IGP more a lobbyist for police mega projects than a police leader to keep crime low

I am moving a censure motion against the Inspector-General of Police Tan Sri Musa Hassan by way of a RM10 cut motion for two reasons.

During the debate on the 2009 Budget and the winding-up by the Deputy Home Minister, Datuk Seri Chor Chee Heong on  30th October 2008, I had asked but failed to get satisfactory reply on why the Inspector-General of Police had become the chief lobbyist for mega police projects like the proposed RM20 billion police helicopter deal to hire 34 helicopters from syarikat AsiaCopter for 30 years and the RM4.2 billion  “E-Police Force Solution”, satu rangkaian sistem wireless digital  sepenuhnya yang berasaskan teknologi informasi dan komunikasi (ICT) yang canggih dengan litupan selurah negara proposed by syarikat Web Power Sdn. Bhd when his  chief duty as IGP is to ensure an efficient, professional and world-class police force to keep crime low to enable Malaysians, tourists and investors to feel safe in Malaysia.

Chor even denied that Musa had written a letter to the Second Finance Minister, Tan Sri Nor Mohamed Yakcop, on 12th February 2007 endorsing the RM20 billion Asiacopter proposal to rent out 34 helicopters to the police for 30 years.  I cannot understand how Chor could come to the House to deny that the IGP had sent a letter of endorsement and lobbying for AsiaCopter’s RM20 billion proposal to rent 34 helicopters to the police for 30 years, when Chor admitted that he had not  asked the IGP whether there was such a letter.

Chor also made a bald denial that the IGP had endorsed the Web Power’s RM4.2 billion “E-Police Force Solution” proposal.

I have here a copy of the letter from the IGP to the Second Finance Minister Tan Sri Nor Mohamed Yakcop dated 12th February 2007 on the subject “Cadangan Kontrak Sewaan Helicopter Kepada Polis Diraja Malaysia Selama  30 Tahun Melalui Private Funding Initiative (PFI)”, where Musa gave his full endorsement for the proposal when he wrote:

“Kos sewaan yang dicadangkan didapati berpatutan dan bersesuaian dengan pelaburan yang akan dikeluarkan serta risiko peningkatan kos yang mungkin ditanggung oleh Syarikat AsiaCopter Sdn. Bhd dalam tempoh sewaan.

“Ingin dimaklumkan bahawa inisiatif ini bukan sahaja akan menguntungkan PDRM tetapi juga pihak Kerajaan. PDRM akan dapat meningkatkan produktiviti dan keberkesanan di dalam menjalankan tugas serta melicinkan operasi polis dalam mengekalkan ketenteraman awam dan keselamatan negara. Oleh itu saya menyokong penuh cadangan ini.”

I have also here a copy of the letter which Musa wrote to the Prime Minister dated 3rd November 2006 on “E-Police Force Solution – Letter of Intent”, hawking the RM4.2 billion proposal of Web Power Sdn. Bhd., pressing for the issue of an “Letter of Exclusive Intent” to the company by the government.

As I said in my budget speech on October 15, saya tidak masaalah dengan keinginan PDRM untuk membeli sistem teknologi yang boleh membantu mereka menjalankan siasatan jenayah, tetapi bagaimana Ketua Polis Negara boleh menghantar memohon dikeluarkan surat “Letter of Exclusive Intent” kepada syarikat Web Power Sdn. Bhd   terus kepada Perdana Menteri dan tidak melalui Ketua Setiausaha Kementerian Keselamatan Dalam Negeri?

Prosedur yang patut dilakukan dalam apa-apa pembelian sepatutnya ialah Ketua Polis Negara harus menulis surat kepada Ketua Setiausaha Kementerian, Ketua Setiausaha kemudian menulis surat kepada Kementerian Kewangan, selepas diluluskan oleh Kementerian Kewangan, barulah Kementerian Keselamatan Dalam Negeri memanggil tender. Tetapi sekarang, Ketua Polis Negara terus ‘bypass’ Ketua Setiausaha Kementerian dan memohon dikeluarkan surat “letter of intent”nya terus kepada Perdana Menteri. Kenapakah ini berlaku? Kita dapati pihak KPN telah melanggar “standard operating procedure (SOP)” iaitu “go direct to minister by-pass your immediate boss (KSU)”.

At a time when crime in Malaysia has become endemic, with Malaysians losing their fundamental right to be free from crime and the fear of crime, an IGP who is more concerned about being a lobbyist for mega projects like the RM20 billion 30-year 34-police helicopter rental AsiaCopter proposal and the RM4.2 billion “E-Police Force Solution” Web Power proposal, even by-passing standard operating procedures, is not acceptable – even though both proposals did not take off.

This runs against the whole grain of the National Integrity Plan launched by the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Abdullah Abdullah five years ago.

There is another reason why Musa is not fit to continue as IGP and why this RM10 salary-cut motion.

[Speech (Part 1)  in Parliament on Thursday, 4th December 2008 on the RM10-cut motion for the Inspector-General of Police in the 2009 Budget debate  on the Home Ministry]

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 4 December 2008, 1:16 pm and is filed under
Parliament
,
Police
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Musa not fit to continue as IGP a single day

My censure motion to cut the salary of Inspector-General of Police, Tan Sri Musa Hassan, in Parliament today was defeated by a 48 to 30 votes when it was put to the House.

I had moved the motion against Musa on two grounds, viz:

•	For being more of a lobbyist for police megal deals instead of being the police leader to keep crime down and the country safe for Malaysians, tourists and investors; and

•	Telling  Malaysians that they had been living “a great lie” in the past five years under the Abdullah premiership by succumbing to the new police line that the real problem is not worsening crime situation or a misperception.

When winding-up, Deputy Home Minister Datuk Chor Chee Heong admitted the veracity of the two letters I handed to him earlier  during my speech, viz:

•	letter from Musa as  IGP to the Second Finance Minister Tan Sri Nor Mohamed Yakcop dated 12th February 2007 on the subject “Cadangan Kontrak Sewaan Helicopter Kepada Polis Diraja Malaysia Selama 30 Tahun Melalui Private Funding Initiative (PFI)” where Musa gave his full endorsement for the  RM20 billion Asiacopter proposal to rent out 34 helicopters to the police for 30 years; and

•	letter from Musa as IGP to the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi  dated 3rd November 2006 on “E-Police Force Solution – Letter of Intent”, pressing for the issue of an “Letter of Exclusive Intent” to Web Power Sdn. Bhd.  by the government for its RM4.2 billion “E-Police Force Solution”  proposal.

However he tried to dismiss  the “integrity issues” in the two letters, although I said that this was the first time an IGP has breached general orders and gone out of his way to lobby for mega police deals for a particular company – which had never been done by his predecessors, whether Tan Sri Bakri Musa, Tan Sri Norian Mai, Tan Sri Rahim Noor or Tun Hanif Omar.

When I asked whether the government would welcome a three-prong investigations into the improprieties committed by Musa, especially as his son was  working in one of the two companies which are inter-connected – government investigation into breach of standard operating procedures, Anti-Corruption Agency investigation and Public Accounts Committee inquiry, Chor merely replied that the PAC  is entitled to investigate into both matters if it is minded to do so.

On my second reason for the censure motion against Musa, I rebutted  claim that from international statistics, Malaysia is safer than Japan, Hong Kong and Australia and nearly on par with Singapore.

I pointed out the disgraceful phenomenon whereby Malaysians who crossed the Johore  causeway into Singapore would feel very safe while instantly feeling very unsafe when they return to Johore Baru through the causeway – which is the most powerful testimony that Malaysia is a world away as compared to Singapore  in terms of the comparative safety in each country.

As the Deputy Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib seemed to have adopted the new police line that Malaysia is safer than Japan, Hong Kong and Australia, I challenged Najib and Musa to walk the streets of Johore Baru without their retinue of escorts for a day to get a direct experience of the “fear of crime” which has become the daily nightmare of Malaysians.

I also reminded Musa of  the long list of top government and police officials who have fallen victim to the endemic in the country after their retirement, including his most well-known predecessor as IGP Tun Hanif Omar, former Penang Chief Police Officer Datuk Albert Mah (who was murdered in his Petaling Jaya home in an armed robbery), former Sarawak Governor Tun Rahman Yaakob  – warning that he himself might face the same fate after his retirement as IGP!

I omitted to mention the recent cases of the September murder of Hor Joo Lee, wife of former Penang MCA State Assemblyman, Lai Chew Hock to illustrate the gravity of the crime situation and why the  Police leadership should  end its  denial syndrome about the endemic  crime in the country.

When Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi did when became Prime Minister five years ago was to establish a Royal Commission Report, which reported in Chapter 4, viz:

“3.1 The incidence of crime increased dramatically in the last few years, from 121,176 cases in 1997 to 156,455 cases in 2004, an increase of 29 per cent.

“The increase seriously dented Malaysia’s reputation as a safe country. Malaysians in general, the business sector and foreign investors grew increasingly concerned with the situation.  The fear was that, if the trend continues, there would be major social and economic consequences for Malaysia.  A survey of 575 respondents from the public carried out by the Commission clearly demonstrates the extremely widespread concern among all ethnic groups and foreign residents.  Between 82.2 per cent and 90 per cent of the respondents, or 8 to 9 persons in every 10, were concerned with the occurrence of crime.”

After three years, in 2007, the incidence of crime increased by 33.94%  from 156,455 cases in 2004 to 209,559.

“3.2: There was an alarming increase in violent crime during the period. Violent crime grew from 16,919 cases in 1997 to 21,859 cases in 2004, an increase of 29.2 per cent in 8 years.  Cases involving unarmed gang robbery saw an increase of 56.5 per cent followed by attempted murder (76.9 per cent) and unarmed robbery (80.7 per cent).”

