When a judge is plainly wrong

When a judge is plainly wrong, especially when he claims to interpret the obvious, it is not wrong for any right thinking member of the public to cricitize him.

by N H Chan

In the New Sunday Times of April 19, 2009 there appears this astonishing remark (because it is erroneous in law) which was attributed to a Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department:

KUALA KANGSAR: Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Datuk Sen Mohammed Nazri Abdul Aziz has hit out at Perak DAP chairman Datuk Ngeh Koo Ham for questioning a Federal Court ruling pertaining to Perak.

He said Ngeh should not question the court’s decision that Perak state assembly Speaker V Sivakumar did not have the power to suspend Mentri Besar Datuk Zambry Abdul Kadir and six Barisan Nasional (BN) state executive council members from attending the state assembly sittings. They were suspended for unprofessional conduct early this month.

There was no question of the judiciary interfering in the legislature as claimed by Ngeh as the courts were the best place to seek
interpretation of the Constitution
 or law, he told reporters.

Nazri said
the law did not intend to equip a speaker of a legislative assembly with unrestricted authority.

(the emphasis is supplied by me).

Everyone knows that Ngeh was talking about Article 72 (1) ofthe Federal Constitution which states:

72.
 (1) The validity of any proceedings in the Legislative Assembly of any State shall not be questioned in any court.

But what the Minister was saying is that “the courts were the best place to seek interpretation of the Constitution”. Now I ask the readers, do you, as a member of the general public, need a judge to interpret Article 72, Clause (1) above? But when the judges were asked to apply Clause (1) of Article 72, as we have recently observed, they have blatantly refused to apply the constitutional provision as it stands. We know that the words mean what they say. According to the dictionary the word “interpret” means “explain the meaning of”. I don’t think we need the Federal Court or any court to explain the meaning of Article 72 to us – the meaning is plain enough for us ordinary Malaysians to understand. No one in his right senses would attempt to interpret the obvious meaning of the words in Article 72(1), unless he wants to say the words mean something else as Humpty Dumpty did in Lewis Carrol:
Through the Looking Glass, 6 Humpty Dumpty
:

“I don’t know what you mean by ‘glory'” Alice said.

Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. “Of course you don’t – till I tell you. I meant ‘there’s a nice knock-down argument for you!'”

“But ‘glory’ doesn’t mean ‘a nice knock-down argument,’ ” Alice objected.

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less”

“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”

“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master – that’s all.”

Alice was too much puzzled to say anything;

Then, like Humpty Dumpty, Nazri made this amazingly naive statement: “the law – [meaning Article 72(1)] – did not intend to equip a speaker of a legislative assembly with unrestricted authority”. But that was not the point of what Ngeh said. So what if the speaker was wrong on what he did or said or ordered in the legislative assembly? The supreme law of the land says that “The validity of any proceedings in the Legislative Assembly of any State shall not be questioned in any court”. This could only mean that all differences which occurred in the legislative assembly could only be resolved by the assembly within the assembly itself. The validity of any proceedings in the Assembly is beyond the reach of the courts – so said the Constitution of Malaysia. The “law” does not mean, as the Minister wanted it to mean, that it “did not intend to equip a speaker of a legislative assembly with unrestricted authority”. Like Alice, the general public were too much puzzled by such a naive remark.

Anyway, why should a judge be afraid of criticism of his judgment if he has done nothing wrong and he is only doing his duty to administer justice according to law? Judges do not fear criticism, nor do they resent it: see
R. v Metropolitan Police Commissioner, ex parte Blackburn
 (No. 2) [1968] 2 Q.B. 150, at p 155 where Lord Denning said: “We do not fear criticism, nor do we resent it”.

This is because “justice is not a cloistered virtue: she must be allowed to suffer the scrutiny and respectful, even though outspoken, comments of ordinary men”. In the Privy Council case of
Ambard v. Attorney-General for Trinidad and Tobago
 [1936] A.C. 322, this was what Lord Atkin said, at p. 335:

“. . . whether the authority and position of an individual judge, or the due administration of justice, is concerned, no wrong is committed by any member of the public who exercises the ordinary right of criticising, in good faith, in private or public, the public act done in the seat of justice. The path of criticism is a public way: the wrong-headed are permitted to err therein; provided that members of the public abstain from imputing improper motives to those taking part in the administration of justice, and are genuinely exercising a right of criticism, and not acting in malice or attempting to impair the administration of justice, they are immune. Justice is not a cloistered virtue: she must be allowed to suffer the scrutiny and respectful, even though outspoken, comments of ordinary men.”

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 22 April 2009, 9:09 pm and is filed under
Constitution
,
Judiciary
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Election Commission –  explain strange/extraordinary behaviour, reinforcing public suspicions about its independence, professionalism and integrity

At its
meeting
 with political parties today, the  Election Commission should explain its recent strange and extraordinary  behaviour which only reinforce public suspicions about its independence, professionalism and integrity.

The Election Commission is acting more and more as a mouthpiece and appendage of the Barisan Nasional government instead of being a non-partisan, professional and independent Election Commission as mandated by the Constitution  to conduct free, fair and clean elections to give meaning to the system of parliamentary democracy in Malaysia.

For instance, the Election Commission should explain its strange and unprecedented behaviour in not announcing the  nomination and polling dates for the Penanti by-election although the Election Commission  met on the matter yesterday.

In my 43 years of political and electoral experience, I have not come across another instance where the Election Commission failed to announce the dates for general election or by-election on the very same day after it had held a special meeting on it.

This was also the case with the five by-elections held after the March general election last year.

The nomination and polling dates for Permating Pauh by-election were announced on August 6, 2008, those of Kuala Terengganu by-election on Dec. 5, 2008,  Bukit Gantang and Bukit Selambau on 13th February and Batang Ai on March 4 – all immediately on the same day after the Election Commission had a meeting on the filling of the vacancies.

Secondly, the Election Commission chairman
Tan Sri Abdul Aziz Mohd Yusuf
  had announced last week that the Election Commission  would meet yesterday on the Penanti by-election and would announce its decision tomorrow.

Why has this announcement been suddenly
put off
to Monday?

Is the Election Commission waiting for a signal from the Umno Supreme Council meeting tomorrow night on how to handle the Penanti by-election issue, as the Prime Minister and Umno President, Datuk Seri Najib Razak has indicated unwillingness  for Umno and Barisan to contest in view of the losing streak of Barisan Nasional and Umno in by-elections after last year’s political tsunami?

There has been speculation that attempts would be made by Umno quarters to persuade former Penanti State Assemblyman Mohammad Fairus Khairuddin to repudiate his resignation letter to avoid having to hold a by-election.

Whether such speculation is true or otherwise, why is the Election Commission acting in so strange and suspicious a manner as to give fodder to  public perceptions about its lack of independence, professionalism and integrity?

Recently, both the Chairman and his deputy, Datuk Wan Ahmad Wan Omar had been joining the chorus of Barisan Nasional leaders in talking about “unnecessary by-elections”.

The Election Commission should explain to political parties today what it understands by “unnecessary” by-elections.

Is the Election Commission seriously suggesting that apart from cases of death, disqualification of the Member of Parliament or State Assembly member  because of bankruptcy, unsound mind, criminal conviction or acquisition of  foreign  citizenship, all resignations by elected representative will cause “unnecessary by-elections” and should be barred such as fines amounting to RM100,000 or above?

The Election Commission should be mindful that it is straying into areas which is none of its business, as it is specifically mandated by the Constitution to conduct free, fair and clean elections which it has failed to do so far.

However, if Election  Commission wants to be a “moral guardian” of elected representatives, why is the Election Commission exercising double standards by closing its eyes and condoning the defection of the three “political frogs” in Perak, viz. Perak Assembly members, Jelapang assemblywoman Hee Yit Foong, Behrang assemblyman Jamaluddin Mohd Radzi and Changkat Jering assemblyman Mohd Osman Mohd Jail who dared not appear publicly or return to their constituencies for close to three months because of their betrayal of the trust of the electorate?

Can the Election Commission also explain whether it regards as “unnecessary by-election” if:

The Barisan Nasional MP for Kulai, Datuk Seri Ong Ka Ting wants to resign because he has lost “heart” and interest to continue as the MP for the area after the MCA’s thrashing in the March general election political tsunami last year, so that the people of Kulai can decide who should be their new MP who could do full justice as their MP? Or

If one of the 18 disaffected Umno State Assemblyman in Terengganu wants to resign to force the resignation of the Terengganu Mentri Besar  Datuk Ahmad Said?

Finally, let the Election Commission explain to political parties whether it is aware that it is treading on the constitutional rights of MPs and Assemblymen to resign and any attempt to bar such resignation will require a constitutional amendment in view of Article 51 of the Constitution giving a Member of Parliament unfettered rights to submit his or her  resignation.

The Election Commission should be aware that its political masters, the Barisan Nasional, does not have the requisite two-thirds majority in Parliament to amend the Constitution at its whim and fancy.

There are more important and pertinent issues for the Election Commission to give top priority – firstly, to revamp election laws and electoral system to ensure we have a truly clean, free and fair electoral system and secondly, restore public confidence in the independence, professionalism and integrity of the Election Commission and that it is not just at the beck and call of the Barisan Nasional government!

