that Rafidah cites regarding projected textile industry gains and all of its assumptions  be released to the public?

Services – Has Malaysia agreed to liberalise its services in a US FTA on a positive list basis (as it is at the World Trade Organization) or via a negative list (as all USFTAs except Jordan’s require)?

[Speech (16) on Royal Address debate in Parliament 22.3.07]

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 24 March 2007, 7:02 am and is filed under
Economics
,
Parliament
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


PSCI hearing for Zulkipli/Ramli – review on Tuesday

The Parliamentary Select Committee on Integrity (PSCI) will be asked on Tuesday to review the “on/off/on/off hearing of Anti-Corruption Agency (ACA)  director-general Datuk Seri Zulkipli Mat Noor and whistleblower/former ACA Sabah director Mohamed Ramli Abdul Manan.

This follows the latest development where Ramli’s counsel, M. Manoharan, had given assurance that the issue of
sub judice
at  the PSCI hearings for Zulkipli and Ramli does not arise as the serious allegations of corruption against Zulkipli has no bearing on Ramli’s civil suits against the ACA chief. The civil suit involved non-payment of salaries, pensions and gratuities.

As for the corruption trial of former minister Tan Sri Kasitah Gaddam,  both Zulkipli and Ramli are not material witnesses.

Furthermore, the Ramli civil suit  could take years to be decided while the Kasitah trial is still in the prosecution stage.

As the PSCI is meeting in Parliament on Tuesday in its continuing inquiry into the Sabah Project I/C scandal, I will raise the letter from Ramli’s counsel and his request for an early date for a hearing for deliberation and decision.

There is now even more compelling reasons why the PSCI should neither flinch nor hesitate from  holding hearings for Zulkipli and Ramli if the Select Committee is to remain true to its terms of reference to uphold and promote national integrity.

The past one month was one of the darkest periods not only in the 40-month Abdullah premiership, but probably in the 50-year history of the nation, for accountability, transparency, integrity and good governance as the nation and the world watched in agony at  the collapse of public trust among Malaysians  in the ACA in particular and the government in general, with one corruption scandal following swiftly after another:

	Serious corruption allegations against the ACA chief, Zulkipli;

	Serious corruption allegations against the Deputy Internal Security Minister, Datuk Mohd Johari Baharun in the Emergency Ordinance (EO) “freedom for sale” scandal; and

	Serious allegation by the Chief Justice, Tun Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim of judges who accept bribes.

As if this trio of serious corruption allegations aimed  at the  very inner sanctum of government are  not enough, there is now another serious corruption allegation to create a quartet — the police report lodged by Parti Keadilan Rakyat Sabah deputy chairman
Dr. Jeffrey Kitingan
against Zulkipli as one of the
25 serious corruption allegations against Sabah Chief Minister Datuk Seri Musa Aman
, that the ACA chief had been bribed to stop investigations into complaints of abuses of power and corruption against the Sabah Chief Minister.

The Yang di Pertuan Agong in his Royal Address when opening the current session of Parliament on Monday  had exhorted “all members of the civil service and all levels of society” to support the
campaign  to eliminate corruption and abuse of power
.

The PSCI, entrusted  with the specific task of promoting national integrity, must be in the very  vanguard instead of being at  the rear to boldly, doggedly and  creatively  restore public confidence in the integrity of government at a time when the country is facing its worst  corruption crisis in  history.

In the past 39 years, the ACA had been regarded as a “paper tiger”, with only power to go after the “ikan bilis” but not after the “ikan yu’s” even in the Abdullah administration as proven by the disappearance of the 18 “big fishes” which had escaped into the “high seas”.

A fundamental line has now been crossed by the ACA, when public doubts and skepticism are no more confined to its effectiveness or impotence to deal with the “high-profile” corrupt.

For the first time in its 40-year history, public doubts and skepticism about the ACA have now extended to the  very core purpose, heart and soul of ACA on its integrity and incorruptibility — with the ACA Director-General himself alleged to be guilty of corruption.

On Monday, the Prime Minister had urged Barisan Nasional Backbenchers Club (BNBBC) members to perform “something extraordinary” to bring back the glory days of parliamentarians in line with the country’s 50th anniversary celebrations this year.

There is considerable skepticism as to what this
“something extraordinary”
 BNBBC MPs are capable of. One test will be whether  Barisan Nasional MPs on the PSCI can agree to the holding of immediate hearings for Zulkipli and Ramli in the larger national interests to uphold integrity.

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 24 March 2007, 2:30 pm and is filed under
Corruption
,
Parliament
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Why Iskandar Development Region will fail

Why Iskandar Development Region will fail

by Richard Teo

The response from the foreign investors to the Iskandar development Region is quite evident. After few months from its launching, the Iskandar Development Region has received lukewarm response from the foreign investors.

This prompted Tun Musa Hitam, a member of the Iskandar Development region Authority(IRDA)advisory Council to say unequivocally that ‘it was time to give up the New Economic Policy (NEP) for the success of the Iskandar development Region(IDR).’

On 22nd March 2007, our P.M declared that six sectors would not have to have Bumiputra equity participation.

For 50 years our malay political masters have deemed fit to cling to the NEP policy and now without much persuation they have willingly relinquish that condition for the Iskandar development Region. Why?

The simple reason is that Malaysia has missed the boat. Most of the FDI’s that we are targeting have taken flight to China’s economic region of Shenzan, Hangchou and to India’s Mumbai and Bangalore region.

Of late whatever FDI left have gone to Vietnam. So who are we trying to attract to the IDR? In order to answer this question let us examine the profile of the investors in Malaysia.

For the last ten years, the main investors in Malaysia have been the U.S and Singapore. Both their investments in Malaysia constitute almost 50% of all investments in the country.

Therefore based on historical statistics it would be safe to assume that this would be the same category of investors targeted.

But would Singaporeans be keen to invest in the Iskandar development Region? Obviously not. Why would they want to invest in a country that seem to treat their presence with utter disdain and contempt?

The scenic bridge, the sand issue, the use of Malaysian air space and a host of other minor irritants have seen relationship between the two countries at their lowest level.

No matter what the incentives offered by the Malaysian counterparts, the Singapore govt is defintely not going to take the bait. Further, a successful Iskandar Development project would be at the expense of Singapore’s own development. So logically it would be in Singapore’s interest for the IDR to fail.

As for the Americans, would they want to pour their Investment dollars in the Iskander development region? Definitely not, especially when their President was recently charged under the war crimes tribunal held in Kuala Lumpur and presumably under the patronage of the govt.

By our own volition, our govt have foolishly offended the two most likely investors in the country and any amount of incentives or cajoling would unlikely to have any positive impact. Without the participation of these two major investors the Iskandar Development Region is destined to fail.

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 24 March 2007, 7:38 am and is filed under
NEP
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Ambulances run out of petrol – Yusnita Abas another avoidable death

With the latest
scandal of ambulances running out of petrol
resulting in another  avoidable death, the Health Minister, Datuk  Dr. Chua Soi Lek should inform Parliament tomorrow what shake-up he had initiated to end the mounting public criticism of outrageous ambulance emergency services and response time to give top priority to saving lives.

Friday’s
New Straits Times
reported the scandal-cum-tragedy of Yusnita Abas, 31, wife of a factory worker, Ghafur Mohd Ibrahim who said his wife would be alive today had she received prompt medical treatment, including efficient ambulance service.

Although on the fateful day, she went to the Kepala Batas Hospital at 1 pm after being advised by a private doctor, she was not attended to until she lapsed into a semi-consciousness state around 6 pm.

Doctors later realized that Yusnita was suffering from a ruptured blood vessel and ordered that she undergo a CT scan at the Seberang Jaya Hospital.  Ghafur was told that that Yusnita would have to undergo emergency surgery at the Penang Hospital if the CT scan showed there was a blood clot in her brain.