After three years, in 2007:

1.	Violent crime increased from 21,859 cases (2004) to 35,158 cases (2007) – an increase of 60.8 per cent.

2.	Unarmed gang robbery saw an increase of 318.4 per cent (i.e. from 1,689 cases in 2004 to 7,067 cases in 2007).

3.	Unarmed robbery increased by 30.4 per cent (i.e. from 13,211 cases in 2004 to 17,241 cases in 2007).

“3.3: There was  also a significant increase in property crime during the period from 104,257 cases in 1997 to 134,596  cases in 2004, an increase of 29 per cent.

“The increase was most severe in theft of lorries and vans (171.6 percent), cars (161.4 per cent) and motor cycles (92.4 per cent). Actual figures for prioperty crime are believed to be higher5 due to non-reporting.”

In three years, in 2007,property crime increased from 134,596 cases in 2004 to 174,440 (an increase of 29.6%).

Because of this high incidence of crime, the Royal Police said it was “urgent” for a concerted police drive against crime.

It dedicated Chapter 7 to
“Launch A Sustained Nation-Wide Drive Against Crime”
 and said:

“The Commission recommends that PDRM allot the highest priority to the campaign against crime, along with eradication of corruption and making policing more compliant with human rights and prescribed laws. The prioritization should remain until crime levels have reached a point considered no longer alarming.”

The Royal Police Commission recommended that the police formulate and implement annual and month crime reduction plans, and proposed the following target:

“As an immediate measure, PDRM should target a minimum of 20 per cent decrease in the number of crimes committed for each category within 12 months of this Report’s acceptance and implementation”.

It is now more than three  years since the publication of the Royal Police Commission. What has the Police to show for its “sustained nation-wide drive against crime”, the proposed “annual and monthly crime reduction plans” and in particular “a minimum 20 per cent decrease in crimes within 12 months”?

The Police had its own target of reducing the crime index by five per cent a year. If this more modest target had been reached, then from 156,455 crime incidence in 2004, there should be a drop to 148,632 cases in 2005, 141,200 cases in 2006 and 134,140 cases in 2007.

However  both the Royal Police Commission’s recommendation of a minimum of 20% decline of crime index in first 12 months or the police’s more modest target of 5% decline per year had not been achieved, and the Police is fighting a losing battle against crime with the traditional crime index breaking  the 200,000 mark last  year as well as this year.

The Inspector-General of Police is therefore doing the country a great disservice in now adopting a most irresponsible attitude in claiming that the worsening crime situation is not a fact but a mere misperception.

In  trying to convince Malaysians that they had been living under a “great lie” in the past five years under the Abdullah premiership in succumbing to the misperception of a worsening crime situation, Musa Hassan is not fit to continue as IGP for a single day.

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 4 December 2008, 5:23 pm and is filed under
Crime
,
Parliament
,
Politics
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Gibberish English

YB Lim

This is found on the pages of our National Registration Dept website. Sigh, what a sad state of affairs, when such atrocious English is held up for display, for practically the whole world to see…..

And we are proud of sending a “space man” above???? A by-product of all the years that UMNO and BN has been in charge of our Education System. Now, it’s not just us M’sians who know that the quality of our local grads is hopeless, but this is being paraded for the whole world to see.

Don’t UMNO/BN have any shame? Hope you will raise this issue up at the righ forum.

Regards

Shanker

_______________

(Note, this page have since been amended by NRD)

http://www.jpn.gov.my/BI/4_5_kadpengenalan.php

1. I’m 17 year old, when should I change my identity card replacement?

    A person whose had got first-time identity card namely during old 12 year, are required change again his identity card when have reached  the age 18 year. If this change made within life time 18 – 25 year, no any penalty imposed.

2. I already 25 year old and still not have my own identity card. What shoul I do?

     To them not yet own identity card although already aged more 16 year are advised to come to any nearby NRD to apply identity card     past record. Applicant and promoter must showed up together to be interviewed, bringing with together following documents:-

    Applicant Born Certificate / AnakAngkat’s Certificate / W’s Form Or

    Applicant Enter Permit / Confirmation Form National Standard(if concerning)

    Promoter Identity Card

3. I a foreign citizens and have gotten permit of entry from Jabatan Immigration Malaysia. Whether I qualified to apply      identity card? What is conditions for I apply identity card.

      You qualified to apply identity card with permanent resident status(Red). Applications requirements is bringing with permit of entry and       passport and copy both of them and application fee as many as RM 40.00. Applications can be made in NRD Putrajaya Headquarters      and NRD Branches only.

4. Is there any payment am being imposed in case happened damage for chip in my identity card.

     Chip damage who is not due to purposely destroyed, misuse and others within one year from the date of submission card is give     replacement by free, and if card period has been held by the applicant exceeding one year, payment as many as RM 10.00 imposed.

5. How many payment am being imposed if I loss identity card?

     Lost identity card would be charged follow loss number. Please see payment schedule.

6. How long MyKad’s application period can be completed?

    MyKad can be completed within 24 hours as applicant whose opted to take MyKad in NRD Putrajaya headquarters. For applicant opted     to take MyKad in any NRD branches office in Peninsula of Malaysia, then MyKad would be completed within 10 working day while 30     working day for applicant opted to take MyKad in any NRD branches office in Sabah, a Sarawak or Labuan. MyKad’s charter     completed this only involve applications from Warganegara Malaysia and prayer not problematical only.

7. Could I change address without change my identity card? If I can how many rates imposed?

     Yes. With payment RM2.00 and new address information would be updated inside chip. If you want change identity card one time, the     charge is RM10.00 .

8. Is it NRD receive payment other than cash ?

    Yes, NRD comply accept payment electronically namely via credit card, card debit and MEPS.

    However, there were limit minimum sum accept to payment via credit card there is as many as RM 50.00

_______________

http://www.jpn.gov.my/BI/3_3_1_pengenalan.php

WHAT IS MYKID

Mykid is identity card or introduction from children’s chip issued to children aged below 12 year.Mykid’s feature is the same as MyKad only it had no picture and fingerprints.

” My ” bring purpose “Malaysia” WHILE ” kid ” also is the abbreviation to ” Personal Identity Card “. Personal identification number that there were to Mykid this will be used in all business from born till the end.

Mykid contains 3 major application contain in chip namely:

    * JPN’s Application (presentation data)

    * Health information

    * Education information

MYKID’S ADVANTAGE

    * Current form ease of use deal government or private with the agency

    * Are used during deal with the department or agencies as hospital or clinic supply health screening objective, schooling and others .

    * Portable because miniaturized

    * Have security feature to avoid from misused.

    * With technology chip wherein information readable on the card or in chip. Chip in information stated also simple to be updated.

    * Strikingly good-looking form

MYKID’S IMPLEMENTATION

MyKid were implemented in all NRD branches in Peninsula of Malaysia and it only to registration of birth just.

MyKid Enquiry, please contact 03-88808066

_______________

http://www.jpn.gov.my/BI/4_1_web.php

1. What is NRD’s website?

NRD website is abbreviation to official web National Registration Department. NRD website make major world to information and national registration department service through Internet.

2.   Why this website been created?

Latterly, information and service majority National Registration Department has been prepared by online and NRD website been created to provide convenience to the public find information and service that are provided.

3.   Whom were allowed surf and use this website ?

Generally, this website could be achieved by all society. However, there were some information and service that need registration.

4.   What is privacy policy for this website? Am I been recorded or not?

All access and your use up on this website shall not be recorded. To further information, please visit to ‘Privacy Policy And Safety Policy’ in bottom of each page.

5.   What method for I contact National Registration Department?

You can contact us:-

Public Relations Office

Tel: 03-8880 8206 / 7071 / 7077 / 7067 / 7069

Fax: 03-8880 8288 atau

Email:
[email protected]

6.   How should I sent my feedback to Goverment Agencies?

You can fill form in the division “Public Complaint System ” In NRD website. It would be channelled to the divisions relating.

_______________

                This entry was posted on Friday, 5 December 2008, 2:18 pm and is filed under
Education
,
Letters
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Mukriz cannot quote Razak as authority and  protection as he had violated Razak’s “sensitive” issues

The Umno Youth chief candidate Datuk Mukhriz Mahathir now claims  that he is  only
emulating
the second Prime Minister, Tun Razak when he proposed the scrapping of the current dual-stream system of national and vernacular schools to be replaced with a single school system as the only way to check racial polarization.

However, Mukriz should should realize that it was Razak who amended the Malaysian Constitution in 1971 to make it an offence of sedition to propose the closure of Chinese and Tamil primary schools.

Umno Youth leader and Education Minister, Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Hussein has stepped forward to
rescue
 Mukriz by claiming that Mukriz’ call, which must imply the closure of Chinese and Tamil primary schools as they exist at present, is not seditious.

Such a statement coming from Hishammudin  is understandable but the Education Minister should realise that he cannot usurp the functions and powers of the Attorney-General and the judiciary by overturning clear legal precedents that any call for the closure of Chinese and Tamil primary schools runs afoul of the four “sensitive issues” protected by the 1971 Constitution Amendment by making it an offence of sedition to question them, to the extent of even removing parliamentary immunity on these four “sensitive” issues.

I am not advocating that Mukriz be charged under the Sedition Act which could involve his disqualification as MP for Jerlun and the disenfranchisement of his civil rights to hold office in any political party or society for five years if he is convicted and fined RM2,000 or jailed for more than a year, but Mukriz should realize that he has committed the offence of sedition as he has violated the constitutional prohibition against any questioning of the four sensitive issues which was initiated by Tun Razak when he became the second Prime Minister in 1971.

