Oil Trading: Dark Side of PETRONAS

By Koon Yew Yin

Last week, the international financial media carried the story that Canada intended to block the planned $5.3bn acquisition of Calgary-based Progress Energy Resources by Petronas.  According to these reports, the country’s industry minister, Christian Paradis had issued a statement saying he had written to Petronas saying he was “not satisfied that the proposed investment is likely to be of net benefit to Canada”.

Much of the subsequent analysis has focused on questions related to Canada’s policy on foreign takeovers and its investment policy especially with regard to foreign state-owned entities.  This should be of little interest to us.

Of greater interest to Malaysians should be how the Petronas takeover of Progress will benefit our country.  Is it in our best interests? What are the pros and cons of this very expensive takeover? Let us always remember that the company belongs to all Malaysians, and not simply to the government of the day or a group of company directors.

Petronas has done well. Since its incorporation, Petronas has grown to be an integrated international oil and gas company with business interests in many countries. The group is engaged in a wide spectrum of petroleum activities, including upstream exploration and production of oil and gas to downstream oil refining. Oil trading is one of the key activities of the group.

As everyone knows, Petronas provides a substantial source of income with 45% of the government’s budget dependent on Petronas’ dividend.  Is this focus on one single indicator of success – providing funds to run government – perhaps the reason why we are blinded to possible darker aspects of the company’s overall track record?

Oil Trading: Facts and Figures Needed

Any trading business – which Petronas partially is – has to observe some key principles to be successful. These include

Don’t try to predict the future

Flexibility in forward contracts as no one knows when the market will move

Having trading relationships that maximize your options

In recent years, questions have been raised as to whether our state owned oil business executes these or some other principles when it engages in trading. In addition, allegations have been made with regard to possible cronyism in some of its deals.

Perhaps the most serious allegation was the disclosure made by Jeffrey Kittingan in June 2008 that 80% of Petronas oil is not sold directly to the world market but is funneled through six option holders. Apparently these option holders or selling agents have obtained their supply from Petronas at well below market price for the next 20 to 30 years.

If this allegation proves to be correct then these profits would be much less than what could have been realized had the sales been conducted through open and more transparent forward sales.

When he initially made these allegations more than 4 years ago, Jeffrey Kittingan asked for a white paper or royal commission of enquiry to investigate this scandal. He also asked for a review of the Petronas agreements and to make Petronas open and transparent.

As far as I am aware, there has been no response from Petronas or the government on these concerns. If what amounts to a leakage from giving contracts without open tenders is taking place, then it is necessary that the issue be taken up during this coming election. What makes the trading strategy of Petronas inexplicable is that oil is a strategic and diminishing resource.  Surely any oil trader is aware that the price trend in view of scarcity and lack of substitution can only be upwards, with the degree of price increase the only major risk. Also, it does not make business sense to tie up so much of forward sales with long term contracts since a mix of short, medium and long term contracts is clearly the superior strategy.

Malaysia’s Transparency Record in 2010 scored below average in a study on transparency of revenue management of extractive industries that covered 41 countries. The country obtained 48.4 points compared with the study average of 51.8 out of the maximum of 100 points in a joint study by Revenue Watch Institute and Transparency International.

Malaysia sits in the group of countries with “partial revenue transparency”, that is countries which provide citizens with information about extractive sectors, yet show important transparency gaps in one or more specific categories of (the Revenue Watch Index).

Malaysia in fact falls below the average 50.1 points obtained by other Asia Pacific countries.

Malaysia is behind Indonesia, which scored an average 50 points, and also is behind Papua New Guinea, Trinidad and Tobago, Kazakhstan and even Timor Leste.

According to the study which rates countries on accessibility of information on contracts, licensing and government payments, as well as institutional structure compelling transparency, Malaysia drew a poor mark for access to information on contracts and licensing procedures.

Petronas Needs to be Accountable to the Country

According to the Petroleum Development Act 1974, Petronas is only accountable to the prime minister of the day, not even to Parliament.  This is wrong.

In a recent speech Woo Wing Thye, a distinguished Professor of Economics who presently heads the Penang think tank, Penang Institute, pointed out the hazard that exists in the key role that Petronas plays in the country’s finances. According to Professor Woo, the world’s experience with state oil companies is that they would fail in the middle of a boom. Indonesia’s Pertamina failed in 1974 in the middle of the Opec boom and PetroMexico collapsed in the midst of the second Opec shock.

“These state oil companies were overextended and not very transparent”, Woo said. “They were basically the cash registers of their governments. It is a good thing to have more transparency because the balance sheet of Petronas links directly to the government budget. If Petronas is in trouble, the government budget is in trouble.”

We need to take these cautionary words seriously. The first step to reform is to open up the account books of the company especially related to oil trading and to investigate the allegations of Mr. Jeffrey Kittingan.

Petronas belongs to all Malaysians and the majority of them are Bumiputeras who are better educated than before. They can see all these misuse of power, corruption and mismanagement and I believe they will know how to vote in the coming general election.

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 31 October 2012, 5:18 pm and is filed under
Oil
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Selayang Council must come clean

R. Nadeswaran

The Sun Daily

30 October 2012

IN early February, 2006, I was at the Kuala Lumpur International Airport awaiting the arrival of passengers on Flight MH9042 from Mauritius. Among them was a delegation from the Selayang Municipal Council which included nine councillors, the president, the secretary and his wife, two officials and four businessmen who had contracts with the council. They had also dropped by South African cities, among others, to study how public toilets are maintained and kept clean. I had then asked: “How did contractors become part of an official delegation? Don’t the rules require councillors to keep at arm’s length, dealings with suppliers of goods and services?”

Subsequently, I wrote outlining their programme in both the countries and asked what they had learnt when they were out shopping and sight-seeing all the time. As usual, the silence was deafening.

All these memories came back last week as I read about the same council and the proposed development around Batu Caves. Both sides – the present and past administrations – have started pointing fingers and let it be stated that it is not this writer’s intention to take sides but put the record straight. The remarks made by some of the past councillors who approved the development are so ludicrous that they have to be taken with more than a pinch of salt.

Former councillor and current Deputy Foreign Minister Datuk A. Kohillan Pillay who was one of those who went on the toilet inspection trip said what had been approved in 2007 was only a “planning permit” which did not specify the number of storeys.

May be, after all these years he has forgotten terms like “planning permission”; “development order” and other terminology because he is concentrating on foreign policy matters and more travelling. Thus, we shall not burden him compelling him to read the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 in its entirety. However, he should not overlook the central concept – the definition of what amounts to development.

“Development” means the carrying out of building, engineering, mining or other operations in, on, over or under land, or the making of any material change in the use of any building or land. Technically, if you want to build a permanent garage over your driveway, you have to get planning permission or approval.