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 23 April 2009, 10:59 am and is filed under
Elections
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Parliamentary Roundtable on Indira Ghandi and forced conversion of her 3 children – if Tsu Koon cannot deliver “Performance Now”

The exasperation of the President of the  Malaysian Consultative Council of Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Sikhism and Taoism, Datuk A. Vaithilingam at the lack of action of the “Performance Now” Cabinet, and in particular the KPI Monitor  Minister In the Prime Minister’s Department, Tan Sri Dr. Koh Tsu Koon over the injustices in the latest case of controversial and oppressive conversion is understandable.

As Vaithilingam lamented: :”Everyone is very sympathetic. There is no use being sympathetic if it is mere sympathy without action.”

We are giving Tsu Koon another week to deliver the “Performance Now” motto of the Najib government to end the injustices suffered by kindergarten teacher from Ipoh, M. Indira Ghandi, 35, and her three children, Tevi Darsiny, 12, Karan Dinish 11 and year-old baby Prasana Diksa or a Parliamentary Roundtable will be convened to demand justice for such victims of controversial and oppressive conversions.

In the past week, the three-man “Performance Now” Cabinet Committee, headed by Koh, to resolve the Indira Ghandi issue, has expanded to five Ministers – with the Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department for Law and Parliament, Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz and the Minister for Women, Family and Community Development, Datuk Seri Shahrizat Abdul Jalil joining the original three Ministers – Koh, Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department on Islamic Affairs, Datuk Jamil Khir Baharom and the Human Resources Minister, Datuk Dr. S. Subramaniam.

However, there are no signs that the  expansion of the three-man “Performance Now” Cabinet committee can contribute to any faster performance!

The immediate solution sought for the illegal and oppressive conversion of Indira Ghandi’s three children by her estranged husband K. Pathmanathan who had converted to Islam to become Ridzuan Abdullah are:

Immediate return of baby Prasana Diksa to Indira;

Iron-clad guarantees that her two children, Tevi Darsiny and Karan Dinesh can continue schooling without any interference with their religious rights from any quarter – very urgent as Tevi is preparing for her UPSR; and

Cabinet stand that there should be no forcible and oppressive conversion of children below 18 to another religion unless both parents agree; and that no single parent from a civil marriage has the right to convert the children to another religion until the civil court decides on divorce, custody and alimony.

This is not the first time such heart-wrenching cases occurred where irresponsible people used religion to evade their family responsibilities and commitments.

There had been a long list of unresolved controversies since 2005, from Moorthy to Subashini, Rayappan and now Indira Ghandi.

A Parliamentary Roundtable will be the occasion to revisit the host of these unresolved cases.

The rights and wrongs are very simple and straightforward. Why is the Barisan Nasional government taking five long years and still unable to resolve the injustices caused by irresponsible conversion of non-Muslims who are married through civil laws to evade obligations contracted in civil law marriages?

This is now an acid test for the five-member Najib  Cabinet committee whether “Performance Now” motto is an empty and meaningless slogan, which should be replaced with “No Performance Now”.

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 23 April 2009, 1:54 pm and is filed under
Najib Razak
,
Religion
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Public Forum: Can Najib Deliver His Reform Promises?

Date: 23 April 2009 (Thursday)

Time: 8pm

Venue: Level 1, KL-Selangor Chinese Assembly Hall, Jalan Maharajalela, Kuala Lumpur.

Panellists: Ooi Kee Beng, Datuk Zaid Ibrahim, Tunku Abdul Aziz

Enquiry: Faisal Mustaffa 03-79806571 /
[email protected]

(The forum is organised in conjunction with the launch of Research for Social Advancement (REFSA) [an independent non-profit organisation aimed at encouraging open discussion and input into public policy issues] latest publication,
Arrested Reform: The Undoing of Abdullah Badawi
by
Ooi Kee Beng.
)

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 23 April 2009, 10:43 am and is filed under
Announcement
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Rulers must not lord over us

By
TUNKU ABDUL AZIZ
,

22 April 200
9

MySinchew

UNEASY LIES THE HEAD THAT WEARS A CROWN – William Shakespeare’s Henry the Fourth.

“The role of the constitutional monarchy goes beyond what is stipulated in the constitution. The rulers have a far wider responsibility in ensuring that the spirit of the constitution, the philosophy behind the written law, and the interest of the country and the people are safeguarded at all times.” – Sultan Azlan Shah.

I am sad to note that there are among us those who have chosen to interpret Sultan Azlan Shah’s rendering of the role of the constitutional monarchy as an example of our rulers seeking to act outside the remit of their constitutional authority. A ruler naturally cannot act arbitrarily, for example, by ignoring any of the provisions of the constitution without inviting formal strictures.

The Sultan of Perak was making a distinction between the formal functions of a Malay ruler as set out in the constitution of his state and his traditional duties as a hereditary ruler. A ruler of a Malay state is, therefore, more than a constitutional creation; he is the embodiment of all that is noble, virtuous, fair and just. Many rulers naturally have not lived up to these ideals, but, on balance, it can be fairly argued that they are conscious of their duty to their people. They have a duty that goes beyond the constitutional framework which has neither spirit nor soul and which only a wise and caring ruler can give.

Sultan Azlan Shah is right to remind us and himself in particular that as a ruler he is above politics. We would not have it any other way. It is unfortunate that his handling of what I call the Perak Affair has given rise to suspicions that he was not above politics. The presence of Najib in the palace ostensibly as the UMNO state liaison chief was all grist to the rumour mill. To crown it all, he was the deputy prime minister, and not some common garden variety Perak politician.

No one underestimated his political clout. This in turn produced an unstoppable chain of unsavoury bush telegraph messages, all claiming irrefutable inside information that the Sultan had been bought by Najib.

All extremely unfortunate, but for me, what was unpardonable, in this day and age, is the total absence of any explanation by the palace why the menteri besar’s request for fresh elections had been so summarily and cavalierly rejected, with indecent haste.

Palaces the world over no longer behave as they used to in dealing with information of public interest. Buckingham Palace is a case in point. The Queen of England does not presume that what she does is entirely her own affair. The Perak palace should be prepared to put all of its decisions on political matters under the closest public scrutiny. It is said nowadays that father no longer has all the answers, and even a ruler as learned as Sultan Azlan Shah is not infallible.

I now turn to a consideration of what rulers have to do in order to earn the love and respect of their subjects. First, they must uphold the dignity of their position by behaving in ways that will set them apart from the rest of us, as models of decency, honour and rectitude. This means, in effect, that they must set high moral and ethical standards of behaviour for themselves in keeping with their anointed role in life.

A ruler must, for example, steer clear of any involvement in partisan politics. Equally unacceptable in the eyes of their subjects is for sultans and their royal children to reduce themselves to being supplicants – petitioning politicians for land and government projects.

There is no quicker way of losing their self-worth than by their being seen to be behaving in this way. There is no difference, then, between the rulers and the ruled. Rulers have to make up their minds whether they want to rule over us or to compete with us their humble subjects for business handouts from corrupt politicians.

I wish to assure all the Malay rulers that when I have occasion to disagree with them on issues of state, there is no wish on my part, to use the Sultan of Perak’s words as reported in the New Straits Times, “to provoke them (the people) into dismantling the system and institution as this could create chaos in the country.” Even though I may be a million miles from any throne, in a manner of speaking, I am one of you, and why would I want to destroy an institution that is still in working order?

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 23 April 2009, 8:16 am and is filed under
Constitution
,
Tunku Abdul Aziz
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


The truth about Malaysia

The truth about Malaysia

The efforts of civil society and alternative media have strived to show Malaysia in its true, anti-democratic light

Malik Imtiaz Sarwar

guardian.co.uk,

Wednesday 22 April 2009

Architects of autocracies would benefit tremendously from studying the Malaysian model. It stands as a shining example of how, given the right combination of greed, ambition, maladministration and contempt for the rule of law, any democracy can be recast into an autocracy while preserving the veneer of democratic process.

At the time of its independence in 1957, Malaysia’s written constitution embedded the separation of powers and the freedoms so crucial to its checks and balances. But the vested interests of a hegemonic political elite has, over time, caused the system to mutate into one of rule by law that threatens the continued sustainability of the nation.

This is easy enough for anyone to see. The statute books contain a plethora of anti-democratic laws that are designed for, and applied to, one end: the regulation of information and opinion. This has allowed the suborning of a voter base much weakened by a divisive system of race politics; voters already made to feel that they should be voting one way rather than the other are not given the means to make an informed choice.

This has allowed a semblance of democracy, even though the democratic process has been subverted.

There is no other way of explaining the continued existence of laws that vest power in the government to detain without trial for extended periods of time, or to subjectively regulate the print media or to brings charges for sedition and criminal defamation. These laws not only impede free access to vital information, they allow the suppression of legitimate dissent, a process aided by a seeming willingness on the part of key institutions of the state, such as the judiciary and the police force, to serve the interests of the government in such ways as they can. The police routinely clamp down on opposition rallies and NGO demonstrations while the judiciary cannot be relied upon to defend civil liberties.

When confronted about any of this, the government points to the electoral process and its consistent return to power. It sidesteps the extent to which it attempts to keep the voter ignorant or scared. It meets complaints about the system with defensiveness, even hostility, due to its inability to meaningfully justify its position and its unwillingness to respond to popular sentiment.

Fighting back has centred on efforts to increase access to information.

In the general election of March 2008, the incumbent political coalition took a beating. It lost its two-thirds majority in parliament and lost control over four of the 13 states in which it had previously formed government. This was largely due to the unflagging and courageous efforts of civil society and the alternative media. A ragtag group of activists, bloggers and independent news sites strived to offer a different and more truthful view of Malaysia, while making Malaysians aware it was time for them to take ownership of the issues at hand.