Malaysians are however outraged by police double-standards when MCA Deputy President Datuk Seri
Dr. Chua Soi Lek
could immediately be summoned by the police for investigation into his  remarks on ketuanan Melayu which have the most remote connection with the offence of sedition while police have been completely indifferent in the Mukriz case.

Mukriz should not try to defend the indefensible claiming that he had not called for the Chinese and Tamil primary schools to be closed down, as he knows better than anybody else that the Chinese and Tamil primary schools as they exist at present would have to be closed down if his proposal is to be implemented.

Mukriz should apologise for his error as well as admit  that he could not quote Razak as authority and protection, as Mukriz had violated  the 1971 Constitutional Amendment which was spearheaded by none other than Razak himself.

                This entry was posted on Friday, 5 December 2008, 10:51 am and is filed under
UMNO
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Nazri play-plays and pooh-poohs in parliament!

by Martin Jalleh

Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Mohd Nazri Abdul Aziz, has a very long tradition of treating parliament as his personal playground where he proudly leaves a trail of his political pooh behind.

When he fails in an intelligent debate in parliament or when an answer deserts him, leaving him dumb, he dishes out a diatribe, creates a dramatic diversion or distraction, and/or goes into a delirium.

Nazri acts tough, talks and thinks as though he is the PM, or he knows everything, threatens and taunts those who stand up to him, throws a tantrum together with some theatrics when things don’t go his way.

Past and present Speakers or their deputies have always given the Minister full and free access to the House to go into a fit or a frolic or to flaunt his foolishness according to his whim and fancy.

Nazri’s rewriting of history on 6 Nov. 2008 adds to the list of growing examples of the Minister treating the House as a place where he “play-plays” by being provocative and pokes fun at serious issues.

He told Parliament that former Lord President Salleh Abas and other senior judges involved in the judicial crisis 20 years ago were not “sacked” but had their “services terminated early”. Yet, in Sept. 2006 he had himself taken part in a
‘1988 Judicial Crisis – To review or not?’
 forum attended by 1,000 people who had heard him defend the sacking of the judges!

Karpal Singh insisted that action be taken against Nazri for allegedly lying to the House. The latter in a press conference conceded making a mistake, adding he had no intention of misleading the House. But Nazri refused to explain in nor apologise to Parliament, where he first made his infamous revelation. Telling the press would suffice! For the first time, a press conference took precedence over Parliament!

Karpal persisted. Deputy Speaker Wan Junaidi waved his wand and everything was back to square one. Gobind Singh told Wan that his decision was very wanting. He got suspended for two days. Nazri get off scot-free – to nurture more nonsense.

Nazri said Gobind was suspended “because he challenged the decision of the speaker. The reason why you don’t see us (BN MPs) get suspended is because we don’t go against the decision of the speaker”. Since when has the Speaker decided against a BN MP over a controversial issue?

Nazri has many fans and followers amongst the BN MPs, the latest being Tajuddin Abdul Rahman (Umno-Pasir Salak) whose sexual innuendo remarks in parliament were recently revealed and who called a DAP MP “bloody bastard” but escaped punishment (rings a bell?).

A glance at Nazri’s track record and tales (in italics) – a major part of which I have highlighted before and condensed here below – will show that the Minister overseeing parliamentary affairs has in fact in the recent past mislead and made a mockery of Parliament, with the Chair condoning his monkeying around.

2004: Nazri Bulls and Blunders

May:

Suhakam’s report is never meant to be debated in Parliament.
 Nazri was wrong. It is a legislative requirement for Suhakam, a creation of Parliament, to submit annual reports to Parliament so that its findings can be debated and its recommendations deliberated on.

2005: Nazri Bluffs and Bullies

April:

The Cabinet’s plan to form a select committee on water privatization was dropped because the King wanted water privatisation to be in place by the end of the year.
 Lim Kit Siang (LKS) told Nazri not to drag the King into the issue and added that “…the Royal address is the policy pronouncement of the government of the day”.

April:
 Bibles in Bahasa Malaysia cannot be circulated in the country as this could be seen as an effort to spread Christianity among the Malays….the prohibition had been in force since Independence and was in line with the Constitution
 (Star, 13.04.05). A week later the PM said that there was no such ban.

June:
 Nazri shouted
racist
 and
bloody racist
 at DAP MP M Kula Segaran 41 times. His “racist” fit which the then Speaker deemed fit to allow, was intended to divert attention from a dispute involving two government backbenchers!

Sept.:

If every issue raised requires a select committee, then perhaps we also need to discuss that former Communist Party of Malaya secretary-general Chin Peng is DAP’s Father of Independence.
— This was Nazri’s childish response to LKS’s suggestion of the setting-up of three new Parliamentary Select Committees.

2006:  Nazri Barks and Boasts

March:
 Nazri branded DAP MP Teresa Kok an
Islam hater
 after she questioned the directive that all policewomen must wear the tudung during official parades. Teresa protested. However the then Deputy Speaker merely told the minister that the remark was unnecessary.

June:
 Nazri told parliament:
There is no basis for the allegation of corruption in the judiciary as contained in a letter written by former High Court judge Datuk Syed Ahmad Idid… the case has been investigated by the Government, the ACA and the AG.

Syed Idid replied that the allegations were “never really investigated”. This was confirmed by a former AG Abu Talib Othman who added that “on the other hand, the poor judge who wrote it was investigated”!

July:

The presence of foreigners, including those with IMM13 documents, does not cause social, security and economic problems in Sabah.
 A leader of the Sabah Progressive Party (then a part of the ruling coalition) accused Nazri of being ignorant and said “it would be better for him to keep his mouth shut….”

July:

The Government is satisfied with the ACA’s performance.
 Param Cumaraswamy a former TI Malaysia president pointed out: “It is not the satisfaction of the Government that the ACA is handling its responsibilities effectively that matters. It is the satisfaction of the public that matters most.”

July:

The ACA is free to act on its own.
 In 2003, when he (who was then Entrepreneur Development Minister) was under investigation for corruption, Nazri had said that he would advise the Cabinet to replace the then ACA Investigations Director with whom he had a war of words with!

Sept:

You are just jealous because I am standing!
 – Nazri told wheelchair-bound Karpal Singh who had urged the Deputy Speaker to restrain the minister as he had “gone crazy” by racing through the text of his 80-page winding-up document, refusing to allow any interjections for clarification.

The Deputy Speaker later said that Nazri’s remarks were
“improper”
 – without making a ruling that the remarks be withdrawn!

2007: Nazri Goes Berserk

March:

The government is not prepared to study and research current election laws or revamp the Election Commission (EC) because in the past 50 years we have not revamped any ministry.
 This was Nazri’s response to then EC chairman’s call for an independent commission to oversee changes in the election laws and regulations.

March:

I think these NGOs are stupid…We don’t need another system, independent inquiry and all that.
  Nazri dismissed calls by rights groups for an independent inquiry into the graft and sexual assault allegations against then ACA director-general Zulkipli Mat Noor

And so for the first time in the country’s history we had the police investigating the (then) chief of the ACA and at the same time the ACA investigating the top police officer of the nation — and the Attorney-General deciding later that both were clean! The whole world was laughing at the government’s stupidity.

April:

Its like ants attracted to sugar… Malaysians leave to make money but they will return. You don’t have to press the panic button yet.
 This was Nazri’s response to LKS’s concern over the alarming migration trend. He forgot that his boss had in 2004 offered a host of incentives to lure an estimated 30,000 of Malaysia ‘s graduates working overseas to return home. Pak Lah panicked?

May:

Bernard Dompok’s resignation was influenced by Lim Kit Siang.
  Dompok resigned as the chairman of the Parliamentary Select Committee on Integrity because he had disagreed with Nazri over the committee’s scope of duties. Dompok’s reply to his colleague: “It’s a cheap shot!”

May:
 “…
they should not apologise to Fong or the DAP for their remarks.
  – Nazri came to the defence of the two MPs who had made sexist remarks following Fong Po Kuan’s observations of leaks in the Parliament building.

June:

Singapore is not a real country, it is a small island. Singapore’s population is just three to four million and there are no opportunities for corruption, unlike in our country.
 Nazri’s inference of larger countries being more prone to corruption and smaller countries being less corrupt was wrong.

June:

Malaysia will never develop as long as we have people like Lim (Kit Siang). All these (corruption allegations) are lies. Why are you so stupid? Where are the allegations? You have no brains. Stupid, stupid, stupid…!
 Nazri turned nasty in a heated exchange with LKS.

The then Speaker said that he could not cite Nazri for using unparliamentary language because “such language was used all the time”. Grinning like a school bully having his last say, Nazri added to his string of “stupid” salvoes:
OK, tidak cerdik (not smart) then. It’s like stupid too.

Aug.:
 The then Chief Justice (CJ) Ahmad Fairuz had advocated the abolition of Common Law, and replacing it with an Islamic legal system. Nazri denied on behalf of Fairuz, in Parliament, that Fairuz had made such a proposal. LKS provided Nazri with a newspaper tape transcript as proof. He played down its significance, claiming that
the CJ was pressed by reporters to offer his opinion!

Aug.:
 When Karpal Singh revealed the name of a Federal Court judge who had not written judgments in as many as 35 cases (in response to the then CJ’s challenge to show proof) Nazri declared:
the writing of judgments was not the only criterion to promote judges”
!

Aug:
 When the country did not have a Chief Judge for eight months, Nazri insisted that
there is no law that says the Chief Justice cannot act as the Chief Judge of Malaya
“. The Bar Council showed him that he was wrong!