If “planning permit” was issued, then it would have specified what could be built because the applicant has to submit the proposed plans to be deliberated by the planning department of the council after which they are presented to the council for approval.

You can’t submit plans for a bungalow and then build a condominium. That’s because the council takes into consideration whether existing infrastructure like roads, drains, power, etc would be able to support the development. So to say that it “did not specify the number of storeys” is crass, obtuse and ridiculous. It insults the intelligence of all right-thinking people.

There are no two ways about this matter. Did the council approve the plans and issue a development order? Did the council seek the views of owners of neighbouring property as required by the Act? Because of the sensitivity of its proximity to a place of worship, was there a public hearing?

These questions have to be answered by the council and its councillors who took part in the approval process. They cannot run away from responsibility by giving all kinds of excuses. In the meantime, in the interest of good governance, the state government should order the council to make available all minutes and other related documents so that Malaysians can see for themselves how the decisions were made.

R. Nadeswaran says it would be foolhardy to conclude that discerning Malaysians could be taken for granted and would swallow everything – hook, line and sinker. Comments:
[email protected]

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 31 October 2012, 10:40 am and is filed under
Local Goverment
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Warisan Merdeka to have 118 storeys

By Ida Lim

The Malaysian Insider

Oct 31, 2012

KUALA LUMPUR, Oct 31 ― The controversial Warisan Merdeka tower next to Stadium Merdeka here will have 118 floors, the government said today, sparking renewed objections from the local MP who said the skyscraper would only contribute to a property glut.

Bukit Bintang MP Fong Kui Lun told reporters today that Kuala Lumpur City Hall should reject the development, after the Federal Territories Ministry told Parliament of the plans for the skyscraper that had originally been for 100 storeys.

“The supply of office space in Kuala Lumpur has exceeded demand without Warisan Tower and Tun Razak Exchange. It’s not reasonable to give new approval for new development of office space,” Fong said.

He also cited the unsatisfactory traffic conditions in the Jalan Hang Jebat area where the mega tower is planned to be built, as a reason why DBKL should reject the application.

The Warisan Merdeka project was announced in 2010 by the government, and immediately sparked public outcry over the need for another skyscraper in the city.

A poll by Merdeka Center in 2010 showed the majority of voters in peninsular Malaysia were against the proposed construction of the mega project

The survey found that 65 per cent of those polled disagreed with the construction of what would be the tallest building in the country when completed.

More than 200,000 Malaysians had registered their protest on Facebook in a campaign launched soon after the project was announced.

Former prime minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad had also warned of a property glut that would result from the construction of the proposed tower.

Government investment arm Pemodalan Nasional Berhad (PNB) later defended the RM5 billion project, saying that it would neither involve public nor depositor funds.

PNB has formed PNB Merdeka Ventures as a wholly-owned unit to undertake the RM5 billion skyscraper project on the land it bought from Pengurusan Danaharta Nasional Berhad in 2000.

PNB paid RM310 million or RM220 per sq ft to buy the land, but the market value of the land has since appreciated to RM800 per sq ft today.

The land was initially given to UEM Berhad in exchange for the infrastructure giant building the National Stadium complex in Bukit Jalil for the 1998 Commonwealth Games.

The 19-acre development area of the mega project — which includes a condominium and a shopping mall — is sited on the car park and land adjacent to Stadium Negara and Stadium Merdeka.

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 31 October 2012, 3:49 pm and is filed under
FT/Urban
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Malaysia becomes rich ‘Tiger Cub’, but still intolerant

The Malaysian Insider

Nov 01, 2012

KUALA LUMPUR, Nov 1 ― Malaysia has been singled out together with Vietnam, Thailand and Indonesia as “Tiger Cub” countries fast catching up with regional leaders on a list of the most prosperous economies in the world, but was also named as among the worst countries for promoting personal freedom of its citizens.

Malaysia was ranked as the 45th most prosperous nation, trailing behind Singapore at 19th and with Indonesia fast catching up at 63rd position, on the Legatum Prosperity Index.

The London-based think-tank Legatum’s Prosperity Index assesses 142 countries based on performance in eight areas such as economy, personal freedom, health and social capital.

This year, Norway again topped the list of 142 countries, followed by Denmark, Sweden, Australia and New Zealand. The United States, the United Kingdom and Germany came in at 12th, 13th and 14th spots, respectively.

The Central African Republic propped up the list.

The Legatum Institute, which publishes the index, noted that “a new generation of Asian ‘Tiger Cub’ countries has emerged, according to the latest findings from the Legatum Institute’s Prosperity Index, with Malaysia, Vietnam, Thailand and Indonesia all appearing in top half of the worldwide rankings this year.”

Said Jeffrey Gedmin, president and CEO of the Legatum Institute: “The Legatum  Prosperity Index allows us to paint a comprehensive picture of what makes a country truly successful, encompassing traditional measures of material wealth, as well as capturing citizens’ sense of wellbeing ― from how safe they feel, to their perceived personal freedom.

“It is encouraging to see a new generation of promising economies come to the fore in this year’s Index. However, GDP alone can never offer a complete view of prosperity.

“In order for these Tiger Cubs to fulfil their full potential and continue to scale the global prosperity rankings, leaders in these countries must overcome the barriers that remain ― encouraging tolerance, providing top quality education and distributing wealth more equally amongst citizens.”

For the first time, Malaysia was ranked among the top 15 countries in the world in the economy sub-sector of the index, together with five other Asian powerhouses Singapore (3rd), Taiwan (7th), Hong Kong ((9th), China (11th) and Japan (12th). Malaysia propped up the top 15 countries while Switzerland was the top economy.

The index noted that one metric capable of shedding light on the rise of the Asian “Tiger Cubs” nations was the level of FDI ﬂowing into each country.

“This is because FDI, when managed appropriately, can be a source of economic growth…the ‘Tiger Cubs’, Thailand and Indonesia are the biggest recipients of FDI. In terms of FDI as a share  of GDP, however, Vietnam outperforms the other ‘Tiger Cubs’ as FDI net inﬂows constitute almost 8 per cent of its GDP.

“However…tertiary education enrolment rates among the ‘Tiger Cubs’ are much lower than OECD standards. To meet the need of the increasingly globalised economy, the ‘Tiger Cubs’ must encourage further education so as to produce the skills necessary to increase productivity.”

However, Malaysia was let down by personal freedom — its worst-performing indicator — ranking only 111th in the sub-index. For social capital, Malaysia also scored poorly at 100th position.

The Personal Freedom sub-index captures the effects of freedom of choice, expression, movement, and belief, on a country’s per capita GDP and the subjective wellbeing of its citizens. It also assesses how levels of tolerance of ethnic minorities and immigrants impact countries’ economic growth and citizens’ life satisfaction.

Societies that foster strong civil rights and freedoms have been shown to enjoy increases in levels of satisfaction among their citizens. When citizens’ personal liberties are protected, a country benefits from higher levels of national income.