This is Ghafur’s harrowing tale:

It was later confirmed that there was a blood clot, but the ambulance that had rushed his  wife to the Seberang Jaya Hospital was unable to take her to the Penang Hospital.

The driver said the ambulance was in a bad condition and he needed to take another one from the Kepala Batas Hospital, so they  drove back.

When they reached the hospital, they were told that all the ambulances were out of petrol.

It was close to 10pm by the time the problem was sorted out, and they only managed to take his  wife to the Penang Hospital about 10.45pm.

His  wife was pronounced brain dead by the time they  arrived at the Penang Hospital. Yusnita died two days later.

The doctor told Ghafur that his  wife could have been saved had she been brought in for surgery earlier.

The second question during Parliamentary Question Time tomorrow is one asking the Health Minister the number of deaths in the country which had occurred  in ambulances while enroute  to hospitals.

Chua should explain how could such an outrageous and scandalous situation arise where  all the ambulances at a hospital had run out of petrol as to cause an avoidable death.

In this connection, Chua should also inform Parliament why he was  happy with 30-minute response time for hospital ambulances, when the Health Ministry’s director-general Tan Sri Dr. Ismail Merican had said that any ambulance response time that was longer than 15 minutes was unacceptable.

Chua had given this response following public  criticism over businesswoman Zara Davies Abdul Rahman’s  traumatic experience in trying to get accident and emergency help from Hospital Tengku Ampuan Rahimah Klang to save an accident victim’s life near the Batu Tiga toll booth on Dec. 13 last year, but in vain.

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 25 March 2007, 3:16 pm and is filed under
Health
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


IRD should not harass or bar  defaulters from bona fide foreign trips

The Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, in his capacity  as Finance  Minister should direct the Inland Revenue Board to stop invoking Income Tax Act Section 104 barring Malaysians from leaving the country for failing to pay income tax  for business, tours and holidays when they have every intention of returning and not absconding from the  country, and to seek the advice of the Attorney-General.

In her interview with
New Sunday Times
, the Chief Executive Officer and Director-General of Inland Revenue Board, Hasmah Abdullah advised 39,867 people who had been blacklisted as tax defaulters that they are barred from leaving the country for failing to pay income tax.

Holiday-makers who bought tickets at the recent Matta fair to go overseas are advised to visit the Inland Revenue Board before they board the plane.

This is most ludicrous and smacks of harassment and even blackmail — something which should not be associated with the public service.

Hasmah pointed out that under  Section 104 of Income Tax 1967
(see below)
, individuals — locals or foreigners — would not be allowed to leave the country if they had not settled their income tax.

I believe that when Parliament passed  Section 104 of  Income Tax Act 1967 forty years ago, the intention was to prevent individuals, whether locals or foreigners, from evading income tax by absconding from the country — rather than to restrict their business or spoil their holidays plan.

I do not believe Parliament ever intended  to prevent  Malaysians with income tax problems  from going to Singapore, Thailand or other overseas country whether for holidays or business.

I would therefore contend  that  Section 104 should only used to bar an income tax defaulter from leaving the country if he is  likely to abscond to another country to evade payment —  and not to be used all and sundry against  everyone of the 39,863 defaulters who want to go overseas for holidays, tours or business with every intention of returning.

The Attorney-General should be asked to advise the Cabinet whether Section 104 should  be given such a  restricted meaning by the Income Tax Board, as 40 years after the enactment of the Income Tax Act in 1967, overseas travel have become commonplace  especially in the era of globalization and the advent of budget airlines  that there should be no unnecessary restrictions for freedom of travel, except in the specific case where the Income Tax Board have reason to believe that a defaulter is likely to abscond abroad to evade tax payment.

Income Tax Act 1967

Section 104. Recovery from persons leaving Malaysia.

(1) The Director General, where he is of the opinion that any person is about or likely to leave Malaysia without paying–

(a) all tax payable by him (whether or not due or due and payable);

(b) all sums payable by him under subsection 103(3), (4), (5), (6), (7) or (8); and

(c) all debts payable by him under subsection 107A(2) or 109(2) or 109B(2),

may issue to any Commissioner of Police or Director of Immigration a certificate containing particulars of the tax, sums and debts so payable with a request for that person to be prevented from leaving Malaysia unless and until he pays all the tax, sums and debts so payable or furnishes security to the satisfaction of the Director General for their payment.

(2) Subject to any order issued or made under any written law relating to banishment or immigration, any Commissioner of Police or Director of Immigration who receives a request under subsection (1) in respect of any person shall take or cause to be taken all such measures (including the use of reasonable force and the seizure, removal or retention of any certificate of identity and any passport, exit permit or other travel document relating to that person) as may be necessary to give effect to it.

(3) The Director General shall cause notice of the issue of a certificate under subsection (1) to be served personally or by registered post on the person to whom the certificate relates:

Provided that the non-receipt of the notice by that person shall not invalidate anything done under this section.

(4) Where a person in respect of whom a certificate has been issued under subsection (1)–

(a) produces a written statement signed on or after the date of the certificate by the Director General or an authorized officer to the effect that all the tax, sums and debts specified in the certificate have been paid or that security has been furnished for their payment; or

(b) pays all the tax, sums and debts specified in the certificate to the officer in charge of a police station or to an immigration officer,

the statement or the payment, as the case may be, shall be sufficient authority for allowing that person to leave Malaysia.

(5) No legal proceedings shall be instituted or maintained against the Government, a State Government, a police officer or any other public officer in respect of anything lawfully done under this section or subsection 115(2).

(6) In this section–

“Commissioner of Police” includes a Chief Police Officer;

“Director of Immigration” means the Director of Immigration in Sabah, Sarawak or West Malaysia;

“immigration officer” means a public officer having official duties in connection with the control of immigration into Malaysia or any part of Malaysia.

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 25 March 2007, 4:15 pm and is filed under
Good Governance
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


RM70 million for AVSS  to collect traffic fines from Singaporeans – 24 years to recoup if system can last that long

A news report in last week’s  New Sunday Times (18.3.07) caught the attention of an eagle-eyed reader,  Tan Poh Soon, who has emailed about how ridiculous it was to spend RM70 million to instal a system to collect traffic fines from Singaporeans, which will take some 24 years to recoup the cost if the system could last that long:

While reading a news regarding Singaporean motorists paid a total of RM8 million in Malaysia traffic fines over the past three years, i noticed that it is also mentioned that the outstanding summon are being track down with a system known as Automated Vehicle Screening System.

According to the news, there are currently 24 unit of such system, where each unit cost RM2.9 million.  The news also reported that the relevant department will add more of such unit at various places.

I’m wondering what is the rationale of installing such system which is so much expensive.  Even if the system are able to track down RM8 million of unpaid summons every 3 years.  It will still need at least 24 years to recoup the investment.

Do take note that this does not include the opportunity cost, interest and maintenance cost.  Furthermore, i doubt that such system will be able to last 24 years.

Apart from this, i’m also curious about the the following:

1. is the tendering process for such system is tranparent?

2. Is there no other better and cost effective solution to tracked down the upaid summon?

The RM70 million AVSS acquisition does not make sense. Horror of horrors, the purchase and installation of more AVSS units at all entry and exit points nationwide are being planned.

Wasn’t  any  cost-benefit  done before the Transport Ministry and Road Transport Department go on a spending spree to splurge  tens of millions of ringgit on new equipments, which cannot be justified by any ROI study?

Who are the real beneficiaries of the RM70 million AVSS scandal?

Over to Transport Minister, Datuk Seri Chong Kong Choy – what say you?

The
New Sunday Times
referred to by Poh Soon is as follows:

Singapore motorists settle RM8m in traffic fines

By Jassmine Shadiqe

JOHOR BARU: A total of RM8 million in traffic fines has been collected from Singaporeans over the past three years, thanks to the Road Transport Department’s Automated Vehicle Screening System (AVSS).