Aug.:

There’s no need for such a judicial commission (in charge of judicial appointments) as there is no crisis in our judiciary…No crisis, no problems. I don’t see any scandal. These are all efforts by the opposition to create distrust and erode public confidence in the judiciary.
 This was in sharp contrast to Sultan Azlan Shah, who later expressed his grave concern over the “disquiet” about and “serious criticisms” against the judiciary at the 14th Malaysian Law Conference.

Sept.:
 …
the lawyers’ march was “unbecoming”
. (On 26th Sept. 2,000 lawyers walked to Putrajaya to submit a memorandum on judicial reform to the PM.) It was in sharp contrast to Bar Council president Ambiga Sreenevasan’s statement: “We are walking for justice, we want judicial reform. Lawyers don’t walk every day. When lawyers walk, something is wrong.”

Oct.:

Whistleblowers in the Lingam Tape scandal could be protected under the Witness Protection Bill tabled recently in Parliament.
— Nazri later admitted there was no such bill and blamed his press secretary for failing to issue a clarification to the media!

Nov.:
 …
it would be pointless to try and understand the reason behind the rally as the brains of opposition members do not function well…the wires in their heads are severed. I don’t understand why they claim that the EC is unfair.

Nazri was commenting on the march on 10 Nov. of 40,000 people to submit a memorandum calling for electoral reforms to the King. Ironically, a few weeks earlier, Nazri had told opposition MPs in parliament
“not to get over-excited about the ‘independence’ of the EC, when it does not exist.

Nov.:

“Don’t try to drag the King into this. The King and the people are behind us. They (the opposition) are afraid to face the next elections. If you’ve no courage, don’t become a pondan (wimp).
” If there is anyone who has tried to make use of the King it is Nazri himself (see above)!

2008: Nazri brays brazenly

May:

The government did not order the commission. We merely told them there were concerns about the legal implications and it could create problems later.
 Nazri blamed the EC for the last-minute decision to cancel the use of indelible ink in the March polls. The then EC chairman had said it was a Cabinet decision.

Nazri also told parliament that
no action would be taken against those who had lodged police reports saying that indelible ink was being smuggled into the country during the last general election…because they have believed the rumours they heard were true!

June:
 The Barisan Nasional Backbenchers Club (BBC) was upset with Nazri for branding it
childish
 and
gangster-like
 for removing a barricade at the Parliament lobby put up to ban reporters from the lobby.

I am expecting the BBC to recommend to Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi to sack me as a minister. If they dare not do that on Monday, then shut up and don’t talk anymore
 –  Nazri lambasted the BBC chairman.

Oct.:

The government does not have a problem with setting up the Independent Police Complaints and Misconduct Commission (IPCMC) but there is “strong evidence” that certain quarters disagreed with the proposal.

Nazri was responding to LKS’s query as to why the IPCMC was not established although the IGP had said that the police would agree if the government insisted on it. When a PAS MP questioned Nazri on who these “certain quarters” were, Nazri evaded the question and took a dig at PAS instead.

Misfortune

It is very obvious that the Minister in the PM’s Department who is also the overseer of parliamentary affairs and the de facto Law Minister, is a misfit in Parliament and an unmitigated mistake to the country.

As a loudmouth and loose cannon, Nazri would no doubt take Bolehland to greater heights in hype, hypocrisy and of course, hysterics and histrionics in Parliament!

The public cannot be blamed for its increasing perception that the Speaker and his deputies have been blind, biased, beholden to the Umno-dominated Government and begging and bending backwards to do its bidding. They have allowed Nazri to get away with impunity whilst appearing to be impartial.

Mohd Nazri Abdul Aziz should be included in the posse who will mount up and ride into the sunset together with the soon-to-be-retired PM.

Martin Jalleh

(4 Dec. 2008)

                This entry was posted on Friday, 5 December 2008, 11:30 am and is filed under
Letters
,
Martin Jalleh
,
Parliament
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Third reason why Musa not fit to be IGP for another day

Inspector-General of Police Tan Sri Musa Hassan has provided another reason to the two I gave in Parliament yesterday when moving a censure RM10 salary-cut motion against him why  he is not fit to continue as the top police officer in the country for another day.

This new evidence is provided by today’s
New Straits Times
front-page headlines of Musa’s speech yesterday,

“Top cop blasts errant politicians”
, which carried front-page  quotes by  Musa, viz:

“Don’t be role models for criminals, says IGP”
 and

“Politicians should be helping to build a better society instead of destroying it. If politicians do not respect the law, then criminals would do the same.”

I do not know about other politicians but I feel deeply offended by Musa’s smug and conceited statement for two reasons:

Firstly
, responsible and principled politicians never hold themselves as models for criminals, as when we break the law or are held to have broken the law, it is not for any self-gain or profit like robbing public coffers or private wealth.

Does Musa regard Gandhi has having spent his whole life to be a “role model for criminals”, and if not, he should withdraw his offensive remark and apologise to all responsible and principled politicians in the country.

Secondly
, it is very clear from Musa’s statement that he has not understood or accepted the thrust of the Royal Police Commission Report – to “make compliance  with prescribed laws and human rights one of the three top priorities for PDRM”.

The Royal Police Commission, headed by former Chief Justice Tun Daziddin and former Inspector-General of Police, Tun Hanif Omar,  in its Report,  Chapter 10, Section 2.1.1 said:

“As the police are there to protect the human rights of the individual whilst maintaining law and order, making policing in Malaysia more compliant with prescribed laws and human rights standards must clearly be a supreme priority for PDRM, along with reducing crime and eradicating corruption.  The Ministry of Internal Security, the proposed IPCMC and the leadership of PDRM must continue efforts to launch a comprehensive and sustained initiative that encompasses changes to policy, legislation, codes of ethics and conduct, directives and procedures and training to substantively enhance compliance.”

It is also clear that Musa has either forgotten or ignored the Royal Police Commission’s call for “a fundamental transformation in the character of policing in Malaysia  from one that is too easily persuaded to seek recourse in extraordinary emergency laws and giving itself as much space (such as through long remand periods), to one that is sensitive and respectful of the rights of individuals”.

When Musa cannot see the fundamental difference between politicians who are trying to mainstream human rights to create a better Malaysia from big-time criminals,  it is time that Malaysia has a new Inspector-General of Police who can provide the leadership to create an efficient, incorruptible, human rights-sensitive, professional world-class police service which can be the pride of all Malaysians.

                This entry was posted on Friday, 5 December 2008, 11:56 am and is filed under
Crime
,
Police
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Privacy of an individial is human right

By
 Dr Chen Man Hin

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has ruled  that ‘storing  DNA from people with no criminal record is in breach of their rights, as this constitute a violation of a person’s right to a private life.’

The Home Minister and the police should realise that DNA is the private property of an individual, and permission must be obtained to obtain DNA from him

This concept of personal privacy has been practised by doctors since the time of Hippocrates in the 4th century BC. Doctors swear by the Hippocrates Oath on graduation.  any information of the patient is his private property and cannot be revealed to a third person, unless with the express permission of the patient.

This implies that the individual has a right to protection from indiscriminate extraction of blood samples by the home minister or the police, for the DNA is the private property of the individual.

Anwar Ibrahim’s DNA is a case in point. He was accused of sodomy the second time, and the police demanded for his DNA. The allegation of sodomy was a trumped-up plan to incriminate Anwar and prevent him from being prime minster of Malaysia.

His lawyers are fighting to prevent any forcible attempt by the police to obtain DNA sample from Anwar, and rightly so, as the DNA could be used by the police to fabricate evidence against Anwar.

The experience of the first sodomy charge in 1998 is a clear example. The so-called sodomy was trumped up by Tun Mahathir, and subsequently overturned by the court. At that time, DNA was extracted from Anwar, and used to fabricate evidence against him.

The ECHR ruling is a clear warning to the home minister and the police to respect the human right of an individual, and should not indiscriminately extract DNA from an individual unless there is hard evidence.

As far as is known there is no hard evidence to justify the charge of sodomy against Anwar. The home minister should drop the case against Anwar.

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 6 December 2008, 4:51 pm and is filed under
Dr. Chen Man Hin
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


UMNO top leadership opposing Abdullah’s reform bills for anti-corruption and judiciary?

With the end of the 31-day debate on the 2009 Budget last Thursday, the focus of the last six sittings of the current budget meeting ending on December 18 will be on two of the three reform measures which the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, had promised to accomplish before he steps down from office next March.

These are  the Bills to establish the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MCAC), reputedly patterned after Hong Kong’s Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) and the Judicial Appointments Commission.

As I have not sighted either of the bills, I am unable to comment intelligently on them.

However, it is evident that both these “reform” bills have evoked considerable opposition in UMNO circles, reaching to very high evels of the Umno leadership.

It would appear that there are powerful Umno circles who are uncomfortable with any measures to create a more independent agency with a bit more bite to fight corruption, especially as the ongoing Umno party elections is mired in the worst money politics and corruption in the party history.

I understand that among powerful UMNO personalities who are strongly opposed to Parliament enacting reform legislation on anti-corruption and the judiciary, and the four-day extension of Parliament to Dec. 18 to debate and approve these bills, are those who are contesting for high Umno posts next March, including candidates for Umno Supreme Council, UMNO Vice Presidents and Deputy President.

I call on the Prime Minister-designate Datuk Seri Najib Razak, who has won the Umno President’s post uncontested, as well as all UMNO candidates for the top party posts, particularly those contesting for the positions of UMNO Deputy President and Vice Presidents to immediately and publicly declare whether they give full support to  the reform legislation for anti-corruption and the judiciary, and in particular whether they are fully behind Abdullah with regard to the bills for judicial and anti-corruption reforms to be tabled in Parliament next week.