Many of those involved were people I had come to know over the last decade or so in my work as an activist as well as a public interest lawyer. Of these, Raja Petra Kamarudin, a new media exponent of almost iconic status, was among the most influential. Unflinching and unrelenting, he galvanised reactions on a scale that many were unprepared for. He helped shape history last March.

That may be why he was charged for sedition and criminal defamation as well as was detained under the Internal Security Act soon after.

Amid concerns that a wider crackdown was underway and that I might also be on the detention list, I was instructed to seek an order of habeas corpus. Painfully aware of how exposed I was to executive scrutiny, I assembled a team of lawyers and made the applications. We were not hopeful, there had not been a successful challenge on merits since 1998 when the law had been amended to preclude judicial review. The high court however thought there were merits and ordered his release. He had been detained for some 55 days by then.

The situation is precarious. Malaysians want change and the elites that form the government are in no position to deliver it. Continued suppression and repression is the only way in which power can be preserved. That does not bode well for the nation.

(Congratulations Malik Imtiaz, on  being awarded the Bindmans Law and Campaigning Award in London organised by British-based human rights magazine
Index on Censorship. This particular award is given to outstanding human rights activists who have set legal precedents in the fight against injustice.- Kit)

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 23 April 2009, 7:56 am and is filed under
Human Rights
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Lugar Report on  complicity of  Malaysian officials in  human trafficking of Burmese refugees for prostitution/forced labour – Najib must act now

The Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak should respond with instant government action in keeping with his “Performance Now” motto on  the Lugar Report which accused Malaysian officials of complicity in the human trafficking of Burmese refugees who have been sold into prostitution and other kinds of forced labour in recent years.

It has been reported in the international press, including the
Financial Times
and
IPS
, that  Richard Lugar, the top Republican on the United States  Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has handed to the Malaysian government a report “Trafficking and Extortion of Burmese Migrants in Malaysia and Southern Thailand”.

The report is based on first person accounts of extortion and trafficking in Malaysia and along the Malaysia-Thailand border. Committee information comes from experiences of Burmese refugees resettled in the United States and other countries.

The report highlights the plight of Burmese migrants who crossed Thailand into Malaysia in the hope of registering with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and then being resettled in a third country.

According to the investigation, Malaysian officials have transported migrants – including some who had registered with UNHCR – from detention centres to the Thai border for deportation. At the border, however, migrants are handed to traffickers unless they can pay a ransom.

“Migrants state that those unable to pay are turned over to human peddlers in Thailand, representing a variety of business interests ranging from fishing boats to brothels,” said the report.

The Senate investigators also received multiple reports of Burmese women being sexually abused by traffickers, including some in front of their husbands because, as one NGO employee cited in the report put it, “no one dares to intervene as they would be shot or stabbed to death in the jungle’’.

“[Burmese women] are sold at a brothel if they look good,” recounted one refugee. “If they are not beautiful, they [the traffickers] might sell them at a restaurant or house-keeping job.”

The committee launched the investigation in 2007 after hearing allegations about the trafficking of Burmese migrants “with the knowledge, if not participation” of Malaysian officials.

“The prospect that Burmese migrants, having fled the heavy hand of the Burmese junta, only to find themselves in harms’ way in Malaysia seemed beyond belief,” said the report.

While raising concerns about the role of “government officials” – which the report defines as immigration and police officials, and the semi-official People’s Volunteer Corps [Rela] – Lugar welcomed the Malaysian police’s recent decision to investigate the allegations.

The report estimated that a few thousand Burmese have been brought to the border with Thailand in recent years, and in particular to the Sungai Golok in Thailand and Padang Besar in Malaysia.

It said Burmese refugees now residing in the US had provided names and bank account details for people involved in the trafficking, which have now been forwarded to Malaysian law enforcement officials.

The Malaysian  Parliamentary Caucus on Myanmar will convene a meeting on the Lugar Report and will seek a meeting with the Prime Minister and the new Foreign Minister, Datuk Anifah Aman as the Lugar Report is  not only most damaging to Malaysia’s international image but raises grave questions about Malaysia’s human rights commitment in ASEAN.

                This entry was posted on Friday, 24 April 2009, 11:06 am and is filed under
Burma
,
Human Rights
,
Najib Razak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Najib should answer – Is RPK to be detained under new ISA order and to be charged for treason?

The new Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak should answer two questions  – has a new Internal Security Act (ISA) detention order been issued against blogger Raja Petra Kamaruddin and whether a decision had been taken to charge him for treason or equally serious capital offence?

If not, is Najib prepared to make two  public commitments that under his premiership,  Raja Petra will not be victimized and will not be detained under a fresh ISA detention order and will not be charged for treason or equally serious capital offence for what he had done so far?

Furthermore, is Najib prepared to make the further commitment for the withdrawal of the government’s appeal to the Federal Court  against Raja Petra’s release under the ISA in November when  the Shah Alam High Court ruled that his ISA detention was illegal.

Raja Petra’s absence from  his sedition trial, the issue of a warrant of arrest against him and Raja Petra’s explanation in his news portal, Malaysia Today, of the reasons for his action yesterday have focused national and international spotlight not only on RPK but also on the new Prime Minister and his administration.

Although epithets like  “coward” and “yellow” have been hurled at him, these are from a tiny minority as Raja Petra strikes a great resonance from a great number of Malaysians when he said that he has no confidence that he could get a fair trial and justice from the Malaysian courts.

It is a mark of the inability of Najib as the new Prime Minister to command public confidence that more and more Malaysians share Raja Petra’s grave doubts about the independence, impartiality and integrity of the judiciary as the promises of judicial reforms in the past five years have failed to bear  fruit.

                This entry was posted on Friday, 24 April 2009, 9:53 am and is filed under
Najib Razak
,
Raja Petra Kamaruddin
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


How long has Indira to wait for return of her  year-old baby?

Ipoh kindergarten teacher M. Indira Ghandi has kept an overnight vigil at the Ipoh Police Headquarters waiting for her year-old baby Prasana Diksa to be returned to her.

Yesterday, the Ipoh High Court granted her interim custody of her three children, Tevi Darsiny, 12, Karan Dinish 11 and Prasana Diksa; a restraining order against her husband K. Pathmanathan, who has assumed the name Mohd Redzuan Abdullah after conversion to Islam, until full custody hearing on May 12; ordered the husband to surrender Prasana to the mother and a mandamus to the police to assist Indira in the matter.

How long more will Indira have to wait and keep up the vigil at the Ipoh Police Headquarters until her baby daughter who is still being breastfed is returned to her?

Prasana was forcibly taken away from her by her father, who forcibly converted the three children to Islam without her knowledge or consent.

Although the Cabinet has taken a decision that  children of divorced parents be brought up in the common religion at the time of marriage when one parent converts to another religion, Indira is still waiting for the return of Prasana Diksa.

Thursday’s
Sun
 carried a report entitled
“IAIS chief says conversion of children to Islam ‘un-Islamic’”
, viz:

IAIS chief says conversion of children to Islam ‘un-Islamic’

by Tan Yi Liang

[email protected]

PETALING JAYA: The conversion of children to Islam as part of divorce and custodial tussles is “un-Islamic”, says International Institute of Advanced Islamic Studies (IAIS) founding  chairman and CEO Mohammad Hashim Kamali.

“In my opinion, such ‘forced’ conversion is un-Islamic … to use Islam in order to inflict or for purposes that are not part of the spirituality or aqidah of Islam, whether it is marriage, whether it is divorce or custody and there is a tussle between the wife and husband over the children does not make sense,” said Mohammad.

“To go to the Syariah Court and claim that the child, who is two or three years old, has been converted to Islam, what does it mean? You convert a two year-old child or five-year-old to Islam, it doesn’t really make sense when you look at this phenomena from the texts and guidelines of Islam,” he said.

Mohammad said conversion to Islam was a conscious and deliberate act on the part of the individual requiring a comprehension of the decision made by the person converting.

“(Conversion to Islam) calls for a profession in your words and an affirmation in your heart. Can you expect a child of five years (to have that). Most of these ‘forced conversions’ really arise over those issues (divorce and custodial battles) and I think we need to depart from that,” he said.

“The child should grow up and be an adult, and be given the freedom to choose his or her religion. Before they reach the age of majority, any religion inflicted on the child is not really valid. A religion has to be embraced with a deliberate understanding by a competent person. Children are not competent,” added Mohammad, who called for a change to the current laws.

“… We need to add something to ensure it does not limit the freedom of the child when he or she becomes an adult.” “Islam protects non-Muslims when it comes to basic rights, and it does not differentiate between Muslims and non-Muslims. It is for all,” added

Mohammad, who responded to questions after a talk on Islamic extremism by former Indonesian foreign minister Dr Alwi Abdurrahman Shihab in the IAIS centre here yesterday.

Alwi said such issues (conversions) were unknown in Indonesia.

“I do not really see any such phenomenon (forced conversions) in Indonesia today. Muslims might sometimes raise complaints over the Christian missions, but today I think we are not very concerned over forced conversions. I do not know whether there are isolated incidents but we are proud to be a nation respectful to other faiths,” he said.

Food for thought for the voices of protest against the Cabinet decision and the return of the baby daughter to Indira.

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 25 April 2009, 11:42 am and is filed under
Islam
,
nation building
,
Religion
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Port Klang Free Zone scandal – from RM2.3 billion under Liong Sik, RM4.6 billion under Kong Choy and now to  RM8 billion under Tee Keat?