This social capital sub-index evaluates how factors such as volunteering, helping strangers, and donating to charitable organisations impact economic performance and life satisfaction. It also measures levels of trust, whether citizens believe they can rely on others, and assesses how marriage and religious attendance provide support networks beneficial to wellbeing.

Noting the need for balance, the institute said the high-growth markets of China, Malaysia, Thailand, Saudi Arabia and Vietnam scored well in the economy sub-index but rank amongst the worst countries for promoting and safeguarding the “personal freedom” of their citizens.

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 1 November 2012, 1:39 pm and is filed under
Economics
,
Education
,
Human Rights
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Nazri’s “Blow Job” in Parliament

by Martin Jalleh

1 November 2012

The Prime Minister has often preached about new
winds
 of change and transformation
blowing
 through Umno and into the country. There would be reform to deal corruption a deadly blow.

He has a very dependable Minister in his department who makes up for his frequent absence in Parliament, one who is very adept at blowing in the wind in the august House, i.e., providing answers that are as intangible (in meaning) as the wind – Mohamed Nazri Abdul Aziz.

Nazri Aziz is also reputed for blowing a fuse and spewing caustic invective when he finds himself in an intellectual and logical void and when all sense and sensibility deserts him in parliament.

He blows his cool when challenged and when his trademark nonsense is made bare. Similarly, when his theatrics, temper tantrums, threats and taunts fail, he blows off steam, accompanied by low blows.

Occasionally, Parliament hears Nazri’s own blown up importance, the latest being his loud declaration and reminder to the Opposition that he is the “number one” minister of law – and of course, he knows everything about the law.

When the National Feedlot Corporation (NFC) scandal made it into the pages of the Auditor-General’s 2010 Report for failing to meet production targets, the Government and Umno must have thought that it would soon blow over. The people will forget.

But PKR’s strategic director Rafizi Ramli refused to allow it to blow itself out! He called on the government to act swiftly and sternly but the powers that be together with the enforcement agencies, preferred to blow hot and cold!

Najib’s initial response in Parliament over the scandal was that “production will soon increase”. The Agriculture Minister Noh bin Omar even called the project a “success”!  Khairy Jamaluddin and Muhyiddin Yassin came up with justifications for the scandal that blew one’s mind!

Rafizi Ramli realized that the Government chose to blow cold on the scandal. Bolehland would have to wait till the cows come home before any serious action was taken! He released the very details of NFC’s offences and criminal improprieties – bit by bit, blow by blow!

The NFC scandal blew up in the Government’s face. It must have wished if only it could blow to smithereens the glaring and embarrassing evidence, like some people did to a poor lady six years ago!

NCF had blown a great part of the RM250 million of taxpayer’s money by using soft government loans meant to develop the cattle project to buy luxury apartments, expensive overseas trips and a Mercedes-Benz CLS-Class.

It was very evident that Najib and his Government blew it! It had dealt itself a severe blow to its credibility and integrity, But in a move that blew everyone’s mind, instead of acting swiftly and severely against the culprits in NFC, the Government chose to exact revenge on Rafizi Ramli.

In its continued justification of such a shameless act, the self-proclaimed “number one” minister of law was in Parliament recently blowing smoke with a lecture on the difference between “whistleblowers and “trumpet-blowers”.

Whilst blowing his own trumpet, Nazri implied that Rafizi was a “trumpet-blower” and was not accorded protection under the Whistleblower Protection Act (WPA) 2010. In other words, if you blow the whistle to parties outside of (Government) enforcement agencies you will be not be given protection!

Nazri also warned opposition MPs, whom he said “were fond of exposing sensitive information”, to read the Officials Secrets Act (OSA) and the Banking and Financial Institutions Act (BAFIA) carefully so that they would not take a wrong step and be charged in court for it. Alas, why have a WPA when the Government, its cronies and cohorts, are “protected” by the OSA and the BAFIA?

Little did Nazri realize that he was indirectly highlighting the common and open secret – that the Government has all along been blowing a lot of hot air with its WPA, passed in December 2010 which the Government claimed was meant to encourage more to expose corrupt activities!

Upon closer scrutiny, the WPA is just one of those false (and faulty) progressive laws promoted by the PM (and Nazri). The political persecution of Rafizi Ramli who played a sterling role in blowing the lid on the litany of gross abuses by Shahrizat Abdul Jalil’s family marks a serious blow to the purported anti-corruption campaign launched by the PM.

Nazri may smirk all he wants in Parliament but he is helping to “blow” this government away, come the next General Election!

(1 Nov. 2012)

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 1 November 2012, 1:25 pm and is filed under
Auditor-General Report
,
Parliament
,
UMNO
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


What Everyone Should Know About Operasi Lalang

By Kee Thuan Chye

Malaysian Digest

1 November 2012

Last week, we marked the 25th anniversary of Operasi Lalang, that black day in our history that changed our country for the worst.

Like May 13, 1969, it was a Malaysian tragedy. And after all these years, we have yet to fully recover from it.

The beneficiaries of that notorious official move on Oct 27, 1987, to detain 106 Malaysians under the Internal Security Act (ISA) were – as journalist uppercaise has rightly pointed out in his blog – the then prime minister, Mahathir Mohamad, and Umno.

Or, to be precise, Mahathir’s Umno Baru, which came about after the original Umno was declared illegal by the High Court in February 1988.

The year before, Mahathir was under siege as president of the party. The party was split – into Team A and Team B. And in April, he was challenged for the presidency by Tengku Razaleigh.

Members had come to dispute Mahathir’s leadership style. Team B, led by Razaleigh, criticised Mahathir for not consulting other Umno and Barisan Nasional (BN) leaders before making decisions.

As prime minister, he put his own people in charge of key operations. His privatisation schemes were given to his cronies. Team B pointed out that the New Economic Policy had failed to benefit poor Malays. Now, in hindsight, it’s even clearer to us why that was so.

Team B made an impact, and Mahathir won the election by polling 761 votes against Razaleigh’s 718, scraping through by a mere 43 votes.

Many people actually expected Razaleigh to win, so the suspicion of election-fixing arose. But Razaleigh accepted defeat and promised to support Mahathir if the latter did not embark on a witchhunt.

Of course, now that we know from hindsight the kind of man Mahathir is, it comes as no surprise that he embarked on a witchhunt anyway. He removed all Team B supporters from his Cabinet, and did the same at state and local government levels.

In June, a group of Umno members who came to be known as “the Umno 11” filed a suit to have the Umno elections declared illegal because they had found invalid voters among the delegates. These delegates were allegedly from Umno branches that had not been approved by the Registrar of Societies.

The court asked both sides to settle the issue themselves, but an amicable solution was not reached. So on Oct 19, the Umno 11 said it would press on with its legal action.