(Speech at the 2008 DAPSY Congress at Federal Hotel, Kuala Lumpur on Saturday, 6th December 2008)

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 6 December 2008, 7:15 pm and is filed under
Corruption
,
Judiciary
,
Parliament
,
UMNO
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Bukit Antarabangsa landslide disaster – urgent Parliament debate

Just  four days to the 15th anniversary of the Highland Towers tragedy, disaster again struck early this morning in  Bukit Antarabangsa when a landslide killed at least  four people,  seven missing, 15 injured, 14 bungalows destroyed and 4,000 people evacuated from the area.

Parliament, when it reconvenes on Wednesday, should have an urgent debate on why no lessons have been learnt from the 1993 Highland Towers Tragedy which claimed 48 lives when its Condominium Block 1 collapsed so as to prevent the recurrence of today’s tragedy.

I still remember vividly the harrowing presence of former Deputy Prime Minister, Tun Musa Hitam, when I visited the Highland Towers Condominium collapse site in Ulu Klang on the night of 11th December 1993, as he lost his son Rashid Carlos who together with his wife Rozita perished in the tragedy.

The Public Accounts Committee (PAC) should also initiate an urgent inquiry as to why the relevant government authorities have failed to learn past disasters and tragedies.

I will visit the Bukit Antarabangsa with DAP MPs tomorrow.

(Speech at the DAP Balakong Branch’s 1,700-People dinner in Balakong, Selangor on Saturday, 6th December 2008)

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 7 December 2008, 8:25 am and is filed under
Good Governance
,
Parliament
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Bukit Antarabangsa landslide disaster  – criminal negligence after Highland Towers tragedy 15 years ago

The Bukit Antarabangsa landslide disaster yesterday, claiming at least five lives, injuring  at least 15 and dislocating  thousands of residents after destroying 14 bungalows, is sheer criminal negligence after the Highland Towers tragedy which killed 48 people 15 years ago.

Clearly, the lessons of the Highland Towers tragedy 15 years ago have not been learnt by anyone, least of all the various government agencies, whether at the federal, state or local government level.

The Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi yesterday l
amented
 that “Malaysians never want to learnt from past experiences” – “They want good views while developers only seek to profit; but no one takes safety and soil stability into consideration”.

Conspicuously absent from Abdullah’s blame list are the various government agencies and authorities who should be even more culpable in giving approvals or closing an eye to dangerous hillside developments and in totally ignoring the lessons of the Highland Towers tragedy 15 years ago.

I visited the site of the Bukit Antarabangsa landslide tragedy this morning together with several DAP MPs – Dr. Tan Seng Giaw (Kepong), Fong Kui Lun (Bukit Bintang), Lim Lip Eng (Segambut), Teo Nie Ching (Serdang) – Selangor State Exco Member Ean Yong Hian Wah (Seri Kembangan) and Lee Ying Ha (Teratai) and I was shocked that the Minister for Housing and Local Government, Datuk Ong Ka Chuan had still to make his appearance at the site although it was more than 24 hours after the tragedy.

When the Highland Towers tragedy occurred on Dec. 11, 1993, the then Housing and Local Government Minister, Datuk Dr. Ting Chew Peh, was immediately on the scene and stayed for hours. Where is Ong Ka Chuan?

Parliament must prove its relevance by having an immediate debate on why the lessons of the Highland Towers tragedy 15 years ago have not been learnt or the Bukit Antarabangsa landslide disaster yesterday would not have happened.

MPs from both the Barisan Nasional and Pakatan Rakyat should speak loud end clear in Parliament on Wednesday to express their condemnation of the criminal negligence which had failed to learn from the Highland Towers tragedy to prevent the Bukit Antarabangsa landslide disaster yesterday.

I call on Ka Chdua to work  with the Works Minister and the Environment Minister to present a ministerial statement on the Bukit Antarabangsa landslide tragedy in Parliament when MPs reconvene on Wednesday and to ensure that his ministerial statement is followed by a full parliamentary debate.

A Royal Commission of Inquiry should be established to inquire not only into the Bukit Antarabangsa landslide tragedy, but even more important, why the lessons of the Highland Towers tragedy 15 years ago have not been learnt by all the parties concerned, including the federal, state and local government authorities as to prevent yesterday’s tragedy from happening.

Disasters

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 7 December 2008, 1:02 pm and is filed under
Parliament
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Najib, 3 UMNO DP and 8 UMNO VP candidates – declare stand whether support Abdullah “reform” legislation

Former Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad has
utter contempt
for his successor Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, pouring scorn on Abdullah’s promises to  push through reform before he steps down in March next year –  particularly the bills  to establish the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MCAC), reputedly patterned after Hong Kong’s Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC), and the Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC).

Writing in his blog, Mahathir noted sarcastically that “after failing to implement any of the promises made in the 2004 or 2008 elections, it looks like nothing is being done either with regard to the promise to carry out a variety of so-called reforms” before Abdullah steps down as Prime Minister in March 2009.

It would appear that Mahathir is privy to information not generally known to the Malaysian public, that forces are at work to frustrate and roll back any reform legislation on anti-corruption and an independent judiciary which Abdullah had promised to present to Parliament next week.

I will not be surprised if Mahathir is hands-in-glove with these reactionary UMNO forces to undermine and even roll back any reform legislation to be proposed by Abdullah in Parliament next week.

Will Abdullah’s bills to establish MCAC and JAC run into opposition from UMNO Ministers and MPs themselves and would Abdullah have to depend on Pakatan Rakyat MPs to ensure that these Bills are enacted by Parliament despite their many weaknesses and drawbacks?

Although there are growing vibrations of  intensifying criticisms and opposition by powerful Umno warlords against Abdullah’s  reform legislation on anti-corruption and an independent judiciary, I do not think they are yet prepared for a public showdown with  UMNO Ministers and MPs  in open revolt by voting  against the bills in Parliament.

However, there may be a high rate of absence of UMNO Ministers and MPs to illustrate their displeasure and demonstrate their opposition to the bills concerned.

If this is the case, what hope is there that the reform legislation would be implemented fully when Abdullah steps down as Prime Minister and is replaced by Datuk Seri Najib Razak?

Would the reform legislation become “dead ducks” the moment by are passed by Parliament, as with Abdullah stepping  down as Prime Minister in three months’ time,  will  the new Umno top leadership be  in the very forefront to roll back the proposals to give more bite to anti-corruption campaign and to restore the independence, impartiality and integrity of the judiciary?

As there are reports that major contenders for the top party  posts in March Umno general assembly are strongly critical and even opposed to the reform legislation to be presented to Parliament, Najib, the three candidates for the Umno Deputy President and eight candidates for the Umno Vice President contests should individually declare their stand on the bills concerned and whether they are fully committed to support an all-out war against corruption and the restoration of an independent and impartial judiciary.

Let Najib, as well as the three Umno Deputy President candidates (Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin, Datuk Seri Mohd Ali Rustam and Tan Sri Muhammad Muhammad Taib) and the eight Umno Vice President candidates (Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Hussein, Datuk Seri Zahid Hamidi, Datuk Seri Shafie Apdal, Datuk Seri Khaled Nordin, Datuk Seri Syed Hamid Albar, Tan Sri Mohd Isa Samad, Datuk Seri Jamaluddin Jajis and Datuk Seri Rais Yatim) speak up on whether they endorse Abdullah on the MCAC and JAC bills and would help to rally support both inside and outside UMNO  for the proposals.

(Speech 2  at the DAP Balakong Branch’s 1,700-people dinner at Balakong, Selangor on Saturday, 6th December 2008)

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 7 December 2008, 12:24 pm and is filed under
Abdullah Ahmad Badawi
,
Corruption
,
Judiciary
,
UMNO
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


English-Medium Islamic Schools

by
M. Bakri Musa

The Minister of Education will soon decide whether to continue the teaching of science and mathematics in English in our schools.  That decision will not materially change the continuing decline in educational achievements of Malays.

            This harsh reality is the consequence of our national schools – the default choice for most Malays – being abysmal failures.  Most non-Malays as well as affluent Malays are fully aware of this and thus have long ago abandoned the system.  Observe the steady stream of school buses and private cars full of young non-Malays heading south on the causeway every school-day morning.  As for affluent Malays, ask where Najib Razak and Hishammuddin Hussein send their children for their education!

            In today’s economy, the most advantaged are those with high science literacy and mathematical skills, as well as being fluent in more than one language, with one of those languages being English, the language of commerce and science.  Fluency in English is no panacea of course; a visit to India and the Philippines will quickly disabuse us of that assumption.

            The next most advantaged will be those fluent only in English.  The least advantaged would be those literate in only one language, and that language is other than English.  This unfortunately is the fate of Malays today.

            While one could attain high levels of science literacy and mathematical skills without knowing English, that is true only if one’s primary language is Japanese, German, or any of the other already developed languages.  It is not true for Swahili or Urdu.  It is definitely not true for Malay, no matter how passionately our language nationalists assert to the contrary.  Even with those Germans and Japanese, the crucial point often overlooked is that they are also literate in English.  Japanese children for example, learn English right from kindergarten.

            These educational deficiencies of Malays are long standing; they cannot be solved through expensive investments in facilities and personnel alone.

            The problem is most critical, and equally most difficult to overcome, with rural Malays.  The cultural, intellectual, language and other ambience at home and in the community are not conducive to these children lifting themselves out of their trapped environment.  They need help desperately.  To effectively do so, our leaders must be daring and exceptionally innovative; resorting to pat answers would not do our students justice.