The department has collected fines from 73,630 outstanding traffic summonses issued to Singaporeans since the system was installed in April 2004.

“There is only RM200,000 in unpaid traffic summonses left and the

Singaporeans have a 45-day grace period to settle them,” said RTD deputy director-general Solah Mat Hassan.

Each AVSS unit costs RM2.9 million and the department has 24 units installed in Johor, at the three main entry and exit points – the Causeway, Tanjung Puteri Customs Complex and the Second Link.

Two are installed at the entry points and 12 at the exit points of the Causeway; two at the Tanjung Puteri Customs Complex exit points; and four each at the entry and exit points of the Second Link.

Solah said the department was waiting for the green light from the federal government to instal AVSS units at all entry and exit points nationwide.

He said there were also plans for other enforcement agencies, such as the Johor Baru Municipal Council, to share information from the system.

If the vehicle owner has an outstanding traffic summons, his

particulars are updated into the system which is also online with the police and RTD database.

The unit scans the Singapore-registered vehicles’ number plates upon entering the country.

The offender is given a 45-day grace period to settle the summons.

If the summons is not settled during that period, the offender will not be allowed to leave the country until he does so.

Solah said initial concerns that the system would cause Singaporean motorists to shy away from entering Malaysia proved untrue as statistics showed that was no reduction in the number.

Although RTD officials admit the system has its glitches, they are

still happy with its overall effectiveness.

Solah said the AVSS units were sensitive and frequently break down.

“Sometimes the breakdown lasts up to two weeks.

“Still, the effectiveness of the system cannot be doubted. The figures do not lie.”

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 25 March 2007, 12:08 pm and is filed under
Good Governance
,
Transport
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Winning back FDIs – fundamental policy changes needed and not merely incentives

Winning back FDIs

by Dr. Chen Man Hin

Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi announced a bouquet of incentives to induce foreign investors to put their money in Johore’s Iskandar Development Region (IDR). Undeniably the incentives are attractive.

While the development of IDR is important and should be encouraged, it is vital to realise that foreign investments are needed badly for the country as a whole. Therefore,  the incentives for IDR should logically be implemented for the whole country.

Malaysia unfortunately is bypassed by foreign investors and is low in their choice to park their money.  It is definitely not on the radar of foreign investors, contrary to the claim of the Minister for International Trade, Datuk Paduka Rafidah Aziz.

UNCTAD report on FDI shows that Malaysia has much lower FDIs than many other countries in ASEAN –

                                2004               2005               2006

                              (billions of dollars)

Malaysia               US 4.62 bill         US3.97b     US3.9b

Indonesia                    1.9                   5.26         2.0

Thailand                      1.4                  3.7             7.9

Singapore                   14.8                 20.1            31.9

HongKong                   34.0                  35.9            41.4

UNCTAD figures do not lie. Clearly Malaysia is in dire straits. The figures show that Thailand is  now preferred by foreign investors with Indonesia fast catching up, not to mention Singapore which is far ahead.

The incentives for IDR of South Johore should be offerred as incentives for the whole of Malaysia.

Foreign investors also look at political measures taken to promote democracy, unity and stability. Indonesia has implemented policies which give foreign investors confidence.

Indonesia has revoked its pribumi policy by passing a law that gives equal citizenship to all Indonesias irrespective of race or religion. The Indonesian Parliament has declared Indonesia to be a secular state and not an Islamic state, although it has the largest number of muslims in the whole world. There is also economic freedom without racial bias.

Foreign investors tend to look favourably to countries that are non-racial, secular and a liberal economy.

The same cannot be said for Malaysia with its Malay agenda of
ketuanan melayu
,  New Economic Policy to favour bumiputras and leanings towards an Islamic state.

Unfortunately, Malaysia is the only Asean member which embraces a racial policy of
ketuanan Melayu
, a bumiputra-biased economy and a pro-Islamic state philosophy.

It is no wonder that foreign investors do not include Malaysia on its radar.

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 25 March 2007, 12:43 pm and is filed under
Economics
,
NEP
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Harvard University task force to improve public service delivery – waste of public funds?

The answer by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Health Ministry, Datuk Lee Kah Choon during question time today that the government does not have statistics about the number of patients nationwide who died in ambulance on their way to hospital is the latest evidence not only of deteriorating medical and health services in the country, but of the larger issue of the macro problem of the worsening public delivery system despite all the promises of reform.

I find the indifference and insensitivity demonstrated by Lee’s answer most unacceptable  as it was only on Friday that the country was shocked by the news report of the totally unnecessary death of
Yusnita Abas
, 31,  wife of factory worker, Ghafur Mohd Ibrahim  because the ambulances at Kepala Batas Hospital  were “all out of petrol” and could not send her in time for emergency surgery at the Penang Hospital.

In the 50-year independent history of Malaysia, this is the first time a person had died because all the ambulances at  a hospital had run out of petrol — tragic proof that public service delivery system and ethos have been getting from bad to worse.

Such a shameful episode had not happened when the country achieved independence in 1957 and the ensuing 49 years. Why is it happening now?

Developed countries are aiming at ambulance emergency response time within eight minutes, but the Health Minister, Datuk Dr. Chua Soi Lek seemed quite happy with an ambulance response time of more than 30 minutes in his response to public criticisms over businesswoman Zara Davies Abdul Rahman’s traumatic experience in trying to get accident and emergency help from Hospital Tengku Ampuan Rahimah Klang to save an accident victim’s life near the Batu Tiga toll booth on Dec. 13 last year, but in vain.

When Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi became the fifth Prime Minister of Malaysia some 40 months ago, he not only pledged a more efficient public service delivery system, warning civil servants not to indulge in the “pass-the-buck culture”, but commissioned experts from Harvard University to strengthen the public service delivery system, reduce bureaucracy and improve civil service efficiency.

The three-member Harvard University task force submitted its report and recommendations to the government in April last year — but  it would appear that the Harvard University consultants were all a waste of time, effort and public funds when public service ethos and performance have reached such a low point that what had never happened in the nation’s half-a-century history can now happen — ambulances at a hospital running out of petrol causing an avoidable death!

How could all the ambulances  at the hospital of the constituency of the Prime Minister “all run out of petrol”? Who must be held responsible?  How many heads must roll? Will any head roll?

Let me repeat my call during my speech in Parliament on the Royal Address debate on Thursday — that the government make public the report of   Harvard University consultants to improve civil service efficiency, reveal the costs and the identity of the Harvard University experts.

The report should be tabled in Parliament before the Ministers start their four-day  winding-up of the debate on the Royal Address beginning next Tuesday so that MPs can have the time to study the report and raise pertinent issues during the winding-up.

Last month, the Prime Minister announced the establishment  of a 23-member task force, named Pemudah, to facilitate the delivery system and enhance economic activity as well as a high-powered committee comprising senior government officers as the implementation arm of the task force.

Is this the outcome of the report a year ago of the Harvard University task force — to set up another task force a year later  to find out ways to improve the delivery system?  If so, what is the use of the commissioning the Harvard University task force?

                This entry was posted on Monday, 26 March 2007, 4:07 pm and is filed under
Good Governance
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Tun Ismail:  No Ordinary Politician

Review by Bakri Musa

Tun Ismail:  No Ordinary Politician

The Reluctant Politician:  Tun Dr. Ismail and His Time

Ooi Kee Beng

Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, Singapore, 2006

338 pp RM55.00

Reading Ooi Kee Beng’s biography of the late Tun Ismail is akin to eating at a buffet in a cheap Chinese restaurant.  The offering was generous and you gorged yourself.  However, an hour later you were hungry again; worse you could not even recall what was so special about the menu.  Then it dawned on you that the food tasted good simply because you were so darn hungry.

With the present pathetic state of leadership in Malaysia, there is a yearning for the kind of leaders like the late Tun Ismail, men of

strong convictions and who did not hesitate acting on them.  Ooi quoted Prime Minister Tunku Abdul Rahman who bore the wrath of Ismail’s anger over Tunku’s sudden policy change towards China.  Ismail was so incensed that he tendered his resignation immediately.  You would never see that kind of bravery among today’s leaders; they are more adept at toadying and ingratiating themselves.