At the time, the tensions within Umno were being compounded by racial tensions outside. Chinese educationists had been upset by the Education Ministry’s appointing of non-Chinese-educated principals and senior assistants for Chinese schools. The custodians of Chinese education, Dong Jiao Zong – abetted by political parties like the MCA, Gerakan and the DAP – staged a protest against the move.

It immediately provoked a counter-rally by Umno Youth at which about 10,000 people turned up. This was the event at which Najib Razak, then the Umno Youth chief, famously unsheathed a keris and reportedly vowed that it would be bathed in Chinese blood.

The authorities seized on this potentially explosive situation – and the somewhat random act of an army private running amok in Chow Kit shooting his M16 at people – as a pretext to swoop down on “troublemakers”.

Operasi Lalang resulted in conveniently shutting away a good number of Opposition politicians and civil society activists who had been critical of the Government.

I use the words “pretext” and “conveniently” because most of those detained were not at all involved in the Dong Jiao Zong protest or the Umno Youth counter-rally.

Among them were members of Christian groups, environmentalists and anti-logging natives of Sarawak, and a Malay Christian convert. Why were they taken in?

Forty of the 106 even had their detentions extended by Mahathir for two years. They included DAP deputy chairman Karpal Singh, Opposition Leader Lim Kit Siang and his son Guan Eng, some PAS members and numerous NGO activists.

On the other hand, the leaders of the Umno Youth rally who were brandishing banners that called for Chinese blood and proclaimed “May 13 has begun” were untouched. Why were they not taken in?

The Government also conveniently shut down three newspapers that had been critical of it. The Star, Watan and Sin Chew Jit Poh had their publishing permits suspended.

Purwaiz Alam, who was a journalist at The Star during its suspension, recalls in uppercaise’s blog the months of uncertainty he experienced, surviving on one-third pay and waiting anxiously for the newspaper to be forgiven. At one point, he and his wife had to sell their video cassette recorder just to get some extra cash.

“But on the first day that The Star re-opened,” he writes, “most of us knew things would never be the same any more. The journalism that we had learnt and knew well would wither away soon enough. As the months went by, it became obvious that my job (and those of hundreds of others) had been saved at a price, a very hefty price.”

His grim conclusion: “All of us are still paying for it 25 years later.”

Effectively, Operasi Lalang heralded the culture of fear that strangulated Malaysians for at least two decades.

It also provided the environment for Mahathir to rule in an even more authoritarian manner. He had scared off his opponents and silenced his critics, so now he was free to do what he wished.

He amended the Printing Presses and Publications Act (PPPA) to keep newspapers under tighter control.

He amended the Police Act to restrict our right to free assembly, making a police permit mandatory for public gatherings.

According to the book Malaysian Maverick by Barry Wain, Mahathir said his amendments were aimed at those who abused the Government’s “liberal attitude”.

“Being liberal to them is like offering a flower to a monkey,” Mahathir said, disdainfully. “The monkeys would rather tear the flower apart than appreciate its beauty.”

In 1988, as a result of his unhappiness over a few court judgements that favoured natural justice over his administration’s convenience, he amended the Federal Constitution to remove the independence of the judiciary.

There is much more to say about how Mahathir tampered with our sacred institutions in the years after Operasi Lalang, but it would take a book to cover it all.

Some people think another tragedy like Operasi Lalang could happen again – and not too far in the future. Especially when, as journalist Charles Chan who lived through the dark days of The Star’s suspension puts it, “desperate politicians face loss of power that opens the doors to prosecution for their abuses of power, corruption, etc”.

To prepare ourselves for such a contingency, we need to ask ourselves how we would respond if it should happen. Should we be docile like we were in 1987 or should we stand up for our rights?

What’s paramount is that we should find ways of preventing such tragedies in future.

First, we should not allow a despot to rise again. At the first sign of such a creature emerging, we should vote him out instead of supporting him for more than two decades.

Concomitant with that, we should not allow any ruling party the luxury of a two-thirds majority in Parliament so that they can amend the Constitution anyhow they like.

We should also be vigilant in not allowing any of the despot’s proxies to climb to the top.

Second, we must ensure that checks and balances are firmly in place, like a strong civil society – and, certainly, the reinstatement of the separation of powers among the executive, the legislative and the judiciary engraved in our Constitution. This means independence must be returned to the judiciary.

Third, we must repeal all laws that are against the spirit of democracy, like the PPPA, the Official Secrets Act, the Sedition Act (soon to be called the sweet-sounding National Harmony Act) and the Universities and University Colleges Act.

There is no ISA now but in its place is the Security Offences (Special Measures) Act 2012. This has to go. We have enough laws to take care of terrorist threats.

Fourth, we must get rid of our feudal mentality. This perpetuates a culture of blind subservience to the leader and a culture of sycophancy, both of which empower the leader even more. Furthermore, ascent to leadership should be based on merit, not on an individual’s ability to suck up to the boss.

Fifth, Operasi Lalang is a tragedy that needs to be told and re-told so that those who don’t know about its ramifications may understand why Malaysia is in the mess it’s in. Those who have lived through that terrible day and its aftermath need to tell their children and grandchildren the real story about what happened and condemn the abuse of power and dictatorial rule.

Our first Prime Minister, Tunku Abdul Rahman, gave us a lead when he said right after Operasi Lalang: “It’s not a question of the Chinese against the Government but of his own party, Umno, who are against him.”

The real story of Operasi Lalang is not about a potential racial war erupting. It is about a despot who wanted to hang on to power, shut out all opposition, and run the country to his own advantage.

That’s what everyone should know.

* Kee Thuan Chye is the author of the bestselling book No More Bullshit, Please, We’re All Malaysians, available in bookstores together with its Malay translation, Jangan Kelentong Lagi, Kita Semua Orang Malaysia.

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 1 November 2012, 1:13 pm and is filed under
Human Rights
,
Mahathir
,
UMNO
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Why Malaysia should ratify ICERD

 — Simon Sipaun

The Malaysian Insider

Oct 31, 2012

Oct 31 — PROHAM is a new human rights NGO formed by former Suhakam and the Police Commission commissioners. It was launched on 21st March, 2011.

Incidentally, 21st March every year is the UN International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination.

This RTD will go a long way towards realizing PROHAM’s hope to see that Malaysia will, sooner rather than later become a party to the UN International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, 1969 (ICERD).

This move represents a realistic approach to the issue rather than sweeping it under the carpet and pretend it is not there.

2.  I am unable to find one good reason why Malaysia should persistently continue to be not a party to ICERD.

Any government which refuses to be a party to ICERD is a government that supports racism and racial discrimination.

How else can I interpret such state of affairs? 175 countries are currently party to ICERD including many Islamic countries.