Although “Performance Now” is one of the three overarching mottos of the Najib Cabinet, it has  very little real meaning to  the Cabinet Ministers.

The MCA President and Transport Minister, Datuk Seri Ong Tee Keat is no exception.

One of the first things he promised a year ago as Transport Minister was to “tell all” about the RM4.6 billion Port Klang Free Zone (PKFZ)  bailout scandal.

Up to now, he has told nothing!

Early this month, Ong evaded responsibility for the public release of the PriceWaterhouseCooper report on the PKFZ, saying that it now lies with the Port Klang Authority (PKA).

It is a sorry sight for the past year that Ong had not been able to answer the five questions about the RM4.6 billion PKFZ scandal which I posed to him immediately after his public pledge to “tell all” about PKFZ, particularly about the history of impropriety in land transactions, illegal issue of Letters of Support, Cabinet bailouts and retrospective ratification of illegal decisions by the two previous Transport Ministers, Tun Ling Liong Sik and Datuk Seri Chan Kong Choy although he had all the answers without having to await the outcome of the PricewaterhouseCooper audit report.

The Edge weekly in its cover story today reported that PKFZ costs are believed to have ballooned to RM8 billion.

Malaysian taxpayers are entitled to the full details as to why the PKFZ scandal which started as a RM2.3 billion scandal under Liong Sik,  became a RM4.6 billion  scandal under Kong Choy has  now ballooned to be a RM8 billion scandal  under Tee Keat as the three successive MCA Transport Ministers?

There should be no more delay in the publication of the PWC report on the PKFZ and if Ong is not prepared to “tell all”, the Cabinet at its meeting next Wednesday should overrule Ong and direct the immediate public release of the full PWC report on the PKFZ to honour the pledge of accountability, transparency and good governance  given by Datuk Seri Najib Razak when he became Prime Minister  three weeks ago on April 3.

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 25 April 2009, 4:40 pm and is filed under
PKFZ
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


MINDRAF: Does Malaysia Need Another Sectarian Political Party?

By
Farish A. Noor

As if the political landscape of Malaysia wasn’t overcrowded already, there has come into the fray yet another sectarian community-based party, Mindraf (Malaysian Indian Democratic Action Front). Ostensibly set up by ‘good samaritans’ concerned about the plight of their community, Mindraf has announced its political ambitions with the aim of representing Malaysian citizens of South Asian origin.

Now allow me to be blunt here: In the opinion of this writer, Malaysia does not need another communitarian party that caters to the primary concerns of a particular ethnic or religious community. We are already forced to work on a contested landscape where there are too many parties that are based on ethnic and religious loyalties, and yet another sectarian party will hardly bring us any closer to realising the notion of a Malaysia where identity is based on universal citizenship and equal rights.

If anything, the tendency of such sectarian parties is to further add to the process of divide and rule and to further entrench sedimented notions of ethnic-racial differences. This comes at a time when a younger generation of Malaysians have demonstrated their ability to transcend the ethnic divisions that once haunted the generation of their parents. So while we hope and pray for a better, more united and colour-blind Malaysia, whose idea was it to create another ethnic-based party?

The momentum for Mindraf was quite probably generated by the Hindraf movement that had managed to challenge the hegemony of the MIC over the Malaysian Indian community for decades. But even then, Hindraf’s appeal – as suggested by its name – was limited to Malaysians of the Hindu faith primarily. But some of us have maintained all along that the issues related to the Malaysian Indian community were issues that also affected Malaysians in general as well. The destruction of Hindu temples during the Badawi period was a loss for all Malaysians, and not Hindus only.

Over the past four years we have see how some parties have gone out of their way to accommodate the concerns and needs of others: PAS, for instance, has stood up for the rights of non-Muslims to build temples and churches and have defended the right for non-Muslims to practice their faith. It is clear that for some leaders of PAS like Nik Aziz, it is better for PAS to be allied to PKR, PSM and DAP rather than UMNO. So how much more accommodation does it take before the communitarians in our midst realise that we have to build a new non-racist Malaysia on the common platform of a universal citizenship?

The other worry is that Mindraf may yet drain support and members from the other parties of the Pakatan, notably PKR and DAP. At a time when we need to create an alternative mode of Malaysian politics that transcends the narrow, parochial and primordial sentiments of racial and religious solidarity, a party like Mindraf merely goes against the grain – and in fact confirms and further sediments the hegemony of divisive communitarian politics in Malaysia.

It is also during times like this that I feel that all our efforts (not mine alone) to promote a new de-racialised non-communitarian politics in Malaysia has achieved so little, despite the energy and time invested. Honestly, we are not going to have a new Malaysian politics unless and until we think, live and behave like Malaysian-minded Malaysians. And that day has yet to come, my friends. Sadly.

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 26 April 2009, 7:51 am and is filed under
Farish Noor
,
Indians
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Whereabouts of year-old baby girl Prasana Diksa shapes up to be first  major test of Najib’s “Performance Now” motto

When Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak announced “Performance Now” as one of the  three mottos of his government’s overarching philosophy, he would have realized  that it would be put to a test early in his premiership.

Najib should have been realistic enough  to know  that he would not enjoy the luxury of a political honeymoon of “The First 100 Days”, but it is unlikely that he expected it  to come under a major test  immediately after his first three weeks as Prime Minister and in the form of a year-old baby girl Prasana Diksa.

In Ipoh, kindergarten teacher M. Indira Ghandi’s vigil for the return of her daughter, Prasana Diksa, who is still being breastfed,  is coming to 48 hours since the Ipoh High Court judgment on Friday granting her  interim custody of her three children, Tevi Darsiny, 12, Karan Dinish 11 and Prasana Diksa; a restraining order against her husband K. Pathmanathan, who has assumed the name Mohd Redzuan Abdullah after conversion to Islam, until full custody hearing on May 12; ordered the husband to surrender Prasana to the mother and a mandamus to the police to assist Indira in the matter.

Prasana was forcibly taken away from Indira last month by her husband, who forcibly converted the three children to Islam without her knowledge or consent.

Yesterday, I had asked the Ipoh police officers how  long more will Indira have to wait before the police could discover the baby’s whereabouts and return her to the mother.

I told them  that it would reflect very poorly on the capabilities and performance of the Ipoh police if they could not find the baby girl and return her immediately to her mother, as if the baby has just disappeared!

After a five-year-long procrastination from the Everest mountaineer Moorthy case, the Cabinet has finally announced a commendable solution for controversial religious conversions resulting in family breakups and injustices –  firstly, that children of divorced parents be brought up in the common religion at the time of marriage when one parent converts to another religion and secondly, that conversion must not be used as a ground  to automatically dissolve a marriage or to get custody of children.

However, the Cabinet decision has no meaning for Indira Ghandi, who is still pining for her  baby girl Prasana Diksa, who had been forcibly taken away from her for a month.

As a result, Prasana Diksa’s whereabouts has also  shaped  up to be first  major test of Najib’s “Performance Now” motto.

The ministerial committee to deal with Prasana Diksa case headed by Tan Sri Dr. Koh Tsu Koon, the Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department in charge of KPI for Ministers and Unity, should visit Ipoh to do their utmost to resolve the issue by getting Prasana Diksa returned to her mother without any further delay.

Najib, who visited Indonesia recently, should take serious note of the observation by Indonesian Islamic scholar and former Foreign Minister, Dr. Alwi Abdurrahman Shihab in Malaysia a few days ago that issues of forced conversion of children to Islam are unknown in Indonesia, while in Malaysia, it has been allowed to be an increasingly polarizing factor in  race and religious relations – a most  unhealthy phenomenon which should not be continued if Najib is serious about another motto of his overarching philosophy, 1Malaysia!

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 26 April 2009, 2:19 pm and is filed under
Islam
,
Najib Razak
,
nation building
,
Religion
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Zambry’s May 7 Perak Assembly meeting – call it off as it is against Najib’s public position

The usurper Perak Mentri Besar Datuk Seri  Dr. Zambry Abd Kadir  should call off the May 7 Perak State Assembly meeting as it is improperly convened against  the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak’s public stand that the Perak State Assembly cannot meet until the court has ruled that the Barisan Nasional is the legal government in Perak.

This was the position of Najib, who was then the Deputy Prime Minister, Perak UMNO Chairman and who personally orchestrated the undemocratic, unethical, illegal and unconstitutional power grab in Perak resulting in the three-month political and constitutional stalemate producing two Mentris Besar and even two secretaries to the Perak State Assembly!

This is the Sunday Star report of March 1, 2009, headlined

“Perak assembly cannot meet until court decides, says DPM”
 on Najib’s response to the convening of a State Assembly meeting by the Perak Speaker, V. Sivakumar which eventually became the historic “Tree Perak State Assembly”:

Sunday March 1, 2009

Perak assembly cannot meet until court decides, says D
PM

KUANTAN: The Perak State Assembly Speaker cannot call an emergency sitting of the assembly as the court has yet to decide on the status of the government, said Deputy Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak.

“By right, the sitting should not be called as we are still awaiting the decision of the court.

“We want to establish the fact that Barisan is the legal government to rule the state in accordance with the constitution,” he said after opening the national higher learning carnival at Universiti Malaysia Pahang (UMP) here yesterday.

On Friday, Speaker V. Sivakumar said the assembly would convene the sitting on Tuesday to vote on two motions, including one seeking to dissolve the State Assembly.

Asked if the move was aimed at toppling the Barisan Nasional government, Najib said the court’s decision would put the matter to rest.

As up to now  the Court has not made any decision that the Barisan Nasional is the legal government in Perak state, the May 7 State Assembly should not be convened and should be called off until there is such a judicial decision.