Ooi worked hard for his book, interviewing scores of people and reviewing many documents locally and abroad.  There is no shortage of quotes and anecdotes from those who knew Ismail, and Ooi added many details of Tun’s life.  Therein lies the problem.  The essence of the man gets buried in the avalanche of factoid overload.  It does not enlighten us to know that he was awarded the National Order of Vietnam, or that he was president of the American Malaysian Society.

Ooi did not have to quote every interview.  The book could do without the many “He was tough, brilliant, blunt, … ” type of general comments.  They added nothing and took up valuable space.

Two interviewees, Lee Kuan Yew and Ghaffar Baba, stood out; they illuminated well Ismail’s character.  Lee was expounding in his usual erudite and logical manner on a particular issue.  At the end he asked Ismail what he thought about it, and the Tun simply replied, “I disagree!”  Flabbergasted, Lee asked Ismail for his reasons, at which point Ismail remarked that since Lee had so brilliantly enumerated all the salient points there was nothing more for him (Ismail) to add. That reflected supreme self-confidence.  By not trying to “out lawyer” the lawyerly Lee, Ismail stumped him.

Handling Failure Well

Ismail demonstrated his self-confidence early.  He flunked his medical school in Singapore.  Medicine is tough, consequently only the smartest and well motivated would be attracted.  Unfortunately these are also the types who do not handle failure well.

Ismail was the exception.  After being rejected by Hong Kong, he was accepted and succeeded at Melbourne.  He attributed his success there to the superior teaching, as compared to the obviously sloppy style in Singapore.  Interestingly, Ismail let it be known that he bombed his anatomy test in Singapore because on the evening before the examination, he had cut off a man on the cabaret floor.  Unfortunately, that man turned out to be his anatomy instructor!

You have to hand it to Ismail for being on the dance floor instead of the library or the lab before an important examination!

Ismail spent his student life in Australia fully, venturing well beyond the campus, again rather atypical.  Most Malaysians would rather congregate among themselves or rush home during vacations.  In his frequent letters to his father, Ismail would note how conscious Australians were at exercising themselves.  He wondered how much better it would be for Malay girls if they would be similarly involved.  Alas, his observations merely reflected how far detached he was from the lives of ordinary Malays, being a member of the aristocracy.  The girls and women of my life in the kampong did not have to exercise, they spent their waking hours hauling water and firewood, as well as toiling the padi fields.

The second anecdote was from Ghaffar Baba.  He had arranged for Ismail to meet some religious leaders for the purpose of blunting Ismail’s deserved reputation for being aloof as well as to connect him with the grassroots.  At the appointed event, Ismail briskly walked in and headed straight for the podium and began his speech, and then just as briskly walked out after he was finished.  There was no shaking of hands, friendly eye contact, or enquiring about the attendees’ loved ones!  No, Ismail was not a reluctant politician, more a politically tone-deaf one.  It was remarkable that he was so successful.

Ismail was trained as a physician; we are supposed to be sensitive to the human side of things, unlike the engineers.  No wonder Ismail’s private practice in Johore Baru was, in Ooi’s words, “moderately successful.”  This at a time when the country was desperately short of doctors!

Ghaffar Baba and Lee Kuan Yew’s observations are the rare gems in this book.  What impresses (or more correctly, intrigues) me is not the long list of people Ooi interviewed, rather those he did not, most notably Mahathir.  Tawfik, Ismail’s son, recalled an unpleasant encounter with Mahathir when the latter was Prime Minister.  As Ooi noted, Ismail was the one person most opposed to bringing Mahathir back into UMNO’s fold.

I would also love to hear what Anwar Ibrahim and Lim Kit Siang have to say about Ismail.  Both bore the brunt of Ismail’s toughness, having been incarcerated under the ISA while Ismail was in charge of it. Another would be Harun Idris, Selangor’s Chief Minister during the May 1969 riot.  Ismail wanted him arrested on charges of murder!

Pivotal Player in the Nation’s History

Tun Ismail was a pivotal player in the seminal events of the nation’s history, but it would be difficult to discern from this volume what exactly were his contributions.  He talked passionately about improving the economic plight of Malays, but there was hardly any specificity to his ideas, at least as can be gleaned from this book.  He rightly forewarned of the dangers of being dependent with unrestrained special privileges, but again we do not know at what level or passion he pursued that argument.

The best parts of Ooi’s book are the beginning and ending chapters. The book begins with Ismail’s fatal heart attack on August 2, 1973 while he was acting Prime Minister.  Ooi describes the chaotic situation during the medical emergency as well as at the subsequent state funeral.  There was the poignant detail about Tun Razak ordering the body not be buried, as the intended grave was outside the Heroes Tomb.  With the corpse still on the ground, Tun Razak ordered the army to dig a new grave right away.

As an aside, the book carries a picture of the soldiers chiseling the cement floor.  To my clinical eye, none were wearing gloves or safety glasses!  As Tun Razak would remark, you can’t have anything done right!

Ooi packs many details in his first chapter; consequently he could deal with them only superficially.  A few scream out for amplification.  For example, on the day of his death, Tun Ismail’s wife was in the hospital recovering from an abortion and sterilization procedure.  She was not notified of her husband’s death till the next morning.

Having an abortion is not like having your tonsils out; it is emotionally charged, especially for a Muslim.  I would like to know

(from interviewing his widow) whether this was the couple’s joint decision or one where the husband (and in this instance, also the

doctor) knows best.  You do not have to be a psychoanalyst to recognize that how one reacts to stress (especially personal tragedies) can be very revealing.

Tun Ismail was rightly worried about the future of his many young children in view of his ill health and limited financial resources.  If economics were the reason for the abortion, that would be troubling. Only in Russia are the doctors poor.  As a physician, I find it unsettling that a doctor’s wife would have an abortion.  This was the 1970s when birth control pills were already readily available.

This is a highly sensitive matter, and I am not sure the writer could handle such a delicate discussion with Ismail’s widow.  But it would be highly illuminating.

The last chapter carries an extensive excerpt from Ismail’s unpublished autobiography.  The entry was written less than a year before his death.  He was remarkably introspective, unhesitatingly baring himself.  He let it be known how grateful he was that Tun Razak publicly acknowledged his (Ismail’s) many contributions to the nation, and lamented that the Tunku never once did that to Ismail.  Ismail had passionately and tirelessly defended Tunku, especially in the dark days following the 1969 riot when many in UMNO vilified Tunku.  Ismail was not all gruff and emotionless after all; he, like all of us, hungered for and appreciated public praises.

It is clear from the excerpt that Ismail was quite capable of expressing himself well.  He had already written 16 chapters of his

autobiography.  This together with all his letters and speeches could be compiled into a book.  I even have a ready title:  Tun Ismail In His Own Words!  This great patriot does not need a writer to tell his story.  As the custodian of Ismail’s papers, ISEAS needs an editor to organize and publish them.

While waiting for that, ISEAS could digitize those documents and put them on the Web to make them readily accessible.  ISEAS did not pay for them, thus it should be willing to put them in the public domain.  That would also be the best way to preserve and archive those documents. I agree with Ooi that Tun Ismail’s legacy has yet to be discovered. Putting those documents out would be an excellent beginning.

In his will, Ismail specified that these papers not be released until some thirty years after his death, presumably to protect those for whom Ismail had some unkind words.  I do not find anything harsh or offensive in this volume except for the observation Ismail had of his assistant when he was our Ambassador in Washington, DC.  Ismail was greatly relieved when Tuanku Jaafar was transferred out.  Of course no one knew then that he would later be King!

I am surprised that Ismail’s papers ended up in Singapore, considering our prickly relations with that republic.  Looked at another way, that of course is a rousing endorsement of the integrity and professionalism of ISEAS.