Only 15 countries have yet to be a party to ICERD and Malaysia is one of them. It is in the company of countries like North Korea, Myanmar and a dozen of authoritarian countries.

The 175 cannot be all wrong and the 15 all right. It is very refreshing, however, to see Myanmar making fast progress in a relatively short period of time in the promotion and protection of human rights. It has recently established a National Human Rights Commission which was unthinkable not too long ago. I will not be surprised if Myanmar becomes a party to ICERD sooner than expected.

Malaysia is a member of the UN Human Rights Council(HRC). Article 1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights(UDHR) affirms that all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. It would be hypocritical of Malaysia to be in the HRC and does not become a party to ICERD. It is not walking the talk. The observance of the International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination reminds us of our individual and collective responsibility to promote and protect this ideal.

3. Article 1 of ICERD defines ‘racial discrimination’ as ‘any distinction, exclusion, or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life.’

Think about this ladies and gentlemen and ask yourself whether there is racial discrimination in this country or not. Relate this to the idea of ‘ketuanan Melayu’ and the affirmative action and policy for the Malays who form the majority population and control everything associated with government. The communities which really need assistance by way of affirmative action are the orang asli, Penans and other indigenous minorities. One objective way to determine the extent to which racial discrimination exists or does not exist in this country is to examine what statistical data indicate regarding who and which community is in control of the economic, social, cultural, civil and political life.

4. Racial discrimination is a form of human rights violation. It retards the country’s progress in a highly globalized and competitive world. It triggers a brain drain situation.

There are no less than 1.5 million Malaysians with tertiary education who have left the country. It is not conducive to the creation and maintenance of genuine national unity and integration. It generates unhappiness, frustration and resentment. It stunts meritocracy. All these consequences of racial discrimination become more intense as the literacy standard improves and more and more people have access to the internet.

5. In a paper (1st July 2012) entitled ‘institutional racism and religious freedom in Malaysia’ prepared by the Human Rights Foundation of Malaysia it provides a variety of statistics, news articles, reports, academic reports, anecdotes etc to demonstrate the scale and depth of the discrimination that non-Malays and non-Muslims face. Amongst others the following indicators are mentioned:

i) The federal constitution establishes 2 classes of citizens through Article 153, the root of the racist system.

ii) The State sanctions racist and religious extreme laws and policies.

iii) The State controls the government administration through one racial and religious group.

iv) The State channels most funds for economic, educational and social development programs, licenses, permits etc to one race.

There are some more in the list. I have not seen any government rebuttals to the allegations.

6. I also received an article forwarded to me through the internet by a friend (13 January, 2012) listing 55 items which suggest racism does exist in this country.

The title of the article is ‘Racial Discrimination in Malaysia : Don’t believe? Then look at the list.’ I do not know the name of the writer. I like to share with you 7 out of the 55 items. These are:

i) Of the 5 major banks, only 1 is multi-racial. The rest are controlled by Malays.

ii) 99 per cent of Petronas directors are Malays.

iii) 99 per cent of 2000 Petronas gasoline stations are owned by Malays.

iv) 98 per cent of civil servants in Putrajaya are Malays.

v) 95 per cent of government contracts are given to Malays.

vi) All 10 public universities VCs are Malays.

vii) A building plan for a Catholic church in Shah Alam has been waiting for approval for 20 years. As at 2004, there was still no approval.

I do not know to what extent the allegations are factual. However I have not seen any government rebuttal.

7. Debates and allegations of racial discrimination in Malaysia should subside the moment the country becomes a party to ICERD.

PROHAM therefore strongly recommends that the Malaysian government becomes a party to ICERD without further delay. If there is no racial discrimination and racism in the country then the government should show the world that this is so by becoming a party to ICERD.

* Tan Sri Simon Sipaun is PROHAM chairman.

* Views shared at a Roundtable Discussion on ICERD on Oct 31, 2012 at Kota Kinabalu, Sabah

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 1 November 2012, 9:26 am and is filed under
Human Rights
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Daydreaming or plain cocky?

Jeswan Kaur | November 1, 2012

Free Malaysia Today

Just why does BN/Umno find delight in playing the racism card when the issues beleaguering the rakyat are one too many?

COMMENT

The Barisan Nasional government is doing its worst to prevent the opposition alliance of Pakatan Rakyat from setting foot in Putrajaya and calling the shots.

Much castigation and accusations have been thrown upon Pakatan and its leaders by Umno, BN’s patronising arm.

Still, the rakyat seem eager to give Pakatan a chance to administer the nation, having had enough of ruling government BN’s domineering and rhetorics post-1957.

If BN is not puzzled as to why the rakyat are all thumbs-up for Pakatan, the former is either daydreaming or plain cocky.

To the people of this nation in particular the non-Malays, they have had it with the antics of BN’s top guns like Muhyiddin Yassin, the deputy prime minister.

Two years ago Muhyiddin stunned Malaysians when he claimed that he was a Malay first and then Malaysian.

Why should the people be in favour of BN as the ruling government when its leaders are doing all they can to perpetuate an agenda that only serves to discriminate and segregate Malaysians of different faiths?

BN keeps claiming that Pakatan’s ally DAP is racist. But then has BN not the slightest decency to acknowledge the fact that it is Umno which takes the cake when it comes to raising racial tensions.

The racist remarks made during the annual Umno general assembly is a classic example of the miscreant nature of this ‘all Malay’ party. What is unbearable is the fact that the racist remarks made via the Umno general assembly platform have always the backing of top leadership.

And it is even more painful to have a prime minister who cares a hoot about having a racist deputy.

In July last year, Najib when asked by a student at the Malaysian Student Leaders Summit to comment about Muhyiddin’s ‘Malay first, Malaysian second’ remark gave the most ridiculous of replies when he said:

“I don’t want to respond in any way that will divide me from my deputy. 1Malaysia is our guiding philosophy. It does not matter what you say, just as long as you follow (the 1Malaysia concept).”

Going by Najib’s tacky reply, do we need any more reasons to show BN the door in the coming 13th general election?

Issues are endless

Just why does BN/Umno find delight in playing the racism card when the issues beleaguering the rakyat are one too many? Does BN not care about the well-being of the people or is the agenda of political survival more crucial?

The ongoing issue of a 29-storey condominium taking shape next to the limestone temple in Batu Caves has not interested both BN’s president Najib and Muhyiddin. The duo have been silent on this issue, perhaps at a loss for words on how to convince the rakyat that the condominium project is a ‘good’ thing.

Alternatively, the Najib-Muhyiddin pair cannot care less just how environmentally unsafe the condominium project is.

One wonders whether ‘enlightened’ leaders in other parts of the world would react the same way too – keeping mum and ignoring the issue altogether.

Then there is the issue of our students leaving school as ‘illiterates’, as revealed when some of the National Service trainees were unable to read and write.