In the circumstances, any public posturings by Zambry that the Barisan Nasional will not participate in the “fight for chairs” to claim the seats of the Mentri Besar and the State exco members in the State Assembly is not only premature but presumptuous.

Five  days ago on 21st April, Zambry filed an urgent application to the Federal Court for a declaration that he is the lawful Mentri Besar and he now expects such a declaration to be made by the Federal Court on Tuesday 28th April 2009.

For two-and-a-half months from Feb. 6 to April 21, Zambry did not move the Federal Court for such a declaration.

What made Zamry think that the Federal Court could be at his beck and call, that he could successfully move the Federal Court to secure such a declaration in a matter of a week, when for two-and-a-half months from Feb. 6 to April 21, 2009 he did not make such an application to the Federal Court?

Does Zambry think he belongs to a special category of persons who is privileged to short-circuit the whole process of the administration of justice so as  to move the Federal Court, the highest court of the land, to rush to judgment in his favour with inadequate notice to all the relevant parties concerned?

Malaysians will be very shocked if  Zambry succeeds in getting such a declaration from the Federal Court on Tuesday with such short notice.

But even with such a Federal Court declaration on Tuesday, the May 7 State Assembly should be called off as Zambry could  only properly convene his first State Assembly meeting, with the requisite notice of 14 days to all State Assembly members, after a favourable  Federal Court decision on Tuesday – which means the earliest Zambry can convene a proper Perak State Assembly meeting will be May 13, 2009!

Senior and Umno lawyer Muhammad Shafee Abdullah had predicted in a public forum on the Perak crisis two nights ago that there would be “chaos” in the May 7 Perak State Assembly.

This is a further reason why Zambry should call off the May 7 Perak State Assembly especially it would be contrary to the public stand that has been taken by Najib on the matter.

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 26 April 2009, 11:56 am and is filed under
Constitution
,
Judiciary
,
Najib Razak
,
Perak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


1 Malaysia: A cruel joke?

by Tunku Aziz | The Malaysian Insider

APRIL 27 – It never ceases to amaze me how simple and trusting we Malaysians are.

We have heard all these promises before. Pak Lah, the Mr Clean and Mr Nice Guy of Malaysian politics proclaimed his great mission of fighting corruption after 22 years of unprincipled and largely unaccountable governance under Dr Mahathir Mohamad.

We lapped it all up, initially at any rate, and believed every word the spin doctors spewed out about Abdullah Badawi.

It was not too difficult a job for Abdullah Badawi, or anyone else for that matter, after Mahathir, to look ethically spotless, clean and pure as the driven snow.

Badawi, with his religious credentials, gave every appearance of being the reformer that this country had been praying for. Alas, his leadership proved a total let-down for Malaysia.

What began as a journey full of hope and promise turned very quickly into a national nightmare. Abdullah, who skippered the good ship MALAYSIA, was in truth an incompetent and inept rating playing at being Admiral of the Fleet.

We discovered soon enough that he could not tell north from south and a sexton from a pair of compasses. We had to put up with his erratic command, watching with increasing anxiety as he set the ship adrift aimlessly, with no prospect of ever making landfall.

Now let me move away from naval to boxing metaphors, and I hope I am not mixing them in the process.

Abdullah had come to lead us laden with his own strange stock-in-trade. It was a mix, in no particular order, of Islam Hadhari that he himself could not explain to save his life, the memorably inane “Work with me and not for me” catchphrase, and the almost absurdly messianic anti-corruption clarion call that he had used to fool the entire nation.

I am embarrassed to admit, on reflection, that he had me fooled from Day One.

Abdullah was persuaded by close family members and advisers that he was doing a brilliant job, and this was what he wanted to hear.

He believed that he had what was needed to punch above his weight. He did not realise until too late that the Islam Hadhari as he had postulated it was no match for the reality of Umno politics with its long-established culture of money politics (for which, read grand corruption), in-fighting and back-stabbing.

Soon enough, he found himself out-pointed at every turn by his own seconds, Najib and Muhyiddin, whose protestations of eternal love and loyalty made with a straight face before the disastrous March 2008 elections seemed the height of black humour.

They pushed all the responsibility for the electoral failure to him, and with indecent haste, distanced themselves from him. They turned collective responsibility on its head. This was their interpretation.

And now, they are now leading Malaysia.

I am recalling the Abdullah years as a way of reminding ourselves not to be tempted into swallowing the “right noises” that Najib is making, hook, line and sinker.

He is apparently good at developing popular policies on the trot, and all his reform promises seem to flow so effortlessly and glibly off his silvery tongue and that worries many people who are looking more for substance rather than form.

His 1 Malaysia is a case in point. How does Najib propose to give practical effect to his excellent concept given the reality of Malaysia’s race-biased policies of racial discrimination?

Does he not see a contradiction? Is he clear in his own mind what he is talking about? For now, it remains a slogan and, without a clear vision of what 1 Malaysia is intended to be, it could well turn out to be nothing more than a grand illusion.

Does he really believe that he has what it takes to reconcile Umno’s pathological obsession with bumiputra rights on the one hand with the principles of inalienable equality for ALL Malaysians on the other?

1 Malaysia without complete equality of opportunity is nothing if not a cruel and dishonest practical joke.

So, until Najib sets out his plan for 1 Malaysia that accords with the conditions for a truly “Malaysian Malaysia” (with apologies to Lee Kuan Yew), I suggest, in a manner of speaking, we do not put the champagne on ice as it could be premature.

                This entry was posted on Monday, 27 April 2009, 9:57 am and is filed under
Abdullah Ahmad Badawi
,
Najib Razak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Congrats, YB Senator Tunku Aziz

Congratulations YB  Senator Tunku Aziz.

We look forward to Tunku Aziz lending   meaning, gravity  and direction  to the Senate with his appointment as Senator  by the Penang State Assembly this evening.

                This entry was posted on Monday, 27 April 2009, 7:26 pm and is filed under
Parliament
,
Tunku Abdul Aziz
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Help find my one-year-old daughter, pleads mum

Malaysiakini | S Pathmawathy | Apr 27, 09 5:02pm

Five thousand missing persons posters have been printed to help find Muslim convert, K Patmanathan, and his one-year-old daughter Prasana Diksa.

Last week, the Ipoh High Court granted M Indira Ghandi the custody of all her three children, who were converted by their father without her knowledge on April 12, pending the full custody hearing on May 12.

As the older children – Tevi Darsiny, 12 and Karan Dinesh, 11 – were in the care of their mother from the beginning, the court ordered that the youngest child which is in her father’s care to be returned to the mother.

However, despite the court order to return the toddler, the father, who has since the conversion assumed the name Mohd Ridzuan Abdullah, has gone missing.

According to Indira, the police had informed her that they visited Mohd Ridzuan’s mother’s house to look for the child, who was said to be in her grandmother’s care, on Friday but return empty-handed.

“They have not taken the initiative to do anything else to look for him… I am only worried about my baby, I don’t how she is doing as she is so young,” said Indira.

Indira told Malaysiakini that after the court had given the interim order, her husband telephoned her.

“He complained that what I am doing to get my children back as they were, before they were brought into this confusion, is giving him problems,” said Indira.

Indira also said her husband informed her that he was leaving for Singapore with their youngest child and will not return her to the mother despite the court order.

“So with the help of DAP and Malaysia Hindu Sangam (MHS), we have printed posters with the photo of Mohd Ridzuan and my baby Prasana,” she said.

Refused to accept the Syariah Court order

The life of the Hindu mother took a turn for the worst after discovering that her husband, had converted to Islam last month and converted their children without her knowledge and consent.

Mohd Ridzuan also took custody of the youngest child without getting a mutual agreement and obtained a Syariah Court order to gain custody of his two older children.

In a recent exclusive interview with Malaysiakini, she also claimed that her husband had converted their two older children without their presence and by using their birth certificates.

Indira has sought refuge with a relative in fear that Islamic officials would take the two children away since her husband  has a Syariah Court order giving him custody of the children.

However, Indira has refused to accept the Syariah Court order.

Since then, Indira has approached various religious civil society groups to pressure the government to take a firm stand on conversion issues.

Her lawyer, M Kulasegaran, when contacted, informed that they need to serve the court order on Mohd Ridzuan, as the case was to start on May 12.

“Patmanathan (Mohd Ridzuan) is aware of the court order as he had spoken to Indira after the interim order was obtained on Friday.

“In fact, he told Indira that he is taking the child to Singapore with him. We have duly informed the police who have said all border posts have been informed to prevent him leaving the country,” said Kulasegaran, who is also the DAP Ipoh Barat member of parliament.

“Somehow I have a feeling he is hiding in Ipoh and (he) is trying to avoid service of court documents… We had requested the police assistance to print posters of Patmanathan last week but it has not taken place to date,” stated Kulasegaran in his blog.

A test of Najib’s ‘Performance Now’ motto

DAP stalwart Lim Kit Siang, in his blog entry said that the efficiency of the government agencies in relation to the conversion case is putting to test new Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak’s “Performance Now” motto.

“Yesterday, I had asked the Ipoh police officers how much longer must Indira wait before the police could discover the baby’s whereabouts and return her to the mother.

“I told them that it would reflect very poorly on the capabilities and performance of the Ipoh police if they could not find the baby girl and return her immediately to her mother,” he exclaimed.