English Schools in Rural Areas

In my earlier books I proposed setting up English schools in the kampongs.  It makes sense to begin there as those Malays are the ones with the lowest proficiency in English, and thus would benefit most from such an initiative.  With their already high usage of Malay at home and in the community, these pupils would not likely “forget” their native tongue if they were to attend these exclusively-English schools.

            This is not a novel or risky social experiment, rather the resurrecting and improving of an old successful one.  That was how Malays of my and earlier generations received our education.  And as Tun Mahathir noted, we have not become any less Malay for the experience.  Nor have we degenerated into “brown Mat Sallehs,” the expressed mortal fear of the nationalists.  Indeed that was how those ardent defenders of Malay language as Nik Safiah and Hussein Ismail received their education and enhanced their intellectual development.  Now they want to deny today’s young Malays – their grandchildren – the very same opportunities that they had enjoyed and benefited from.

            While my proposal would be an improvement over the present system, there are problems with its implementation.  Politically, there could be similar demands for such schools to be set up elsewhere, especially in areas where the background level of Malay in the community is low.  Then we could potentially end up with situation akin to the bad colonial days where students would be fluent in English but at the expense of their proficiency in Malay.  That would be unacceptable as Malay is now our national language.  Further, it would divert resources and personnel away from rural areas, where the need is most desperate.

            Then there is the ire of the nationalists.  They would go ballistic seeing those village children heartily singing Baa Baa Black Sheep instead of Nyet Nyet Semut, fearing the cultural and other “polluting” influences on our young.  Telling them that those children would continue singing our melodious Malay lullabies at home would not reassure these nationalists.

            A more practical problem would be in getting good teachers to serve in rural areas, although this could be alleviated through generous incentives like higher bonuses and providing living quarters.  Not readily surmountable would be that such schools would necessarily be small; hence their academic offerings would be limited.

English-language Islamic Schools

To bypass these problems, I propose setting up English-medium Islamic schools.  Again I am not suggesting anything radical here, merely extending an already successful experiment.  I am simply proposing that the successful formula of the International Islamic University (IIU) be extended down to the school level.

Like IIU, these Islamic schools would use English as the medium of instruction, be open to all, and teach religious as well as “secular” subjects.  These schools could be set up anywhere, not just in rural areas.  Consequently they could be in major towns and thus be of sufficient size to offer a varied and rich curriculum.

In fact IIU already has its Islamic School, also using English as the medium of instruction.  Unfortunately its curriculum and pedagogical philosophy are more madrasah-like, the antithesis of a modern educational institution even though the school prepares its students for the GCE “A” examination.  The emphasis at that school is on students learning the rituals of Islam and memorizing the Quran.  I would prefer that those be done outside the classroom.

The Islamic school I have in mind would be modeled after the many excellent Christian – in particular Catholic – schools in America.  Their academic standing is such that they are the first choice for many non-Christians, including Muslims.  These schools are first and foremost academic institutions, concerned primarily with education.  They are interested in making their students better citizens, not on producing future priests or on proselytizing.

These schools regularly matriculate their students to highly competitive universities to become engineers and doctors.  Only a tiny fraction, if any, would end up in the clergy.  Likewise, my version of Islamic schools would produce Malaysia’s future scientists and scholars.  These schools are not meant to produce converts to Islam or turn students into ulama.

There are now many such Islamic schools in America, and their number is rapidly growing such that the University of California, Irvine, currently offers a teachers’ credentialing certificate in Islamic Education.  Ultimately these schools would lead to the establishment of an English-medium Islamic University modeled after and of the caliber of Georgetown.  Meaning, they would offer solid liberal education in a rigorous academic environment but with an Islamic ambience, akin to the Catholicism of Georgetown.

A more local but historical model of my Islamic school would be our old missionary schools.  They did a credible job in educating many Malaysians, including our present Minister of Education Hishammuddin.  Just substitute their Christianity for Islam.

            English-medium Islamic schools in Malaysia would overcome many of the problems associated with my earlier suggestion of having English schools in rural areas.  For one, such schools could be set up in urban areas and thus be of sufficient size to offer a rich and varied curriculum.  There would also be fewer difficulties in recruiting teachers.

While English would be the medium of instruction, Arabic (and with it jawi) would be taught as a second language.  Islamic Studies would be taught in English, but the emphasis there should be on teaching it as an academic subject, not as theology.

In a typical seven-period day, one period would be devoted to Arabic and another to Islamic Studies.  The remaining five would be for regular or “secular” subjects, including English, science, and mathematics.  Science and mathematics would be taught as per the current understanding, and not as some presumed “Islamic” variant.  The curriculum must include the performing arts, and the extracurricular programs robust and varied to include sports.

            The emphasis should be on solid liberal education and critical thinking.  Literature for example would be taught not only as a means of learning the language but also to develop the students’ critical faculties, as per Louise Rosenblatt’s “Literature as Exploration” philosophy.  Students would be discussing Shakespeare’s sonnets as well as Rumi’s rhymes.

            Using English would go a long way in disabusing Malays of the negative psychological connotation associated with learning that language.  We would no longer view English as the language of colonials and infidels but as a necessary intellectual tool.  For another, such schools would truly educate their students, teaching them to think critically as well as imparting to them modern skills and knowledge.  Far too often what goes on in existing Islamic schools is nothing more than indoctrination – masquerading as education.

            Properly executed, these schools would attract students from abroad, especially the Middle East.  These schools could be viable business investments as well as contribute to making Malaysia an educational hub.

            Since these schools are open to all, they should get state support.  There is precedent for this; the old Christian missionary schools also received governmental funding.  Additionally such schools should get a generous slice of the huge zakat and wakaf endowments.  I would also impose a surcharge of RM100 for every Hajj and umrah ticket towards funding these schools.

            As can be readily seen, my version of the Islamic school is very different from the current Sekolah Kebangsaan Agama (SKA).  Apart from differences in admission policy and language of instruction (SKA admits only Muslims and uses Malay), there would also be profound differences in mission and teaching philosophy.  SKA aspires to nurture future pendakwah (missionaries), and like IIU’s version, is more madrasah than a modern educational institution.

            My proposal transcends politics; it is also be a splendid way to initiate conversations between Malay leaders in the various parties for the betterment of our people.  This dialogue is desperately needed as our leaders are determined to go their separate and divisive ways.  They seem intent on erasing any commonality of objectives in the relentless pursuit of their political goals.

            English-medium Islamic schools may prove to be the effective avenue to propel Malays up the educational ladder.  The Islamic imprimatur always sells.  Our language nationalists would not dare oppose such schools even if English were to be the medium of instruction.  We should capitalize on this.  These schools could be the salvation for Malays, just as Catholic schools were for impoverished and marginalized Irish immigrants in America at the turn of the last century.

            These are the issues I expect Hishammuddin and his senior officers at the Ministry of Education to deliberate on, not flip flopping on major policies.  That they are not doing so is a gross dereliction of duty.  Unfortunately it is our young who bear the terrible burden of this negligence.

                This entry was posted on Monday, 8 December 2008, 5:50 am and is filed under
Bakri Musa
,
Education
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Ministerial reaction to Bukit Antarabangsa disaster – too much resignation, too little outrage

Starting with the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi and the Deputy Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak, there is too much resignation and too little outrage in the government reaction to the Bukit Antarabangsa landslide disaster  and criminal negligence in failing to learn the lessons of the Highland Towers Collapse tragedy which had claimed 48 lives 15 years ago, resulting in the loss of another four lives on Saturday.

Apart from wringing their hands in despair and spouting the usual platitudes about a halt on hillslope development which no one believes in,  there is even no political will to set up a Royal Commission of Inquiry not only into the latest landslide disaster which killed four persons, injured 14, buried 14 bungalows and  stranded 5,000 people,  but also into the criminal negligence of the various parties involved – particular the federal, state and local government agencies – in failing to learn the lessons of the Highland Towers tragedy 15 years ago.

No wonder,
Dr. Benjamin George
, who survived the Highlands Tower disaster, was not convinced that things would get better when he said: “In three months, the tractors will start work again.  I have survived long enough to see all this nonsense repeated.”

After the Highland Towers tragedy, I had proposed in Parliament the establishment of a mechanism like the Geotechnical Engineering Office (GEO) to investigate slopes for potential risks and to take preventive measures, to control the geotechnical  aspects of new buildings and civil engineering works, to promote slope maintenance by owners, to undertake landslide warnings and  emergency services and to advise on land-use plans to minimise public risks.

Affected Bukit Antarabangsa residents are entitled to ask why several tell-tale signs of impending landslides days and even weeks before Saturday’s landslide disaster had not been acted upon by the authorities to issue landslide warnings, especially as a geological firm had been awarded a
RM1.6 million contract
to “solely monitor the geological conditions” in Bukit Antarabangsa area, including earth movements.

Residents refer to a landslide which cut off a portion of the Jalan Bukit Antarabangsa main road just six days earlier, while a landslide victim, businessman Hassan Saad, 49, claimed that he had notified the relevant authorities about fallen trees and earth movements close to his home in Taman Bukit Mewah in October but his complaints were not taken seriously by the Ampang Jaya Municipal Council (MPAJ).

There can be no two ways about it  – there should be a Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Bukit Antarabangsa landslide disaster  with a three-prong terms of reference:

•	firstly, to inquire into the circumstances and causes of Saturday’s Bukit Antarabangsa landslide tragedy;

•	secondly a larger mandate to inquire whether and why the  Federal, state and local government agencies have not learned the lessons of the Highland Towers tragedy 15 years ago, specifically for Bukit Antarabangsa but even further afield; and

•	thirdly, why other countries like Hong Kong could end landslides by ensuring hillslope safety  despite development.