In a recent interview, Tawfik remarked that he tried to interest Malaysian institutions and academics but there were no takers.  This speaks volumes on the capability of our institutions and the intellectual curiosity of our scholars.  It is an observation worth

emphasizing.  Tun Ismail may be buried in the Heroes Tomb, but if he knew of the terrible downslide of our nation since his death, he would crawl out of his grave to reprimand those responsible.

                This entry was posted on Monday, 26 March 2007, 8:05 am and is filed under
Economics
,
nation building
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Dark Darker Darkest

Just got this email from LLC:

“I read this on your website – Why Iskandar Development Region will fail by Richard Teo

“How can the IDR attract Singaporeans if this type of news keeps getting published in newspapers in Singapore?

http://newpaper.asia1.com.sg/news/story/0,4136, 125523-1174773540,00.html

JB NIGHTMARE FOR S’POREAN

DARK DARKER DARKEST

DARK:
 Tinted car windows, cops stop him

DARKER:
 He fears they are carjackers & resist arrest

DARKEST:
 He has to strip, sleep sitting up in crowded cell

By Crystal Chan

March 24, 2007

CONFUSION over tinted windows, coupled with his fears of car-jacking landed Singaporean LWSim in a Johor Baru jail.

His is a shocking lesson for Singapore drivers who may not know that tinted windows which meet with the Land Transport Authority’s requirements could get you into trouble in Malaysia.

This is because Malaysia has stricter laws on the amount of light that must be able to pass through tinted car windows.

Mr Sim, 29, found this out the hard way when he refused to let JB police impound his car for further checks. He was arrested and placed in a police lock-up.

The sub-contractor was later charged in court with obstructing justice and jailed a day.

Mr Sim had driven his three-year-old Honda Civic to JB for a shopping trip on 11 Mar.

At about 6.30pm that day, he was approached by a traffic policeman in a carpark near City Square, a shopping complex at Jalan Wong Ah Fook in JB.

He was waiting for his two Malaysian friends, who were withdrawing money from a nearby Maybank branch.

Mr Sim recalled: ‘A uniformed traffic police officer came up to me and told me to drive 5m forward.

‘I did so and I got out of the car to ask him what was the matter. He then told me to go to another man who was standing nearby.’

PLAINCLOTHES

That man turned out to be a plainclothes police officer. He showed Mr Sim his police warrant card.

Mr Sim said: ‘I don’t understand Malay but the card had the word ‘Polis’ on it, and I knew it’s Malay for police.

‘This officer told me that my car wasn’t allowed in Malaysia as it has tinted windows,’ said Mr Sim.

Singapore’s LTA requires the side windows of vehicles to allow in at least 25 per cent of light, compared with 50 per cent for Malaysia.

Last month, another Singaporean, logistics manager Lawrence Lee, 47, was issued a summons for driving to Malacca in a car that had dark windows.

Mr Lee was told the fine would not be more than RM300 ($132).

But Mr Sim was unaware of the law. ‘I’ve been driving to JB at least once a week since I bought the car in 2004 and I haven’t been stopped before,’ he said.

‘I tinted the windows when I bought the car so that I don’t get so much glare from the sun when the weather is hot.’

Things turned ugly when both cops insisted on towing his car to the traffic police headquarters.

A check with JB’s traffic police confirmed that it has the right to impound cars with tinted windows for further checks.

If the amount of tint is against Malaysia’s laws, the driver will be fined when he collects the vehicle.

Mr Sim said he was worried that the men might be from a car-jacking syndicate.

He refused to surrender his car keys and ended up arguing with them.

He said: ‘I thought I’d only be fined. Instead, they wanted to detain my car for 48 hours. They also didn’t give me any documents to show that my car was being impounded.’

Mr Sim’s two Malaysian friends arrived, and the heated exchange continued. All three men ended up being arrested.

A police car arrived and took the men to the JB Selatan police station.

He said: ‘I never doubted they were real cops since they showed me their credentials, but I wasn’t sure if they were good ones.

‘And I never expected the matter to get so serious.’

At the police station, they were told that they were being detained for obstructing justice as they had argued with the cops.

Bail was denied. Mr Sim could only make one phone call, so he called his younger brother.

His car was impounded at the traffic police headquarters, which was some distance away.

The stay in the lock-up was unpleasant.

Mr Sim said: ‘I was ordered to strip to my underwear and kept in a cell with 37 other people. My friends were in separate cells.

‘It was so crowded that there was no space to lie down. I had to sleep in a sitting position but it was hard to sleep as I was worried about what would happen.’

DIDN’T TELL PARENTS

The following morning, Mr Sim’s younger brother, who declined to be named, arrived at the police station.

Mr Sim was due to appear in court that afternoon.

His brother told The New Paper: ‘I didn’t tell our parents about the incident as I didn’t want them to worry.’

He added that he had engaged he met a lawyer at the police stationher to represent his brother.

That afternoon, Mr Sim was charged with obstruction of justice and jailed a day in the same lock-up.

‘The lawyer pleaded for leniency, so I spent only an extra day in the lock-up. Otherwise, I’d be detained longer.’

The New Paper’s checks with the JB police confirmed that MrSim was detained after arguing with the police over the tinted car windows.

They also said that phone calls are not allowed in the lock-up.

The traffic police said it has the authority to impound cars for further checks if officers suspect that the windows were too dark.

The matter did not end with Mr Sim’s release. When he collected his car from the traffic police, he had to pay a RM200 fine for having windows that were tinted above the limit.

Showing us the receipt for the fine, Mr Sim said: ‘The trouble started because of the car windows. But when I was arrested and detained, the car windows became the secondary issue.’

Still, the incident will not stop MrSim from visiting Malaysia.

He said: ‘I’ll just avoid driving there in cars with tinted windows.

‘I’ve also told my friends who own similar cars that they should be careful when driving into Malaysia.’

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 27 March 2007, 11:13 am and is filed under
Police
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Azmi Khalid,  end 3-yr sleeping – gross injustice of Adorna case of forgery and fraudulent land transfer

The Natural Resources and Environment Minister Datuk Seri Azmi Khalid should stop his three-year “sleeping” on the gross injustice of the land law in the country allowing forgery of land titles and fraudulent land transfers and should get Cabinet approval tomorrow to introduce a bill to amend the National Land Code in the current parliamentary meeting to overrule the Federal Court decision on Adorna case.

Last week, the Director-General of Lands and Mines Department,
Datuk Zoal Azha Yusof
, who was promoted to the post last August  from his previous  position as Selangor’s Land and Mines Director, said there is a need to amend the National Land Code (NLC)  to restore property owners’ rights which have been affected by Adorna Properties Sdn Bhd v Boonsom Bunyanit.

Zoal Azha said he would bring up the matter with the Attorney-General.

How long would this process take?  Another two, three or five years?

Such procrastination and insensitivity to the gross injustice created by the Federal Court’s 2001 decision in Adorna case, which interpreted Section 340 of the NLC to  favour innocent buyers of land transferred through forgery or fraud, has destroyed the integrity of land titles, leaving the original owners without any means to recover their land.  It reflects very poorly on a government which claims to be efficient, just and pro-active in allowing a gross injustice in the land law to stay unchallenged   for the past seven years.

The Adorna case is a heart-rending tale which took more than a decade before it finally ended with gross injustice to the rightful owner.

Boonsom, a woman of Thai descent, owned two plots of land in Tanjong Bungah, Penang worth about RM12 million. Unknown to her,  the land was transferred to a company, Adorna Properties,  by an imposter  who in 1989  held herself out as the true owner who had lost the original title to the land and subsequently obtained a certified copy of the title.

Upon discovering the fraud, forgery and deceit, Boonsom went to court to challenge the validity of the transfer of her land to Adorna Properties by the imposter.