He hinted that Najib should take note of the observation made by Indonesian Islamic scholar and former foreign minister, Dr Alwi Abdurrahman Shihab who was in Malaysia a few days ago, that issues of “forced conversion of children to Islam are unknown in Indonesia, while in Malaysia, it has been allowed to be an increasingly polarising factor in race and religious relations”.

“Forced conversions of children is a most unhealthy phenomenon which should not be continued if Najib is serious about another motto of his philosophy, 1Malaysia,” said Lim.

                This entry was posted on Monday, 27 April 2009, 5:54 pm and is filed under
Najib Razak
,
nation building
,
Religion
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Only A Good Beginning

by
M. Bakri Musa

Prime Minister Najib Razak’s liberalizing some segments of the service sector is a good start.  However, it is merely good but not excellent, and only a beginning but not the total solution.

            Najib must remember that a half-cooked meal is often not only inedible but could also poison you; likewise a half-baked solution.

            For Najib to have an excellent and comprehensive solution would require him to address the more difficult underlying issue of what prompted the instituting of quotas in the first place.  Unless that is resolved, his new policy will not be politically sustainable – meaning, not sustainable at all –regardless how eminently sensible it is economically.  Ameliorate it and Najib would be able to liberalize not only the whole service sector but also the entire economy, if not every facet of Malaysian life.  That would bring his “1Malaysia” aspiration that much closer.

            On the other hand, if he fails to resolve that fundamental problem, he would have succeeded only in triggering a severe backlash among Malays, the bulk if not his only base of support.  Were that to happen he would push back race relations; the half-cooked meal poisoning him!

            Already we are seeing some interesting and unlikely coalition of opposing forces.  The Bar Council, the self-styled champion against discrimination and a vociferous and relentless opponent of Malay “special privileges,” suddenly becomes protective of its members when the government tries to liberalize the legal profession to allow for the entry of foreign law firms.

            The objective of reform is to enhance Malaysia’s competitiveness.  Malaysia cannot be competitive unless Malays, who constitute the bulk of the population, are also competitive.  Increase Malay competitiveness and you enhance the nation’s competitiveness.

            This being Malaysia, with its “monkey see and monkey do” culture, Najib’s half-baked move will be echoed by others eager to imitate and flatter him.  We already have one monkey in the person of Khir Toyo, the discredited former Mentri Besar of Selangor, now suddenly discovering “reform” religion.  Rest assured that these guys are merely mouthing what is popular (or think is popular); they have no clue of the profound implications or associated difficulties.

            Quotas were instituted to dismantle “the identification of race with economic activities,” to borrow the eloquent phrase of the New Economic Policy.  I would have expected that after nearly 40 years, the announcement of the lifting of quotas of a small segment of the service sector would have been greeted with unbridled joy.  That it was not points to potential troubles ahead.  Najib ignores this at his own peril, especially considering that his hold on power is at best tenuous.

            The response is not to suspend the liberalization process rather to address its opponents’ concerns.  The first step involves answering the basic question of why, sans quotas, there were so few Malays in that sector.  If there were but they had no sustaining power, the next line of inquiry should be to focus on why those Malays were not competitive.

            Next would be to examine the failures of the current quota system.  Why does it fail to nurture a class of enterprising Malays?  It could be that the current policy perversely encourages the emergence of pseudo entrepreneurs and ersatz capitalists, thus oppressing the genuine variety, much like lallang to lengkuas.

            Unless answers are found to these questions, we are guaranteed to muddle through yet another half-baked solution.  I have yet to hear sensible discussions from our leaders on these fundamental problems.

            The key to making Malays (or any group for that matter) competitive is in revamping the schools and universities, and altering the reward system so as to encourage genuine entrepreneurs and risk takers.

Revamp Our Education System

Graduates of our schools and universities have limited language abilities, abysmal quantitative skills, and are incapable of critical thinking.  In short, they lack the very skills needed to survive in the marketplace.

            There is only one “official” language in the marketplace, and that is the language of your customers.  Those Chinese hawkers peddling their goods in the kampongs intuitively know this.  That is why they speak fluent Malay.

            The bulk of our customers speak English.  This applies to our domestic as well as foreign markets.  Hence fluency in that language is essential, especially in the service sector.  This is where Malays are sorely lacking.  We have erroneously and successfully indoctrinated our young, and also ourselves, that learning another language (especially English, the language of our former colonizer) equals contempt of our own.

            The average non-Malay speaks three languages: their mother tongue, Malay and English.  The majority of Malays however are monolingual, in Malay.  This did not happen by accident; our education system deliberately created this sorry mess.

            Language skill is a good beginning, but by itself is not enough.  To be a successful entrepreneur one must be able to manage risks.  This requires an ability to quantify it.  A business plan is nothing more than a formalization of your assessments and assumptions of those risks.

            A project that would be economically viable when the cost of borrowed funds is 5 percent would not be so if it were to double.  Likewise, a profit margin of 1-2 percent may be generous where the turnover is fast and high as with a retail store, but not when the volume is slow.  To evaluate all these would require some mathematical skills.

            This does not mean one needs higher mathematics to be successful.  Indeed the current meltdown of Western financial firms is attributed in part to the uncalled for faith and reliance on higher mathematics.  You do however have to appreciate the difference between simple versus compound rates, or when the interests are calculated on a declining balance, or whether it is calculated weekly, monthly or annually.

            In my book An Education System Worthy of Malaysia, I suggested innovations to our schools so they would produce graduates who are trilingual (Malay, English, and Arabic), have high mathematical skills and enhanced science literacy.  In some instances, I suggested bringing back the old English-medium schools, especially in rural areas.  Currently those kampong students are the weakest academically and least prepared for the marketplace.  And they are mostly Malays.

            I also suggested reforming the undergraduate years so our students would be exposed to a broad-based liberal education regardless of their ultimate career choices.  These reforms in education must go in tandem with if not precede our opening up the economy lest we would return to the bad old days.

Alter Our Rewards System

After we have prepared our young rigorously through better schools, then we must align our cultural values, in particular our reward system, so as to encourage our young to be entrepreneurs.

            One is our cultural attitude towards failure.  In Silicon Valley, California, a bankrupt entrepreneur wears his failure as a badge of honor, as a war hero would his battle scars, and moves on.  To him, failure is a learning experience.  In our culture, a failed businessman is viewed with contempt.  Worse, he is seen as a caricature of the collective weakness of our race, forever stereotyped and stigmatized.

            We must have a healthy attitude towards failure, looking upon it not as a reflection of a mortal defect in our national character but part and parcel of the entrepreneurial process and indeed of capitalism.  Hence bankruptcy courts; it is an integral part of a vibrant capitalistic society, Schumpeter’s “creative destruction” formalized.

            To be sure, entrepreneurs have their own value system.  To them, the success of their ventures is reward enough.  Their satisfied customers are the rewards, expressed in the profits of their enterprises.  What we hope to achieve by aligning our reward system would be to encourage other would-be entrepreneurs and risk takers by honoring those who have succeeded.

            The remarkable observation on successful entrepreneurs in America is that no one begrudges them of their wealth.  On the contrary, they are our role models.  When we think of Bill Gates, we think of his many wonderful inventions to make our work more productive; his fabulous wealth is therefore well deserved.

            On the other hand, when we think of Malay billionaires, we have nothing but contempt for them.  It is not so much their obscenely ostentatious lifestyles that offend us, rather we could not think of any useful service or product that they have produced that had improved our lives.  Their wealth comes through their rent-seeking activities, not economic creation.  They are parasites sucking the life out of our economy.

            In the same vein, we see similar contempt in America today for those highly compensated financiers because we cannot see the positive tangible results of their “work.”  Instead we suffer through the destructions they wreck.

            Peruse the list of honorees of our royal awards (focusing only on Malays), we would find that the overwhelming majority are civil servants and politicians.  It is rare for Malay businessmen and entrepreneurs (those rent-seekers excepted) to be honored. As for the creative producers like artists and scientists, they are never on the list.

            The honors list is one measure; examine the list of beneficiaries of our generous loan programs disbursed by MARA and other public agencies, or the allocations of import permits and company shares.  Rarely are the subsidized loans given to those who have completed their apprenticeship programs so they could start their own small enterprises.  None of our agricultural graduates get loans or land grants to start their farm businesses.  Instead those mega millions grants and valuable state land are given the politically well connected who would then just as quickly sublease them to others for hefty fees.

            If we do not revamp our education system and realign our rewards, there is real danger that liberalizing our economy would only aggravate inequities.  That would bring us back to those earlier ugly days of economic activities closely identifiable with race.  That would be unhealthy economically, politically and socially.  We paid dearly for that in 1969; we need not repeat those grave mistakes.

                This entry was posted on Monday, 27 April 2009, 8:37 am and is filed under
Bakri Musa
,
Economics
,
Education
,
Najib Razak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Cabinet must send out clear signal tomorrow that it stands by its “common religion” decision on baby Prasana Diksa case – not to be defied with impunity

At its first meeting last Wednesday, the Najib Cabinet commendably took a
policy decision
as a result of the Indira Ghandi case,  where her three children  Tevi Darsiny 12, Karan Dinish 11 and year-old Prasana Diksa were converted by her husband K. Pathmanathan, now known as Mohd Ridzuan Abdullah without her consent.

The Cabinet decided that the civil marriage has to be settled by the civil court and the religion of their children be the common religion at the time their parents were married at civil law.

The Cabinet also decided that  the year-old baby daughter, Prasana Diksa, forcibly taken away by the father for more than a month although she was still being breastfed by Indira, should be returned to the mother.