But to Muhyiddin who is also the Education Minister, Malay supremacy is a more pressing issue, so much so that he decided to ignore all calls and pleas by reversing the teaching of Mathematics and Science from English to Bahasa Malaysia from this year on.

Deaths under police watch, corrupted politicians and ministers, the tainted electoral system and the never ending nepotism and cronyism are among the issues that far from interest both Najib and Muhyiddin.

Instead, both the PM and DPM are working hard to ensure their Putrajaya seat in no way falls into the hands of Pakatan.

Rakyat knows the truth

When words are ineffective, it is time to indulge in artifice or splash loads of money – at least this is how BN best works, looking at the various alms it started handing out to the rakyat, starting with the Bantuan Rakyat 1Malaysia (BR1M) which was given a ‘special’ place in the 2012 Budget.

Such help aside, BN cannot make the folly of ignoring the fact that the rakyat is today savvy and knows the truth.

Using money to buy the people’s votes and loyalty will not work and neither will Najib’s promises of making life a ‘bed of roses’ for the masses win BN the votes it desperately needs to edge out its rival Pakatan.

The truth as the people know it is that the damage has been done. For the non-Malays, they are forced to accept the bitter reality that only Malays will seat in the chair of the prime minister and his deputy.

Is BN willing to change with the time and allow a non-Malay to become a prime minister or a deputy premier or a menteri besar or a chief minister for that matter?

If the answer is ‘no’, then is it futile to allow BN to savour victory in the coming general election if the people are averse to any kind of political segregation and discrimination.

Jeswan Kaur is a freelance writer and a FMT columnist.

                This entry was posted on Friday, 2 November 2012, 7:40 am and is filed under
Elections
,
Muhyiddin Yassin
,
Najib Razak
,
Pakatan Rakyat
,
UMNO
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Deceit on the ‘Islamic state’

KJ John

Malaysiakini

Oct 30, 2012

Marina Mahathir wrote in a recent column that for any candidate seeking to be voted in this general election, the following are good and civil traits:

1. Be nice, be gracious, be polite – rudeness makes you look ugly.

2. If you disagree with someone, fine. But disagree courteously and intelligently, and do not just bad-mouth them.

3. If you do not think that someone is right, give your reasons why.

4. At least pretend that your audience is smart, and live up to them.

5. If you really think violence is the answer, we will find you a ticket to Syria, where you can indulge in all that you want to.

6. If you really think you are a defender of Islam, we will get you a ticket to trail the Republicans on their election campaign. We will even get you a spot on Rush Limbaugh’s show, where you can do your defending thing.

7. Do suddenly stop kissing babies and hugging old people. Seriously, we are not buying it.

8. Leave your expensive watch at home if you are going to sympathise with how people are coping with their monthly expenses. Unless you are going to donate the cost of the watch to some worthwhile cause.

9. Lower your volume. Shouting something stupid does not make it smarter.

10. Tell us what your principles in life are, and how you aim to stick to them.

My only addition is that no serving member of parliament should lie publicly. It is worse if one is a member of the cabinet. And because of such lies, I would argue that we need a ‘truth-o-meter’ which the CNN uses to validate claims by US presidential candidates.

I am boiling mad because Mohd Nazri Abdul Aziz, the so-called minister responsible for parliamentary and legal matters, was quoted by theSun as saying: “None of the nation’s past prime minister (have) ever declared Malaysia a secular state …  the only sitting prime minister who (has) made a statement on the issue was … (Dr) Mahathir Mohamad, who declared that Malaysia is an Islamic state.”

Since we do not have the privilege of a truth-o-meter service in Malaysia, allow me to assume that role since my column is also called ‘Truth Matters’.

The ‘Islamic state’ lie

I was first educated on the Islamic state issue when the Muslim Professionals Association hosted a public talk on ‘Who needs an Islamic state?’.

They had a guest speaker from the UK, obviously well versed on the political dialogue on the Islamic state issue and who argued that in modern civil society, no one really needs an Islamic state. It has never really existed, other than in the minds of idealists and proponents.

While I support all kinds of idealists, there must be enough realism when we translate ideals into ideas, with all the political implications and ramifications considered. I have already written a number of columns on this issue.

And together with the Islamic Renaissance Front, OHMSI will co-host a dialogue on this issue, especially to educate Christian voters. Those interested may register to attend. The venue can welcome up to 2,000 participants.

Nazri is no young and upcoming politician. He is a moderate in Umno and a firm supporter of the party leadership, but I cannot excuse his gaffe – because he is a minister, a lawyer and, worst of all, the minister assigned responsibility for Parliament.

Therefore, I conclude he is merely being an idiocrat; like many others in Umno. Basically, an idiocrat reinterprets the truths of law, by refusing to submit to the original context of historical evidence, and instead promotes a truth by law; by the sheer force of interpretive privilege of authority.

That shift in the presumption of ‘truth interpretations’ is reinforced by sheer authority power and the execution of interpretation. Then, these promoters seek enforcement agency compliance of all such interpretive bias of truths.

Two examples will make my anti-thesis. First, when Mahathir was PM, he was smart enough never to use the words ‘the Islamic state’ because all his speech-writers knew the full implications of this idealistic concept in the history of Islamic dialogue.

Recently through he did, at least as reported by mainstream newspapers, the same ones which refused to publish anything he said when he was opposed to Abdullah Ahmad Badawi’s leadership of the government.

So, is Mahathir really serious, especially when he is speaking off the cuff and appears to agree with ‘the two Alis’ who have lost much credibility?

Second, does not the so-called minister of parliament know about the Supreme Court decision in the case referred to by Karpal Singh in the Malaysiakini report: “A five-man bench of the Supreme Court (equivalent of the present Federal Court which replaced the Privy Council) presided by then head of the judiciary Salleh Abbas in 1988 in Che Omar bin Che Soh vs Public Prosecutor, clearly stated the law in the country was secular.

“That being the position declared by (the) high authority, it must follow inevitably that the country was a secular state and not an Islamic state, as a country having secular laws could not be an Islamic state.”

My own argument is that the framers of the constitution were very smart people and even included a Islamic judge from Pakistan but they chose to avoid the two concepts of secular and sacred.

Did they not know what they were doing, or do we assume that we are smarter than them?

KJ JOHN is part of a community of thinkers and actors who want to see truth and reconciliation in the broken world of ours. His NGO for this work is the Malaysian Institute of Development and Asian Studies or MiDAS@universities.

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 3 November 2012, 8:31 am and is filed under
Islamic state
,
Mahathir
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


In the shadow of strongmen

 — Bridget Welsh

The Malaysian Insider

Nov 02, 2012

NOV 2 — In the last few years, both Malaysia and Singapore have been undergoing political liberalisation, evident from the increasing parliamentary representation of the opposition and more open political discussion. Yet, with this opening, the challenges the two neighbours face in liberalising are becoming clearer. One of the main obstacles involves dealing with the legacies of Lee Kuan Yew and Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad, as their imprint on politics continues to overshadow current transformations. How do the legacies of the two strongmen constrain contemporary political change?