The High Court ruled in favour of Adorna in April 1995, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in March 1997, but the Federal Court headed by Eusoff Chin overruled the Court of Appeal  in favour of Adorna in December 2000.  Two unsuccessful attempts had been subsequently made by Boonyanit’s family (as Boonsoom had since died) asking the Federal Court to review the main judgment — in Febrary 2001 and August 2004.

As a result, the current position of the law is that the fraudster and forger is capable of transferring a good title to a purchaser who buys the subject property in good faith and for a valuable consideration — spawning crimes  of forgery of land titles by syndicates compromising the computerized land registration system and implicating “inside people” in the land offices followed by fraudulent land transfers resulting in several registered proprietors and purchasers losing millions of ringgit.

From  what had been reported in the press, landowners who have fallen victim to such forgers and fraudsters, as well as the gross injustice of the land law as laid down by the Federal Court in the Adorna case, easily run into hundreds, and is a nation-wide problem although it is most prevalent in Kuala Lumpur, Selangor, Penang and Johore.

As the Minister responsible for the Land and Mines Department for the past three years, Azmi should explain why he had shut his eyes to such blatant injustice in the land law which nullifies the constitutional guarantee of sanctity of property in Article 13 of the Federal Constitution and why he had never taken up the matter to the Cabinet.

It is also most shocking that in the past seven years of the gross injustice of the Adorna case, not a single Minister had thought it fit or proper to raise it in Cabinet on the urgent need to amend the National Land Code to end the manifest injustice — again providing proof to Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad’s strictures on a “half-past six Cabinet”.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 27 March 2007, 9:31 am and is filed under
Good Governance
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


10 recommendations of Royal Police Commission, like IPCMC,  disappeared into a “black hole”?

As part of the flurry of publicity in conjunction with the 200th anniversary of the Royal Malaysian Police, the Inspector-General of Police Tan Sri Musa Hassan launched an intensive media campaign to present the police in the best possible light, including announcement of  the creation of
a new mission and vision
in line with the recommendations made by the Royal Police Commission, culminating in a call for
a new and better scheme of service for the police which is 20% more in basic salary than any government servant
.

In the media blitz, Musa told
Bernama
 on Saturday that about 90 per cent of the recommendations of the  Police Royal Commission “have been put into action while another four are in the process of being enforced”.

This is at variance with the answer given by the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, who is also Internal Security Minister, to my question in Parliament on Thursday on the status of the implementation of the 125 recommendations of the Royal Police Commission.

Abdullah said that out of the 125 recommendations of the Royal Police Commission, 102 or  82 per cent have been implemented while 23 or 18 per cent are still under detailed consideration.

There is a big difference between the 82 per cent of 125 recommendations cited by the Prime Minister in Parliament and the  90 per cent claimed by  the Inspector-General of Police, which works out to  a difference of 10 recommendations out of 125 recommendations.

Have  these 10 recommendations of Royal Police Commission  like the IPCMC proposal disappeared into a  “black hole” without accountability whatsoever?

Is this another example of the right hand in government not knowing what the left hand is doing — what former Prime Minister Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad had lambasted as the disease of a “half-past six Cabinet”?

This does not speak well of the new mission and vision of the Royal Malaysian Police in accordance with the recommendations of the Royal Police Commission, aimed at creating an efficient, accountable, trustworthy, incorruptible, professional and world-class police force.

If the IGP is serious about  the re-branding of the Royal Malaysian Police not just in name and for publicity purpose  but in real substance and  in terms of a new police ethos, then Musa must take the first step of being fully accountable and transparent about the implementation of the 125 recommendations of the Royal Police Commission, in particular the key recommendation on the establishment of the Independent Police Complaints and Misconduct Commission (IPCMC).

It is nearly two years since the submission of the Royal Police Commission Report and the IGP should issue a full statement on the status of the implementation of the 102 recommendations, why 23 recommendations are still under study and in particular what are the 10 recommendations which seemed to have disappeared into a “blackhole” as the Prime Minister does not know what has happened to them.

I fully support a salary raise for the police service in line with the recommendations of the Royal Police Commission to create an efficient, trustworthy, incorruptible, professional world-class police service to reduce crime and respect human rights but the IGP would have made a better case to the Malaysian public  for a better deal for the police if he had been able to give enthusiastic support to the key Royal Police Commission proposal to establish the IPCMC.

Is the IGP prepared to provide active and enthusiastic support for the immediate establishment of the IPCMC, with necessary modifications from the original proposal of the Royal Police Commission, for if he is not prepared to do so, then all his talk of  a new police mission and vision in line with the recommendations of the Royal Police Commission must be taken with a large pinch of salt.

The Police had arm-twisted Barisan Nasional MPs into opposing the IPCMC proposal although the majority believes that such an external monitoring mechanism into police  abuses of power would be good for both the police force and the country.  Is the Police prepared to withdraw its pressures on the Barisan Nasional MPs to allow them the freedom to support the IPCMC proposal?

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 28 March 2007, 9:41 am and is filed under
Police
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


IRB, It’s time to “think out of the box”

Tam Yeng Siang copied his letter to New Straits Times, as follows:

I wish to refer to the letter by
Ong Wai Leong
, again on the issue of the Income Tax’s inability to repay taxpayers’ tax refunds promptly. So many letters have been published by you on the matter that this proves that something is seriously wrong with the delivery system of the IRB. In spite of the Director General’s recent TV interview, in which she promises such refunds to be made within three months, I would like to say that it’s an impossible dream, as long as the current procedures are not changed, and with it, the concept of Tax refunds at source. Allow me to elaborate.

*First the IRB is vigorously promoting e-filing which is a good thing. But in encouraging e-filing, has the IRB considered those who never use computers and ICT in their daily business?

*Second, in order for the IRB to effect refunds arising from dividends paid to individuals, the IRB requires the original dividend vouchers to be sent BY POST to Pandan Indah. These vouchers must be original, and must be verified individually by assessment officers, either against the E-forms, or the BE forms submitted manually together with the original vouchers. As long as the manual process of verification and authorisation is required, it is near impossible for the IRB to do this onerous task within a three month period, year in and year out.

*So, the way out of this mess is to re-think the issue of tax on individual dividends completely. Many years ago, the IRB made a very good decision to resolve the problem of taxpayers not declaring fixed deposit incomes in their yearly forms. They made the banks deduct a fixed rate of tax from the Interest incomes, and the banks then sent the taxes to the IRB directly. This decision had 2 positive effects. Moneys formerly hidden under pillows found their way to the banks, and the IRB found a relatively straightforward way of collecting tax from Interest income.

*For Dividend payments made to the individuals, the IRB can instruct the corporations to collect, say, just 5-10% of tax, remit the tax to the IRB, and refund the balance to the Individual taxpayer. The refunds can be easily made by the corporations at the same time the dividends are paid.

*With the corporations playing the IRB’s refund role (like the banks become collectors for tax on FD interest), the IRB at one stroke, will have solved the problem of needlessly verifying millions of original vouchers sent by post, and the IRB/POS Malaysia losing some of them. At this moment in time, if IRB loses the taxpayer’s original vouchers, the taxpayer is the only party to suffer a loss!

We must think ‘out of the box’ on a problem that sees no end, as evidenced by the almost daily complaints in the media. In this case of refunds of “tax at source”, if Muhammad does not go to the mountain, the Mountain must come to Muhammad

The letter by Ong Wai Leong referred to is as follows:

Income Tax: Don’t make us beg for a refund>

28 Mar 2007

ONG WAI LEONG, Penang

MUCH has been said of the delivery system of the Employees Provident Fund as well as the Immigration Department’s high-tech machines to speed up passport renewal, but sad to note the Inland Revenue Board is still not in line with progress.

I retired in 2000 and was subsequently informed there was a tax refund due to me.

Till today, I have yet to be reimbursed despite the fact that I have made no less than 10 trips to the department to resolve this matter.