Nazri said that the Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department in charge of Islamic Affairs,
Datuk Jamil Khir Baharom
, had been tasked to  resolve the Indira Ghandi case amicably and to return Prasana Diksa to the mother.

Last Friday, the Ipoh High Court also granted to  Indira Ghandi  an interim custody order for her three children, ordering Pathmanathan/Ridzuan to return Prasana to his wife and the police to provide assistance  to Indira with regards to this.

However, a week after the Cabinet decision and 96 hours after the Ipoh High Court orders, Indira Ghandi, who had caused the Cabinet to come out with a policy decision to end controversial conversion cases which create not only gross injustices in trampling on parental rights and destroying family integrity but also cause deep divisions in our multi-racial and multi-religious nation, is still pining for her year-old baby girl as Pathmanathan/Ridzuan and Prasana seem to have disappeared altogether.

The Cabinet tomorrow must send out  a clear signal that it stands by its “common religion” decision on the baby Prasana Diksa case  and that it is not a meaningless decision  to be defied with impunity  and to take all steps   to return Prasana to her mother Indira Ghandi without delay as well as to put the policy decision into effect with the necessary legislative and administrative follow-up actions.

The “letter to the editor” of New Straits Times by an academician in Islamic theology and philosophy in a local university, entitled
 “No religious basis to convert baby”
 should be tabled  at the Cabinet meeting tomorrow to fortify its decision last week and to take all necessary steps to return Prasana to Indira.

This letter, by Dr. Ibrahim Abu Bakar, Associate Professor of the Department of Theology and Philsophy, Faculty of Islamic Studies, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, expressed very strong views that Pathmanathan/Ridzuan should return Prasana to her Hindu mother, that he is a bad Muslim if he does not hand back Prasana, even proposing that the police should arrest him if he is reluctant to deliver the baby girl back to Indira after the Ipoh High Court interim custody order in favour of the mother.

Dr. Ibrahim
wrote
:

Islamic theology does not impose any religious duty on the father to take away the baby girl from her Hindu mother.

This baby should not be prohibited by her father from being breastfed by her mother. If he does, he is wrong and evil in Islamic theological view because Islam does not impose any religious duty on any baby regardless whether she was born to a Hindu or Muslim mother. Islam imposes Islamic religious duties upon mature men and women, not upon babies and children. Please let this baby girl be breastfed by her mother.

Some Muslims hold the view that when a husband or wife converts to Islam, he or she has the right in Islamic law to take the children with him or her and then convert the children to Islam. Islamic law does not say so.

The “Islamness” of the children is not taken into account in Islamic theology. Islamic theology will count on the “Islamness” of human beings who are mature.

The Islamic terms for mature, sensible and responsible human beings are “aqil” and “baligh”. Patmanathan has been supported by some ignorant Muslims on the pretext of protecting the purity of Islam and his three children. These Muslims are wrong.

There is no Islamic legal basis for Muslims to help someone take away a baby from her mother and then convert that baby to Islam. Islam does not count on the converted babies and Islam does not reward those who have converted the babies to Islam.

The babies have no Islamic religious duties and, therefore, they are neither rewarded nor punished for such actions.

Dr. Ibrahim ended his letter in language which cannot be stronger and more explicit:

I do not support non-Muslims who convert to Islam just because they want to run away from their responsibilities as husbands or wives or because they want to marry Muslim women or Muslim men.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 28 April 2009, 3:29 pm and is filed under
Islam
,
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.


PM Najib using peashooter measures which are not sufficient to boost Malaysian economy

by Dr Chen Man Hin

The chief reason why PM Najib reform proposals are weak and timid is because he is unsure of getting full support from Umno. This was admitted as much when the PM speaking to Umno leaders recently called on them to change and accept liberalisation and reforms to win the support of the people.

The bulk of Umno is resistant to reforms and this was quite evident at the Umno general assembly last month, when the assemby ignored appeals to change and reform by PM Najib and ex PM Abdullah. The assembly was more interested in the debate on money politics. To have reforms meant they would have to give up cronyism and the wealth from government contracts.

Tunku Aziz, former world Transparency International leader said as much when he observed that Umno was still mired in corruption and cronyism and without their support, the vision of PM Najib’s 1Malaysia was ‘a cruel joke’ – a pipe dream of the Prime Minister, and not shared by Umno.

CAPITAL FINANCE LIBERALISATION MUST BE MEANINGFUL.

Today’s headlines highlighted PM Najib liberalisation of equity to allow 70% foreign equity in insurance and investment banking as THE NEW DEAL.

Liberalisation of capital finance in the economy should not be confined to one sector only of Insurance and Investment Banks. CAPITAL FINANCE many other sectors like corporations and the KL Bursa of listed companies.

Sectors of finance should be liberalised and both foreign and local investors should be involved.

What about the stock exchange structure? The Malaysian bourse should be open to both local and foreign investors without the imposition of the NEP requirement of 30% equity for bumiputras. To liberalise you need to expunge conditions which drive investors away.

The stock markets of Hong Kong, Singapore and Tokyo do not have the NEP to restrict listed companies. This is a major reason why the KL Bourse is so archaic and listless compared to the high flyers of Hong Kong, Tokyo and Singapore which foreign investors strongly seek a listing for their corporations.

Open up more banks instead of only room for 5 new commercial banks. Let more licences be given to boost the banking sector, as in more enlighted countries like the States, UK and the European Union.

Mr PM Najib, the journey of liberaisation and modernisation is demanding. Be dynamic and progressive, and use more effective instruments to modernise, instead of a peashooter if you really intend to promote progress and prosperity.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 28 April 2009, 4:44 pm and is filed under
Dr. Chen Man Hin
,
Economics
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


RM8 bil PKFZ scandal? – Cabinet tomorrow should overrule OTK’s “passing-the-buck” game and direct immediate release of PwC Report

The Cabinet tomorrow should overrule Transport Minister, Datuk Seri Ong Tee Keat’s “passing-the-buck” game and direct the immediate and full publication of the PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) Report on the Port Klang Free Zone (PKFZ) scandal and to respond to the Edge cover report that the cost of PKFZ had escalated fourfold from the original RM1.8 billion to RM8 billion.

Ong should not try to distract public attention
 from the real issues about the PKFZ scandal by threatening that he would be “checking  with his legal adviser and see if the article carried in the weekly was libellous”. (Star April 27, 2009)

Let him respond fully, frankly and forthrightly to two issues:

Firstly, why as the Transport Minister he had reneged on his promise made in April last year, as reported by Star (April 8, 2008) headlined:
”Ong to tell all on Port Klang Free Zone”
 quoting him:

“I wish to inform the rakyat about the true situation – whether it was actually squandered, not squandered, and whether it has gone to, as well as the breakdown of the budget.”

Three weeks later
 (Star April 29, 2008), to demonstrate the sincerity and seriousness of his pledge that he would “tell all” about the PKFZ scandal and that he was adopting a very proactive rather than hands-off stance, Ong announced that he would be making an announcement of  the  new Chairman of the Port Klang Authority (PKA) to take over from Datuk Chor Chee Heung (who had then been re-appointed a deputy minister in the new cabinet) and he was going to direct the new chairman (Datuk Lee Hwa Beng) to conduct a special audit of all the PKFZ accounts.

A week later, (
Star May 3, 2008
), Ong announced that the new PKA Chairman, Lee would name the independent accounting firm to conduct an overall audit on the PKFZ in view of allegations that it was a “white elephant” and “ghost town” – and the firm  turned out to be PwC.

From a very proactive stance of wanting to “tell all” about the PKFZ scandal and in the earliest time possible, Ong has now taken a diametrically opposite position of being  totally “hands-off”, very indifferent about the procrastination in the publication of the PwC report on the PKFZ scandal.

Ong now says that it is neither his fault nor his responsibility that the PwC  report has not been made public, passing the buck to the PKA.

He  said there were certain documents including correspondence that needed to be declassified before they could be included in the report.

He said the Port Klang Authority had applied for them to be declassified and was in the midst of following up on the matter with the relevant ministries.

He said:

“I have said that the port authority will make the report public and not the Transport Ministry because it was the authority that commissioned the investigations.

“The port authority will have a free hand to release the report when it is ready and there will be no intervention from the ministry. This has been my commitment from the beginning of the investigations.” (
Star April 27, 2009
).

What does Ong mean when he said that the PKA  has “a free hand to release the report when it is ready and there will be no intervention from the ministry”?  Is this double-speak to give the PKA the “free hand” to give a mountain of excuses as to why it could not release the PwC report on the PKFZ?

Ong was not speaking the truth on Sunday, as he had earlier publicly pledged that  the PwC report on PKFZ would be made public “once it is handed over to the Transport Ministry” – reported in the Star (November 17, 2008) under the headline
“
Ministry to release PKFZ report once it gets it
”
.

Why is he now doing a flip-flop and passing the buck back to the PKA?

Let me also remind Ong of a public statement by the PKA Chairman Lee, as reported by the Star
 “
Probe into PKFZ scandal under way
”
 (October 30 2008)  that “It will be up to the Transport Minister to decide if the report will be made public”.

Now, who is telling the truth or the lie – Minister Ong Tee Keat or PKA Chairman Lee Hwa Beng?

The Edge (April 27 – May3, 2009) which carried the cover story of “Total PKFZ bill – RM8 billion?” published a letter from Datuk Lee Hwa Beng that his term as PKA Chairman expired on March 31 this year and is therefore unable to respond as chairman of PKA.