Lee and Dr Mahathir were successful leaders, delivering economic progress and giving their countries international prominence. However, views of these leaders remain divided, with some lauding them as political strongmen who delivered development and stability and others highlighting their excesses. This debate will continue, and likely intensify over time. Still, few dispute the fact that the two leaders profoundly shaped the countries they led. In order to understand contemporary politics in both countries, we need to look beyond these leaders as individuals or their tenures and appreciate how the strongmen continue to shape the two societies.

The Strongmen Psyche

Lee governed for 31 years, Dr Mahathir 22. Both former leaders continue to play roles in politics, despite stepping down from office. Given their prominence, it is understandable that elements of their style of leadership have become deeply ingrained into the public consciousness. The most evident of these is fear. Fear is defined as an emotion induced by perceived threats and is part and parcel of the political landscape of strongman rule. It is not just about the fear caused by the use of the state apparatus through draconian laws for arbitrary arrest or the penalties for breaching the boundaries of what is deemed as unspeakable, it is also the routinisation of warnings and demonisation of the other.

For decades Malaysians and Singaporeans were encouraged to conform to set patterns of political behaviour — to not question their leaders and follow. They were expected to fall in line, as the system was deemed the best for them. They were warned repeatedly to behave. Red lines — ubiquitously known as OB (out-of-bounds) markers in Singapore — were clearly drawn — not to criticise leaders, not to discuss “sensitive” issues or not to express alternative views openly. The end result was possible penalties, which ranged from outright arrest to quiet marginalisation. The actual number of arrests was low relative to other regimes, but such instances took on symbolic importance, especially given the relatively low populations of both countries. While fear has sharply dissipated in the post-strongman eras, it still permeates political life, especially among the generations that lived though these periods.

Fear of the state is just part of the story. During the strongman era, fear was used to buttress power. Threats from outside were a constant refrain. In Malaysia, these threats came from enemies in the form of George Soros, Jews or unknown forces of instability that could not be controlled. The threats also came from within. Dr Mahathir was perhaps the most explicit on this in his book “The Malay Dilemma”, which used sharp ethnic divisions as a source of internal instability. The push for Malay unity was used to fend off the other. In Singapore, the ethnic rubric was one of multiculturalism, but memories of the turbulent ethnic tensions of the 1950s and 1960s remained. Events such as 1969 in Malaysia or 1964 in Singapore continued as part of the political discourse, and still do today. There is unease, anxiety and concern about a return to the ethnic turbulence of the past that meshes with the subtle and sometimes not so subtle dimensions of fear.

Political liberalisation in both countries is constrained by fear and the baggage it brings. A key element of this baggage is mistrust. On an interpersonal level, race relations in both countries are strong — and this is despite a number of high profile and controversial racial comments that have recently received public attention, notably in Singapore. Yet, deep down the niggling uncertainties of the “other” so prominent in the strongman era remain.

Strongman Control Mode

This strongman legacy is not just about fear — it is also about control. The focus on a specific order was a feature of the strongman eras. The structure of this order varied in both societies, but the pattern of establishing the order was the same — it was to be defined by those in power. Space for alternative conceptualisations was minimised, as leaders set out the course for the country to follow. In many of these decisions, there was wisdom, while in others, less so. But the mode of engagement was the same — the “government — a.k.a. leader — knows best”.

The strongman eras in Singapore and Malaysia’s placed the state in a dominant position as the driver of society. In the economic realm, the state was to be the agent of change, usually in alliance with international business. This has meant that the space for domestic private business interests, especially small and medium-sized businesses, as an alternative engine of growth has been minimised. For multiple decades, public spending, allocations and priorities were set by those in power.  This provided a powerful economic base for the control of society.

Dominance over the economic levers of power reinforced the strongmen’s position politically. To challenge political power under strongman rule had the potential to undermine your economic fortunes. This dynamic is deeply rooted, as challenges to the status quo are seen to both backfire on those who engage in them and come at a high price. The legacy of this pattern continues, as those who speak out face marginalisation, and in some cases, outright demonisation. The attacks are particularly harsh on those who come from within the system and are seen to betray the incumbent’s political base. The response to Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim is illustrative.

Politically, the strongman mode of control was also characterised by a “divide-and-rule” strategy of engaging opponents. As a result, civil societies in both countries are fragmented, wracked by internal suspicion. Those that were co-opted are distrusted by others who are seen as more confrontational. The strategy of division reinforced the position of the strongman leader, a feudal structure of personalised power around one man. Even today, centralised leadership is expected, with heavy burdens placed on the post-strongman leaders to perform and to “be strong”. Today’s leaders are constantly compared to the past. Power continues to be personalised, although in Singapore this is less about personality than persona.

Strongmen Institutional Constraints

This element of persona — how people interpret the leadership of the past — still resonates today. Many in both countries refer to the “good old days” when government was omnipotent and the rules of the game simpler. Many in government have trouble dealing with criticism, often viewing discussion of issues as attacks and responding defensively. The irony is that the post-strongman era has led to needless insecure responses by leaders that are hampered by comparisons to the strongmen and the constituencies that claim to act to protect the strongman legacies. The burden of being in the shadow of strongmen is heavy — as it is increasingly laden with discomfort and anxiety as governance has become more decentralised and a broader spectrum of the population has ratcheted up demands on the government and criticism of its performance.

These changes have placed greater burden on the different institutions to govern. The post-strongmen eras have seen the institutions and the bureaucracy move to the frontline. Here is where the trajectories of Malaysia and Singapore diverge. Dr Mahathir’s legacy was to weaken institutions on multiple fronts. This story is well-known — the corruption, the diminished capacities and the inefficiencies. There are talented Malaysian civil servants, but the modus operandi reinforces bad practices and those that rise usually do due to their loyalty rather than merit. The rot inside the system has led to the increasing displacement of the civil service in governing, illustrated by the rising power of consultant agencies in policy formulation. Whether it is the police, judiciary or civil service, it is a constant battle to deliver. This is the Mahathir legacy of disempowerment of government agencies, of neutering initiative and discouraging problem-solving. It is also the result of reinforcing the predatory practice of power for oneself, rather than for the people.

Singapore’s institutions did not suffer the same fate. The public sector plays a prominent and respected role in governing and takes this role seriously. The legacy is exactly the opposite — too much strength tied to insulation. The voices of civil society are missing or even dismissed. There is selective hearing on who to engage and how. Within the system there is over-bureaucratisation of the bottom, and limited checks at the top, as the fundamental operating principle has been to check those below and empower the elite. This limits the quality of the feedback for the system to evolve and address the new challenges ahead, particularly given that many in Singapore’s civil service now comprise the elite in a process of early self-selection and recruitment. As in Malaysia, institutions in Singapore continue to be shaped by the past.