When I visited Bukit Antaarabangsa disaster site yesterday, I had asked where was the Minister for Housing and Local Government, Datuk Ong Ka Chua, who had not shown up or expressed any concern  more than 24 hours after the landslide disaster.

It was a few hours after my public query that the Deputy Housing and Local Government Minister, Robert Lau, showed up at  the site claiming that he was making the visit on behalf of the Minister.

But what was more intriguing was the explanation by Ong’s press secretary that the Minister had left the country on Friday, a day before the landslide disaster, and that the Ministry staff had difficulty communicating with Ong.

As this clarification was made by Ong’s press secretary after the site visit of several DAP MPs yesterday, where did Ong fly to that he could not be contacted after some 48 hours – in a world when one can fly to the end of the world in 24 hours?

Finally, will Ong appear in Parliament on Wednesday to announce the establishment of a Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Bukit Antarabangsa landslide disaster?

                This entry was posted on Monday, 8 December 2008, 12:06 pm and is filed under
environment
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Road carnage – disappeared from Abdullah’s radar screen in his last 100 days as PM

The Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi is in his last 100 days as the fifth Prime Minister of Malaysia.

His silence and indifference to  the latest road carnage in the
express bus North-South Expressway (NSE) crash in Tangkak
which killed 10 and injured 14 on Sunday, taking place in his last 100 days as PM, is in sharp and sad contrast to his anger and outrage at the Jalan Kuala Lipis-Marapoh three-vehicle accident which killed 14 on 30th November 2003 during his first hundred days as PM.

This also signifies another major failure  of Abdullah with regard to his  First-Hundred-Days-as-PM  pledges– to end the road carnage on Malaysian roads.

I can still remember Abdullah’s furious and emotional outbursts five Novembers ago, when he  expressed his frustration and upset at the number of road fatalities recorded under Ops Sikap V, with 25 road deaths on the first day of Hari Raya and the death toll which rose to 104 in the first six days of Ops Sikap V.

Malaysians were told in Abdullah’s First 100 Days, that the road carnage which claimed over 200 lives in every15-day Ops Sikap operation before a national festivity was unacceptable and that new rules and regulations would be introduced to end the road carnage in the country.

Five years down the road, the authorities have claimed as a “resounding success” the latest Ops Sikap VII for this year’s Hari Raya holidays covering the 15-day period from Sept. 24 to Oct. 8 although the fatalities numbered 208, 17 fewer deaths compared to last year’s Hari Raya Aidilfitri festivities – which also marked the disappearance  of the road carnage problem  from the radar screen of the departing Prime Minister and his Cabinet!

Will Datuk Seri Najib Razak take on board the serious menace of road carnage in his first 100 days when he takes over as Prime Minister in March and ensure that this time, there would be effective Prime Ministerial leadership and  concrete results to break the back of the   grave problem of road carnage not only during national holidays but all-year-round?

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 9 December 2008, 2:53 pm and is filed under
Abdullah Ahmad Badawi
,
Najib Razak
,
Transport
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Ka Chuan – don’t be a second Samy Vellu

The Bukit Antarabangsa landslide disaster on Saturday, 6th December 2008, claiming five lives and dislocating 5,000 people after destroying 14 bungalows, is sheer criminal negligence after the Highland Towers tragedy 15 years ago on Friday, 11th December 1993.

It is sad and shocking testimony that the 48 who died in the Highland Towers tragedy 15 years ago had died in vain as the lessons had not been learnt by the relevant government authorities and parties.

The Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi blamed developers and buyers when he lamented:

“Malaysians never want to learn from past experiences.  They want good views while developers only seek to profit; but no one takes safety and soil stability into consideration”.

Conspicuously absent from Abdullah’s blame list are the various government agencies and authorities who should be even more culpable in giving approvals or closing an eye to dangerous hillside developments and in totally ignoring the lessons of the Highland Towers tragedy 15 years ago.

Subconsciously admitting that it was indefensible to exonerate the government from responsibility for the criminal negligence resulting in the Bukit Antarabangsa disaster, Information Minister Datuk Ahmad Shabery Cheek complained that it was not fair to slam the Government for failing to act every time a disaster happens.

“It is unfair to say the Government did not act.  We cannot put the blame on just one authority.  After all, you need two to tango, but this time there are three – the government, the developers and buyers.”

But the real unfairness is the government’s shirking of responsibility, and this was why when the Ampang Jaya Municipal Council Inquiry Report into the Highland Tower Tragedy was made public in June 1994, putting the blame solely on the developer, the Highland Towers victims were incensed at the exoneration of responsibility by the various government authorities, in particular the Ampang Jaya Municipal Council.

I am shocked that the Housing and Local Government Minister, Datuk Seri Ong Ka Chuan, who had been missing for the past four days of the disaster, has surfaced today to rule out human negligence as the cause of  the Bukit Antarabangsa landslide disaster and to declare natural causes as the probable factor.

Ong should not be a second Samy Vellu with excuses of “acts of God”.

This attitude of government immunity and impunity for sheer criminal negligence has continued unchanged in the past 15 years from the Highland Towers Tragedy to the Bukit Antarabangsa disaster, and will ensure not only the 48 who died 15 years but the five who perished last Saturday would have died in vain as nothing would have been learnt from these man-made disasters with future hillslope disasters waiting to happen with more victims.

No wonder, Dr. Benjamin George, who survived the Highlands Tower disaster, was not convinced that things would get better when he said: “In three months, the tractors will start work again.  I have survived long enough to see all this nonsense repeated.”

Affected Bukit Antarabangsa residents are entitled to ask why several tell-tale signs of impending landslides days and even weeks before Saturday’s landslide disaster had not been acted upon by the authorities to issue landslide warnings, especially as a geological firm had been awarded a RM1.6 million contract to “solely monitor the geological conditions” in Bukit Antarabangsa area, including earth movements.

Residents refer to a landslide which cut off a portion of the Jalan Bukit Antarabangsa main road just six days earlier, while a landslide victim, businessman Hassan Saad, 49, claimed that he had notified the relevant authorities about fallen trees and earth movements close to his home in Taman Bukit Mewah in October but his complaints were not taken seriously by the Ampang Jaya Municipal Council (MPAJ).

There can be no two ways about it – there should be a Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Bukit Antarabangsa landslide disaster with a three-prong terms of reference:

•	firstly, to inquire into the circumstances and causes of Saturday’s Bukit Antarabangsa landslide tragedy;

•	secondly, a larger mandate to inquire whether and why the  Federal, state and local government agencies have not learned the lessons of the Highland Towers tragedy 15 years ago, specifically for Bukit Antarabangsa but even further afield; and

•	thirdly, why other countries like Hong Kong could end landslides by ensuring hillslope safety  despite development.

Finally, there should be full and independent inquiry into the serious complaints by Bukit Antarabangsa victims about some irresponsible members of the search and rescue (SAR) operations team, in particular, the shocking complaint by the husband of accountant Eng Yee Peng, who died in the landslide at Bukit Mewah in Bukit Antarabangsa on Saturday, who alleged that when he sought help from the rescue team to save his wife who was still alive, he was given a hoe and asked to dig and find his wife on his own.

I believe the majority SAR members are responsible and honest but the handful of black sheep who were callous and inhuman must be ferreted out to face the full force of the law.

(Speech in Parliament on the urgent, definite, public importance motion on the Bukit Antarabangsa landslide disaster)

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 10 December 2008, 5:09 pm and is filed under
Corruption
,
environment
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


MACC and JAC Bills – both fall far short of expectations and promise of anti-corruption and judicial reforms

The Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) and Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC) personally presented in Parliament for first reading yesterday by the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi both fall far short of expectations and the promise of anti-corruption and judicial reforms.

The  15th anniversary today  of the Highland Towers tragedy in 1993 which killed 48 people and over 1,000 people were made homeless, preceded five days ago by the  Bukit Antarabangsa landslide disaster which killed four, with one missing while displacing some 5,000 people, should serve as wrenching reminders of the necessity for urgent and meaningful anti-corruption and judicial reforms.

Even the mainstream New Straits Times yesterday editorialized  that “Everything from the loss of faith in national institutions, as measured in both the electoral vote and the rising crime rate, to the catastrophic failure of developed hill slopes seems at least partly attributable to the corrosion of corruption – of corners cut, blind eyes turned, and money paid for benefits unseen”.

The New Straits Times editorial could have cited as another recent example of the far-reaching consequences of the corrosion of rampant corruption – the road carnage in the express bus North-South Expressway (NSE) crash in Tangkak which killed 10 and injured 14 on Sunday.

The Highland Towers tragedy is also a case study of the urgent need for judicial reforms – with the indefensible and unconscionable Federal Court judgment of Feb. 17, 2006 in the Highland Tower case that local authorities are not  legally liable for  landslides, collapsed buildings and people dying when it should have struck a just and middle ground to hold the Ampang Jaya Municipal Council liable where negligence is established while taking into account the interests of the ratepayers for essential basic services.

Abdullah’s claim after the first reading yesterday that the  MACC and JAC bills will restore public and investors’ confidence in the country’s battle against corruption and the judicial system is too  premature, as this will depend on whether the two bills can result in meaningful and effective reforms in these two jurisdictions.

Can the MACC and JAC bills wipe out the negative perception, finally admitted by the Prime Minister himself, that  the government is not committed towards tackling corruption or addressing  the suspicions of investors about the integrity of the judiciary?

The MACC purports to create an independent anti-corruption agency, taking it out from the Prime Minister’s Department  to be answerable to Parliament.

However, from the MACC bill, the Prime Minister’s influence and even control through the various provisions of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission Bill  are still over-powering and sufficient to undermine its independence and autonomy.  For instance,  it is the Prime Minister who will decide the appointments of the Chief Commissioner of the MACC as well as the two important “check-and-balance” mechanisms – the Anti-Corruption Advisory Board and the Special Committee on Corruption.