Can Ong explain his  Ministerial inefficiency and incompetence in allowing the post of PKA Chairman to remain vacant from March 31, when he should have known that it is important to either re-appoint Lee or appoint a new Chairman so that no one could make the excuse that no decision could be made during the month of April on the publication of the PwC report on PKFZ scandal as the post of PKA Chairman is vacant!

In any event, the excuse that the delay in making the PwC report public  is because of problems with declassifying certain documents is unacceptable, as such problems would have been taken into consideration before Ong made the categorical statement last  November that the PwC report would be made public “once it is handed over to the Transport Ministry”.

This is because Ong had at that time said that the PwC report, “which had to fulfill some conditions imposed by the Finance Ministry”, was “now ready and would be handed over to him” – and that could only mean problems over declassification of documents for making the report public.

In any event, Malaysians have enough of excuses for the procrastination in making the PwC report on PKFZ scandal public, which was to be made by end of last year, and the Cabinet should step in to direct the immediate and full publication of the PwC report on the PKFZ scandal.

If the Cabinet is not prepared to override Ong Tee Keat to direct the immediate and full report of the PwC Report, then the Najib Cabinet would have failed in its second weekly meeting  the Najib motto of “1Malaysia. People First. Performance Now” with regard to the pledge  of accountability and transparency which Datuk Seri Najib Razak had made when he took over as Prime Minister on April 3.

The second issue on the PKFZ scandal which Ong should not try to obfuscate with his verbal gymnastics  is the specific question whether the PKFZ scandal has ballooned from RM1.8 billion when Datuk Seri Dr. Ling Liong Sik was the Transport Minister, to RM4.6 billion under  Datuk Seri Chan Kong Choy and now RM8 billion under Ong.

The Edge report on
“Total PKFZ till – RM8 bil?”
 states:

“According to sources, the latest figures indicate that the PKA’s total cost of building the PKFZ, which sprawls across 405ha, is much more than RM4.6 billion because its cost of funds is 11.5% and not 7.55 as envisaged.

“Based on the cost of funds of 11.5% for a project where RM3.77 billion is raised over 10 years, the cost for the PKA could come up to about RM8 billion, says a bond dealer.

“It is said that the huge cost, one that the PKA would find hard to recoup, is one of the highlights in the PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) report that the government has so far not made public.

“Other contentious issues said to be in the PwC report are:

 Poor controls and governance on the part of the PKA and other government authorities during the construction of the project. There were no cost controls. Even after the alarm bells rang on the rising cost, more debt papers were issued to the market;

Inconsistency in government guarantees underlying the debt papers. There were four government guarantee documents, out of which only one followed standard procedures;

Unusual arrangements in the payment mechanism. Payments to bondholders were done through a third party — Kuala Dimensi Sdn Bhd;

PKA’s coupon payment to Kuala Dimensi was 7.5% per annum. But the payments attached to the four sets of debt papers issued to finance PKFZ were between 4.15% and 6%;

The terms of financing were unfavourable to the PKA. For instance, the calculation of interest was based on a yearly rest, which was unusual and more expensive for the authority compared with a monthly rest; and

Dubal-based Jafzi had recommended the project to be implemented in phases but this was not followed.

“Many other contentious issues were raised in the PwC report, according to sources, and one of them was the final cost to the PKA.”

Malaysians are entitled to the truth and all the facts about the PKFZ scandal as it seems to have mushroomed into an even bigger financial scandal whenever a new MCA leader takes over  as Transport Minister – and there have been three MCA Transport Ministers in the past eight years.

As Ong continues to avoid the issue, is the Cabinet tomorrow prepared to give him a clear directive to issue a serious and proper response to the Edge’s expose that the PKFZ scandal had ballooned from RM1.8 billion under Liong Sik, to RM4.6 billion under Kong Choy and now RM8 billion under Tee Keat?

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 28 April 2009, 1:08 pm and is filed under
Corruption
,
Economics
,
Finance
,
Financial Scandals
,
Good Governance
,
PKFZ
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Najib dare not even mention the word “meritocracy” – quintessence of reform –  , what meaningful  civil service revamp could he achieve?

The PR worked overtime. News headlines like
“Modenisasi sector awam
”
(Utusan Malaysia)
,
“Civil Service Revamp”

(Star),

“Civil service to recruit ‘best brains’”

(New Straits Times)
,
“PM proposes civil service reforms”

(The Sun)
  dazzled Malaysians

But whoever takes the trouble to read the contents of the first address of the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak to the civil service yesterday will find the quintessence of meaningful civil service reform missing.

When Najib dare not even mention the word “meritocracy”, what meaningful civil service revamp could he achieve?

There is one critical  difference between Malaysia and other countries which value the importance of the civil service – in those countries, the best and the most talented of each generation join the civil service while in Malaysia the best and the most talented avoid the civil service!

Najib talked about hiring “the best of the best in talent and expertise for the sake of the people” to revamp the civil service.  Why should the “best of the best in talent and expertise” be attracted into the civil service when “meritocracy” continues to be a dirty word?

Even with the opening up of key positions in the administrative and diplomatic service to outsiders, they will be smothered, stunted  and stultified by mediocrity  if  there is no political will to introduce a new culture of meritocracy in the public service!

This was why previous attempts to hunt and attract talented Malaysians who had emigrated overseas to return to Malaysia to serve the country had been such a dismal failure.

In his speech, Najib said that under  his 1Malaysia concept, there should not be any quarters in this country that consider themselves second-class citizens nor feel sidelined or left behind in the process of progress.

This is an admission of the  great flaw and failure of past government nation-building efforts – alienating  more and more Malaysians, regardless of race or religion, making them feel that they are second  or third class, even underclass, in Malaysia,  whether the Chinese, the Indians as seen in the  Makkal Sakti phenomenon, the mass of ordinary Malays who are marginalized by the Umnoputra (disguised as NEP) policy, the Orang Asli, and in Sabah and Sarawak,  Kadazan-Dusun-Murut  and Ibans communities who increasingly feel that they are strangers in their own country.

In declaring  that under his 1Malaysia concept, no one will be marginalized and no quarter would regard themselves as second-class citizens, Najib has made an important admission  that this  had been the result or effect of past  nation-building policies.

Yet, in the next breath, Najib said that his “1Malaysia. People First. Performance Now” slogan is “a continuity to the slogans” of former prime ministers Tun Mahathir and Tun Abdullah.

If Najib’s slogans are no different from the “Amanah,  Berseh,  Cekap” slogan of Mahathir and “Cemerlang, Gemilang, Terbilang “ of Abdullah, which have left a nation with its people marginalised and divided, how then is Najib’s “1Malaysia” slogan going to be any different from those of the two previous Prime Ministers?

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 29 April 2009, 11:41 am and is filed under
Najib Razak
,
public service
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Publication of PwC report on RM8 bil PKFZ scandal – why for 6 mths OTK dare not discuss with Najib?

Why hadn’t  the MCA President and  Transport Minister Datuk Seri Ong Tee Keat raise with Datuk Seri Najib Razak, who had become Finance Minister since September last year when he was Umno Deputy President, the issue of the declassification of certain letters and correspondence in relation to the Port Klang Free Zone (PKFZ) project so that the Pricewaterhouse Cooper (PwC) audit report on the PKFZ  scandal could be made public?

Or was he just afraid to discuss  the issue with Najib  in the past six months until he got the nod from Najib?

This is clearly not a relationship between political equals but between a political master and an inferior!

These are the thoughts of anyone who read yesterday’s
Edge Malaysia online report
, headlined
“Najib to hear out Tee Keat on PKFZ declassification”
, viz:

Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak will hear out what Transport Minister Datuk Seri Ong Tee Keat has to say about the proposed declassification of certain letters and correspondence in relation to the Port Klang Free Zone (PKFZ) project that has hogged the limelight for its huge cost over-run.

“I don’t know. I’ll have to check with him (Ong) first”, Najib said when asked to comment on Ong’s remarks on Sunday that the delay in releasing the PKFZ audit report, conducted by PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC), was caused by another ministry in declassifying certain letters and correspondence.

Ong had told reporters that his ministry was not the cause of the delay in releasing the PwC report but another ministry. He had said that PKA had been seeking the declassification of letters and correspondence pertaining to the PKFZ since the beginning of the year from the other ministry and still awaiting the approval.

It has been reported that the other ministry is believed to be the Ministry of Finance.

The current issue of The Edge weekly reports that the PKFZ project can cost up to RM8 billion instead of RM4.6 billion due to the higher cost of funds and unfavourable financing terms. It is said that the project to build a transshipment hub started off initially with a budget of less than RM2.5 billion.

Najib took over the Finance Ministry post on 17th September last year, and Ong’s failure to raise the issue of the publication of the PwC report on the PKFZ scandal, involving the declassification of documents under the Official Secrets Act, in the past six months is a sad reflection on the MCA President’s commitment to accountability, transparency, integrity and good governance as well the seriousness of his much-touted pledge to “tell all” to Malaysians about the PKFZ scandal.

Now everyone is asking  whether the PKFZ scandal has ballooned from RM1.8 billion when Datuk Seri Dr. Ling Liong Sik was the Transport Minister, to RM4.6 billion when  Datuk Seri Chan Kong Choy took over the Transport Ministry and now to RM8 billion under Ong.

Can Ong continue to put up the public pretense that he is not directly and personally responsible to honour the pledge he had publicly given in April last year that Malaysians  would be told the entire truth about the PKFZ scandal?

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 29 April 2009, 10:15 am and is filed under
Najib Razak
,
PKFZ
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.