Each time, I am asked to fill in a form supposedly to facilitate the refund.

I cannot help but feel short-changed on this matter, largely because it makes me feel like I am begging for something which is mine.

This is too long for anyone to wait because the taxpayer may not be around for much longer and the reasons given are indeed not acceptable.

My worst experience was before Chinese New Year this year, where I expressed my plight to an officer.

I told him that the money would indeed come in handy as I am a retiree.

The reply was cold without even a word of concern.

IRB must show empathy in this pressing issue and do us a favour. Don’t make retired folks beg for our tax refund.

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 28 March 2007, 11:32 am and is filed under
Good Governance
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


With MUST regarded as success, what hope for future of quality higher education?

In response to my query during the 2007 budget debate on the Higher Education Ministry in Parliament on December 5 last year, Higher Education Minister Datuk Mustapha Muhamad held up  Malaysia University of Science and Technology (MUST) as an example of a successful “smart partnership” with an “international centre of excellence in research”, i.e. Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT).

Mustapha was clearly misinformed or he had misled Parliament, for a week later, he was reported as saying that the  government was taking a hard look at the future of MUST,  as the enrolemnt of the  post-graduate university had  dwindled and was  operating with about 10 students left. MUST boasted research tie-ups with the world-renowned  MIT when it opened in 2002.

I could not believe my eyes this morning when I read Mustapha’s reply to my question asking for the reasons for the failure of MUST despite government support, to the tune of  at least RM100 million, and its “smart partnership” with MIT.

Mustapha’s reply raises the larger question as to what hope is there for the future of quality higher education in Malaysia when the Higher Education Minister  is still stuck in denial –  continuing to regard MUST as a successful example of international  “smart partnership” when  it is a major  flop with  MIT washing its hands of any “collaboration”!

This is Mustapha’s reply:

“Untuk makluman Ahli Yang Berhormat, Universiti Sains dan Teknologi Malaysia (MUST) tidak gagal seperti yang didakwa oleh Ahli Yang Berhormat Ipoh Timur kerana sehingga Disember 2006, jumlah keseluruhan enrolmen pelajar di MUST adalah seramai 69 orang.

“Daripada jumlah ini, sebanyak 13 pelajar telahpun menyelesaikan tesis mereka dan sedang menunggu pengesahan rasmi berhubung dengan tarikh graduasi daripada Lembaga Penilai Akademik MUST, manakala sebanyak 18 pelajar mengambil “leave of absence” (maksimum selama 2 semester) daripada pengajian. Sehingga kini MUST telah diberikan kelulusan untuk mengendalikan 9 kursus pengajian iaitu 7 program di peringkat Sarjana dan 2 program di peringkat kedoktoran yang merangkumi di dalam bidang kejuruteraan, pengangkutan dan bioteknologi

“Kementerian Pengajian Tinggi sentiasa memantau kemajuan prestasi semua institusi di bawahnya termasuk MUST dalam semua aspek terutamanya dari segi jumlah pelajar yang memohon mengikuti pengajian di institusi tersebut dan jumlah pelajar bergraduat.”

The prime mover behind MUST was Datuk Effendi Norwawi, whose private investment holding company, Kuching-based Encorp Group Sdn. Bhd. formed a consortium with the Selangor State Government to establish MUST Ehsan Foundation to enter into the collaboration with MIT to establish the post-graduate university.

MUST was conceived to create “a pool of technology experts, an essential ingredient to attaining the national objectives under Vision 2020”. It aimed to have 500 students in five years and 5,000 students in 10 years.

Instead, according to Mustapha, we have MUST which had a total enrolment of only 69 post-graduate students in the past five years since its establishment in 2002, and it is now left with 38 post-graduate students in nine  academic programmes — a far cry from the target of 500 students in five years by 2007!

A full and satisfactory explanation on MUST by Mustapha is clearly warranted, and there is no better place for him to do this than during his winding-up next week  in the current parliamentary debate on the Royal Address, when he should also explain the outcome of the “hard look” which he had asked a group of experts to undertake last year  on the future of MUST.

Equally pertinent is also the future success of the Ninth Malaysia Plan, as Effendi is the Minister in charge of ensuring the success of the RM220 billion Ninth Malaysia Plan. It is horrendous to think what would happen if the Ninth Malaysia Plan goes the way of MUST!

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 28 March 2007, 2:49 pm and is filed under
Education
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Adorna, post-Adorna, Adorna-like injustices and malpractices in Land Offices

Two days ago, I had issued a statement calling on the  Natural Resources and Environment Minister Datuk Seri Azmi Khalid to
stop sleeping on his job
as he had neither done nor  said a single word in his three years as Minister in charge of the land portfolio about the gross injustice of the land law which allowed  forgery and fraudulent  issue and fraudulent transfer  of land titles, with hundreds of landowners who have become victims running into tens or even hundreds of millions of ringgit.

It is common sense  that an innocent purchaser cannot obtain good title from an impostor, impersonator or forger.  Very importantly, a forger cannot pass title by using a fraudulently procured document of title so that even a subsequent innocent purchaser does not get any good title.

However, in land law, as a result of the 2001 Federal Court decision in
Adorna Properties Sdn Bhd v Boonsom Bunyanit
, there is now a shocking exception — with Section 340 of the National Land Code (NLC) interpreted to  favour innocent buyers of land transferred through forgery or fraud, which  has destroyed the integrity of land titles and the sanctity of property, leaving the original owners without any means to recover their land.

When Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi became Prime Minister, he issued a “wake up call” to all land offices telling them to buck up to do justice to the rightful landowners.

Why has Azmi as the Minister in charge of the land office in the past three years failed to take any action to end the gross injustice in the Adorna case, at least to stop any post-Adorna development with hundreds of landowners falling victim to fraudsters, forgers, impostors and impersonators becoming the “new Adornas”  by amending the National Land Code?

I have today another batch of cases involving gross injustices in land administration — involving some 280 plots of land, both residential and agricultural, which  changed hands without the knowledge of the landowners in Ulu Yam, Selangor.

Low Kim Chai and 15 other landowners in Ulu Yam are among the complainants that their plots were transferred to family members and relatives of a local MCA leader and another former village head without their knowledge.

Their predicaments were quite similar with the 18 landowners in Kapar, where plots of land given to them under the Rancangan Buku Hijau (Green revolution) were transferred to a local MCA Datuk without their knowledge (Malay Mail cover story, 19 March 2005).

The local land office officials have told the villagers about the bad news but they were unable to give details relating to the respective new landowners. Some of the landowners have made police reports. They have given the names of the suspected MCA leaders to the police. The police were urged to start investigations immediately as the scam involves so many villagers and landowners but there was no response from the police until today.

The victims were subsequently brought to the Selangor Menteri Besar’s office as well as the public complaints bureau in Shah Alam. Following the complaint, the letter, Encik Tukiman (the land office chief) confirmed that some of the victims’ plots had  indeed changed hands but  he too failed to give further details except confirming that the name of the alleged MCA local leader Tan Kim Peing was indeed in the list of “new ” landowners. But there was no action taken against Tan by either the authority or his party, MCA.

Reports to the Anti-Corruption Agency (ACA) were also a waste of time and effort, bringing no results.

Azmi should explain why there is so much hanky-panky, abuses of power and even corruption nvolving the Land Office, which is regarded by Malaysians as one of the government departments topping  the list of “most corrupt” departments.

I call on Azmi to give a full statement on these cases of injustices in land administration and law in the country, starting with his reply in Parliament next week during the winding-up of the debate on the Royal Address.

When is Azmi going to implement  the Prime Minister’s directive that  the Land Office to “buck up” and “clean up” so that  it would no more be regarded as one of the top “corrupt” government departments in the country — to end the injustices and malpractices of the Adorna, post-Adorna and Adorna-like cases in land administration.