The Special Committee on Corruption is supposed to be the  Parliamentary Committee to exercise oversight of the MACC, but who decides on its composition?  The Prime Minister, who will advise the Yang di Pertuan Agong on the appointment of seven members from the Dewan Rakyat and Dewan Negara, based on the nomination of the “Leader of the House of Representatives” who is none other than the Prime Minister himself!

Clause 58 of the Bill providing that an offence under the new law  may only be instituted by or on behalf of the Public Prosecutor undermines the claim that the Chief Commissioner of the MACC will have absolute discretion to decide on prosecution on corruption.

The JAC Bill is also a letdown. I share the disappointment of Dato’ Param Cumarawamy, former UN Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers who have pointed out two salient points:

•	Without amending article 121 of the Constitution to restore the doctrine of separation of powers and conferring the judicial power on the courts,  judicial independence cannot be secured by merely conferring on the chief executive of the government the duty to uphold judicial independence.

•	The power of the Prime Minister to remove the eminent persons in the Judicial Appointments Commission at any time without giving reasons pursuant to clause 9(1) virtually gives legal legitimacy for executive dominance over the judicial arm of the government.

From the Bill, the Prime Minister can finally  ignore the recommendations of the Judicial Appointments Commission to recommend his own candidates for judicial appointments and promotions, which makes a mockery of such a judicial reform.

A meeting will be held to decide on the a common stand on the two bills to be taken by the Pakatan Rakyat MPs next week.

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 11 December 2008, 4:05 pm and is filed under
Corruption
,
Judiciary
,
Parliament
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


MACC – principles of indepencence and parliamentary accountability too watered down

The Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) Bill is so watered down that the principles of its independence from the Prime Minister’s control and accountability/responsibility to Parliament can be quite tenuous and even fictitious.

The original intention to amend the Constitution to give the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission a constitutional status has been abandoned while there is no clear-cut provision to establish its responsibility and accountability to Parliament.

Five bodies will be set up under the MACC Bill to hold a close watch over the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission to ensure its independence, transparency and integrity, viz: Anti-Corruption Advisory Board; Special Committee on Corruption; Operations Review Panel; Corruption Prevention and Consultative Council; and a Complaints Committee.

However, all these five scrutinizing bodies, including the Special Committee on Corruption which is to comprise of Parliamentarians, are all beholden to the Prime Minister or the Executive, making nonsense of the principle of parliamentary responsibility of the MACC.

As proposed, the Special Committee on Corruption consists of seven members of Parliament from both Dewan Rakyat and Senate to be appointed by the Yang di Pertuan Agong, which means on the advice of the Prime Minister.

Furthermore, the bill provides that the seven MPs shall be nominated by the Leader of the House of Representatives, who  again is the Prime Minister , rendering the whole arrangement  quite ludicrous – the Leader of the House (who is the Prime Minister) advising the Prime Minister to advise the Yang di Pertuan Agong on the appointments.

As the Special Committee on Corruption is to comprise MPs, why is the Prime Minister shy in calling it the Parliamentary Committee on Corruption?

Is this just to give the impression of some form of “parliamentary” scrutiny without actually permitting robust and proper parliamentary stewardship?

If such a Parliamentary Committee on Corruption is to be meaningful, its composition must reflect the parliamentary representation of the different political parties in the House and its membership decided by MPs themselves and not by the Executive. Furthermore, the Chairman of the Parliamentary Committee on Corruption  should be an Opposition MP.

I will propose amendments to the MACC Bill to strengthen the principle of the MACC’s  independence from Executive control and reinforce accountability/responsibility to Parliament during  the committee stage of the debate on the MACC Bill.

(I have been informed that
Parliament
 is posting up the two bills – MACC Bill and JAC Bill – on its website.  Kudos to Parliament,which has been responsive to my request for the uploading of these two bills to enable all interested the opportunity to study and comment on them before Parliament starts debate on the MACC Bill on Monday.  Of course, all bills presented to Parliament for first reading should be posted up at the Parliament website as a matter of course. – Kit)

(Note 2: Both bills are up on the Parliament website. The English versions are available
here
. – kit)

                This entry was posted on Friday, 12 December 2008, 2:37 pm and is filed under
Corruption
,
Parliament
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Malaysia in vortex of “Embassy Row” in Washington

Washington Times

Embassy Row

James Morrison

Thursday, December 11, 2008

MALAYSIAN CONTROVERSY

Malaysian political insiders are aghast over reports that a former ambassador to the United States is lobbying to regain his old position in Washington and hoping to win diplomatic approval quietly from the outgoing Bush administration to avoid scrutiny from the Obama White House.

Abdul Khalid Ghazzali, ambassador here from 1999 to 2006, left Washington under a cloud because of his connections to former lobbyist Jack Abramoff, who pleaded guilty to corruption charges a few months before Mr. Ghazzali returned to Malaysia and resigned from the foreign service.

The controversy erupted in the capital, Kuala Lumpur, after the Web blog, Malaysia Today, recently reported that Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi planned to reappoint Mr. Ghazzali. Members of Parliament later raised questions about the reports. A spokesman for the Malaysian Embassy in Washington said the government has made “no formal announcement” about a new ambassador.

Another blogger, Abu Muzamil Khan, claimed that the prime minister is trying to “sneak the appointment [through] during the [U.S.] presidential transition.”

In a 2006 news conference, former Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad admitted that Abramoff received $1.2 million to arrange a meeting between him and President Bush in 2002, but Mr. Mahathir insisted that none of the money came from the Malaysian government.

However, U.S. Senate investigators established links between Abramoff and the Malaysian Embassy while Mr. Ghazzali was ambassador. In a guilty plea, Abramoff admitted that the embassy paid money to a fake think tank, the American International Center, established by an associate of his in a Delaware beach house.

Mr. Khan, in an e-mail, added that political insiders are speculating that Mr. Ghazzali, who still claims close ties on Capitol Hill, is being sent back to Washington to “fend off the likely outcry that is expected as a new politically motivated show trial” begins against Anwar Ibrahim, a former deputy prime minister under Mr. Mahathir who later led a democracy opposition movement.

In Washington, Ambassador Rajmah Hussain replaced Mr. Ghazzali in 2006 but returned to Malaysia earlier this year.

                This entry was posted on Friday, 12 December 2008, 9:25 am and is filed under
Foreign
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


5 amendments to MACC Bill to strengthen MACC’s independence from Executive and reinforce Parliamentary oversight

If Hong Kong’s Number Two graft fighter is to be believed about what he said with regard to the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) Bill, Malaysia is on the threshold of greatness – to join the ranks of the  world’s 20 or even 10 least corrupt countries!

The local media have been inundated with reports of the short visit of  the deputy commissioner and operations head of Hong Kong’s Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC)
Daniel Li
on the invitation of the Anti-Corruption Agency, heaping  praises on the MACC Bill which is to be debated in Parliament on Monday.

Praising the government’s commitment in fighting the scourge of corruption, Li said the MACC was equal or better than the ICAC after which it was modelled.

He said he found the MACC Bill  to be very comprehensive and very focused.

He said: “The affected area that it covers is wider than what the ICAC is covering in Hong Kong.”

He praised the government for being “faster than us in Hong Kong” in terms of developing strategies to combat corruption, adding:

“This shows that the authorities here are very much up to date with the problem. We in Hong Kong are still doing reviews and consultation but in Malaysia you have already done that by coming out with these recommendations.”

Li even said that there are some good idea in the MACC Bill which he would take back to  Hong Kong.

If Li is to be believed, Malaysia is set to overtake Hong Kong in the Transparency International’s  (TI) Corruption Perception Index (CPI) annual rankings as a least corrupt nation.

Since the start of the TI CPI annual rankings in 1995, Hong Kong had consistently been ranked among the world’s 20 least corrupt nations although the number of countries surveyed had increased more than four times from 41 nations in 1995 to 180 nations in 2008. Hong Kong was ranked No. 17 out of 41 nations in 1995. In 2008, it is ranked No. 12 out of 180 countries.

Malaysia has taken a different trajectory in the TI CPI surveys in the past 14 years, ranked a lowly No. 23 in 1995 but  plunging  lower to No. 47 in 2008!

If Li is right, then Malaysia is set not only to reverse this decline but also to surpass Hong Kong in international recognition as a least corrupt nation!

How many are there whether in Malaysia or outside who  really share  Li’s optimism about the MACC Bill and the government’s fight against corruption?  I doubt there is even a handful of such people!

The MACC Bill is not the first time that Malaysia had modeled after Hong Kong’s ICAC.  When the Anti-Corruption Act 1997 was passed  by Parliament, the new anti-corruption law was also said to be patterned after Hong Kong’s ICAC.

What was the outcome of the first Malaysian attempt to emulate the ICAC? Malaysia’s corruption went from bad to worse, with Malaysia’s TI CPI going into  a freefall from No. 32 to No. 47 this year!

Will Malaysia’s second attempt to model after Hong Kong’s ICAC suffer the same sad fate as the Anti-Corruption Act 1997 which is to be repealed and replaced by the MACC Bill?

All this means is that Li  is an undoubted  authority about the IACC and Hong Kong’s fight against corruption but a dubious authority about the MACC Bill and Malaysia’s fight against corruption.

I have yesterday given notice to Parliament to move five amendments to the MACC Bill to give greater safeguards to   strengthen the MACC’s independence from the Executive and to  reinforce Parliamentary oversight.

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 13 December 2008, 2:19 pm and is filed under
Corruption
,
Parliament
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.