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 29 March 2007, 3:44 pm and is filed under
Corruption
,
Good Governance
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


New Police Vision re-branding – proof of pudding in the eating

The Inspector-General of Police, Tan Sri Musa Hassan should declare whether the Police would accept the  Suhakam inquiry findings that excessive police  force was used against protesters at the KLCC demo  on May 28 last year on petrol and power price hikes and whether disciplinary action would be taken against the errant police personnel.

The findings of the Suhakam public inquiry, which was made public last Friday, will be an acid test as to whether Musa is serious and not just indulging in a publicity stunt when he announced during the 200th Royal Malaysia Police (RMP) anniversary celebrations that the police is being rebranded with a
new vision
and mission to implement the 125 recommendations of the Royal Police Commission to create an efficient, incorruptible, accountable, trustworthy, professional world-class police service.

The deadline for Recommendation 2 of the Royal Police Commission to “Review and refine the Vision Statement” was August 2005 — which means that the RMP has lagged nearly 20 months behind this time-line.

Among the proposals by the Royal Police Commission for the review and refinement of the Police Vision are “to reflect the need for police personnel to respect and uphold human rights in view of the allegations of abuse of human rights”.

Musa should tell  Malaysians whether in the rebranded police Vision, the Royal Police Commission’s specific proposal that it  expressly incorporate the principle “Respecting and upholding human rights as provided for in the Federal Constitution and the laws of Malaysia”  has been accepted.

As the proof of the pudding is in the eating, Musa should declare whether he is serious about a new rebranded Police Vision which respects and upholds human rights by accepting the Suhakam public inquiry findings that excessive force was used against a group of protesters at the KLCC last year, resulting in 10 people being injured.

In Suhakam’s 355-page report of the public inquiry into the incident on May 28 last year, which was released yesterday, the panel found that
excessive force
was used on an otherwise peaceful assembly.

The report said excessive force was used on 10 persons and identified L/Kpl Mustika Lambonding as being the Federal Reserve Unit (FRU) officer who hit one of the demonstrators, Lee Huat Seng, with his baton.

However, witnesses were unable to identify the other officers because there was no identification (either names or badge number) due to the outer protective armour covering their uniforms (that had nametags).

The
findings of the Suhakam  inquiry
included:

	Excessive force by some members of the police force;

	The crowd had started to disperse when the water cannon was activated and the police charged after them and Federal Reserve Unit (FRU) personnel and police officers used force on the crowd;

	The assembly was a peaceful one and the actions and speeches did not incite or cause a breach of peace or violence; and

	The provisions of section 27 of the Police Act 1967 that requires a licence for assemblies and the phrase “prejudicial to the interest of the security of Malaysia” went against the right to freedom of assembly enshrined in Article 10 of the Constitution.

Suhakam Inquiry  chairman
Datuk K.C. Vohrah
said the assembly at KLCC was peaceful and orderly and that the police, in dispersing the assembly, had interfered with the right to the freedom of assembly that was enshrined in Article 10 of the Federal Constitution.

Vohrah said the heart of the panel’s recommendations was the decriminalising of peaceful assembly without a licence under section 27 of the Police Act and the call for the repeal of related subsections.

Vohrah said: “In lieu of the requirement for a licence, the panel recommends that the organiser of a proposed peaceful assembly notify the police, and the police and organiser discuss practical arrangements.”

The report’s recommendations added that the rights of any person engaged in lawful advocacy, protest or dissent are not limited by any authority and it should also be ensured that such rights would not be considered as prejudicial to national security.

The report also outlined a number of steps that it recommended the police implement urgently, such as wearing clear identification during crowd control, and prohibiting the chasing and arresting of people who are moving or have moved away.

The ball is in the court of the  Inspector-General of Police that the rebranded Vision and Mission is in conformity with  the Royal Police Commission recommendation that respect for human rights be adopted as one of the top core priorities of the RMP — which is now being fleshed out specifically by the Sukaham inquiry findings into the excessive use of police force in the  May 28  peaceful demonstration last year.

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 29 March 2007, 10:28 am and is filed under
Human Rights
,
Police
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Corruption of our history books

(Thanks S.L. for the following write-up by JA)

Knowledge of our roots will benefit us

IN very recent times, the starting date for the study of Malaysian history in the schools has been conveniently fixed around 1400 C.E. It probably coincides with the founding of the Sultanate of Malacca by Parameswara.

Today, Malaysian school children only learn a little bit about the early Proto Malays and then are conveniently taken on a historical quantum leap to the founding of Malacca.

Early Indian works speak of a fantastically wealthy place called Savarnadvipa, which meant “land of gold”. This mystical place was said to lie far away, and legend holds that this was probably the most valid reason why the first Indians ventured across the Bay of Bengal and arrived in Kedah around 100 B.C.

Apart from trade, the early Indians brought a pervasive culture, with Hinduism and Buddhism sweeping through the Indo-Chinese and Malay archipelago lands bringing temples and Indian cultural traditions. The local chiefs began to refer to themselves as “rajahs” and also integrated what they considered the best of Indian governmental traditions with the existing structure.

I learnt Malayan history in the 1950s and taught it in the 1960s and 1970s in secondary schools. All the history textbooks at the time had the early Indian connection specifically mentioned in them. Teachers of that period taught about the early Indianised kingdoms of Langkasuka, Sri Vijaya and Majapahit that existed from as early as 100 C.E.

Anyone can see that Parameswara, the founder of Malacca, has a clearly give-away name that points to the Indian/Hindu influence. No one can deny this, and all our children need to know about this. They have the fundamental right to learn about this aspect of our history too.

Why don’t our children learn about these early Indian connections today? It needs mention here that this early Indian connection has nothing to do with the much later cheap Indian “coolie” labour influx that the British brought over to man the railways and plantations of Malaya from the late 19th century onwards.

The Malay language as we know it today is already fully impregnated and enriched with many foreign words. This is good. Malay, therefore, has been a bahasa rojak from early times itself.

Rojak itself (and also cendul) is a Malaysian food developed by an Indian Malayalee Muslim community known as the Malabaris who hailed from Kerala. They were also referred to as kakas. We now wrongly credit the Penang mamaks for this great food.

The only other bahasa rojak that can beat the Malay language in the matter of foreign word assimilation is the English language because it has “polluted” itself with words from just about every civilisation that exists or existed in this world.

The very word “Melayu” itself is most probably of Indian origin from the words “Malai Ur”, which means land of mountains in Tamil. Singapur, Nagapur and Indrapur are very common Indian names that have similar backgrounds.

The early Indians were probably inspired by the main mountain range that looks like a backbone for the Malay peninsula and thus named it Malaiur. The word “malai” is undoubtedly Indian in origin as is the case with the word Himalayas and we all know where it is situated.

The English word “Malaya” is a further corruption of the word by the British who themselves are very good at corrupting the pronunciation and spelling of and changing the names of indigenous places worldwide to suit their tongue’s capability. The Malay word “Melayu” with the missing “r” is closer to the original name “Malaiur”.

To my knowledge, the hundreds of Malay words of Indian origin have not been catalogued by anyone except perhaps the noted Malay scholar Zaaba. Even if such an effort has been made, it is definitely not widely known or ever published.

Many Malay words, from describing Malay royalty (Raja, Putera, Puteri, Maha, Mulia, Seri, etc) and common everyday terms (bakti, suami, cuma, dunia, bumi, jendela, serpu, kerana), all have Indian connections. The undeniable Indian connection in the word “Indonesia” is also reflected in the name itself.

The Indian factor that influences even the prevailing Malay culture in terms of music, food, dress and certain other everyday practices like betel chewing and bersanding is another thing over which a loud hush prevails. Why?

Such knowledge of the roots of this great country, be they Indian, Chinese, Arab or whatever, can indeed very strongly facilitate the ongoing efforts of the Government to make our children think of themselves as Bangsa Malaysia more easily and more readily.

                This entry was posted on Friday, 30 March 2007, 7:05 am and is filed under
Education
,
nation building
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.