Path Ahead

As these societies change — and they have done so rapidly — the institutional norms and effects of the strongman eras persist. Today, there is much less fear and less control, although many in the system are nostalgic for the period where citizens were subjects and followers rather than participants and questioners. The process of political liberalisation involves tackling the unspoken legacy effects of past leadership — to move from fear to trust, from intolerance to acceptance, from insecurity to security and from constraints on governance to empowerment.

The region shows us that there are two paths — one of big bang change with reforms and another of muddling through. We have seen examples from Indonesia to Myanmar. The reality is that no matter what path is followed, the legacies of strongmen persist. There is always a cohort that holds to the past and the routines that have been institutionalised and normalised are difficult to change. This is why it is so important to understand how the past is shaping the present. This recognition of legacies involve both the government protagonists and citizens — as it is only when both appreciate the relationship between the past and the present that these societies can move toward a more holistic embrace of their potential. — New Mandala

* Bridget Welsh is associate professor in political science at the Singapore Management University. This article is based partly on her lecture at the Asia Pacific Learning Community Forum, “Malaysia and Singapore — Models for the Asian Century.”

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 3 November 2012, 8:22 am and is filed under
Bridget Welsh
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Najib should present Ministerial statement in Parliament on Monday on the RM40 million “donation for Sabah UMNO” scandal of Michael Chia as well as whether Nazri violated conflict-of-interest principles

The Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak should present a Ministerial statement in Parliament on Monday on the RM40 million donation scandal of Sabah timber trader Michael Chia as well as whether the Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz had violated conflict-of-interest principles when answering questions in Parliament on the issue.

Although the Prime Minister last month (Oct. 19) denied that there was any attempt to smuggle the RM40 million “donation for Sabah UMNO” into the country and claimed that the whole issue had “already been explained in Parliament”, the facts are the contrary.

Instead of putting the issue to rest, Nazri’s various explanations, both inside and outside Parliament, some of which contradicted each other, on the alleged RM40 million “donation for Sabah UMNO”, have only aroused greater suspicion and reinforced widespread belief that a major cover-up is afoot about   the RM40 million scandal – which went as far back as more than four years ago on August 14, 2008 at the Hong Kong International Airport allegedly over currency trafficking and laundering with  S$16 million cash in Singapore currency in Michael Chia’s luggage before boarding a flight to Kuala Lumpur.

Nazri’s claim that when answering in Parliament, he was only reading the answers whether given by the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) or the Attorney-General and that he was not responsible for these answers is completely unacceptable and makes a total mockery of the principle of Ministerial responsibility to Parliament.

The further revelation, confirmed by Nazri himself, that his son Nedim was using a luxurious Hummer SUV, which retails at over RM459,000, owned by Chia, has raised serious questions whether conflict-of-interest principles had been gravely violated when he made statements in Parliament clearing Michael Chia as well as the Sabah Chief Minister, Datuk Seri Musa Aman of corruption.

It is most ironic that just a month after he had exhorted  at the Sixth International Association of Anti-Corruption Authorities (IAACA) Conference and general meeting in Kuala Lumpur on the critical and crucial importance to instil “a natural abhorrence to corruption” among people in positions of power and authority, he is now under a serious test whether he is prepared to “walk the talk” by giving a Ministerial statement on the swirling questions affecting Michael Chia, Musa Aman and Nazri in Parliament on Monday.

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 3 November 2012, 4:14 pm and is filed under
Corruption
,
Najib Razak
,
Parliament
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Ordinary, average Muslims are not easily confused, their faith is strong!

by P. Ramakrishnan

The Malaysian Insider

November 03, 2012

NOV 3 — It is difficult to understand the so-called Muslim elites who constantly and consistently convey the erroneous message that Islam is under threat and that Muslims will be easily misled.

They always seem to suggest that Muslims must be sheltered and protected otherwise they can go astray and embarrass their religion.

The latest episode involves the screening of the movie “My name is Khan” by TV3 on the second day of Hari Raya Aidil Adha.

The Muslim youth movement Abim has strongly protested against this film, claiming that the Shah Rukh Khan film “confuses Muslims as it promotes liberal Islam and religious pluralism, and warned Malaysian broadcasters not to air the hit film”.

Abim vice-president Ahmad Saparudin Yusuf “gave examples of scenes in the film such as the Muslim hero marrying a Hindu heroine, saying that it is ‘clearly against Islam’s teachings’”.

He also pointed out “that the depiction in the film of acceptance and mixing of other religions’ worship methods with Islam’s as well as giving zakat or alms to non-Muslims were ‘confusing’.”

This film has been available in Malaysia since March 2010. It has been screened in cinemas and the film’s CD has been widely sold. In the 2½ years that it was around, thousands upon thousands of Muslims and other Malaysians have seen and enjoyed the film.

Is there any evidence that the average, ordinary Muslims in Malaysia have become confused about Islam because of the film? Has their faith in Islam been eroded as a result of seeing this film?

“My Name is Khan” has been shown in many Muslim countries where the film is very popular. It has become the highest Bollywood earner in the Middle East. It was screened in Jordan, Lebanon and Syria in March 2010 when the film was released. In Indonesia, the country with the biggest Muslim community, the film was so popular when it was first released that it grew from six to 14 screens.

In all these countries there was no protest against or any negative reaction to what was depicted in the movie. No one took offence to the film.

In India, the country with the biggest Muslim population outside Indonesia, there was no problem whatsoever. Besides Islam, many other religions and various forms of worship exist on a daily basis in that country. People are tolerant and accept the fact that others have a right to their religion. As a matter of fact, religions co-exist in India.

In real life, Shah Rukh Khan — a Muslim — is married to a Hindu woman. This has not upset the Muslims in India or anywhere else. Knowing this fact has not prevented the Malacca state government from conferring on him a datukship. Even Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad on his visit to India made it a point to meet up with him.

So who are the people who are confused?

The average, ordinary Muslims are of stronger faith and they are not easily confused! —

* P. Ramakrishnan is the immediate past president of Aliran.

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 3 November 2012, 12:14 pm and is filed under
Islam
,
Religion
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Call for AES (Automatic Enforcement System) to fight  “grand corruption” in Malaysia by making unusual and extraordinary wealth an automatic corruption offence

Since Datuk Seri Najib Razak became Prime Minister nearly 44 months ago, one of his constant themes is  that “the era that the government knows best is over”.

This is however one of his most broken pledges and the most recent example of this violation is the Barisan Nasional government’s stubborn determination to implement the AES (Automatic Enforcement System) for traffic offences, despite the loud, unmistakable and growing demand by the Malaysian public for the  suspension of the AES implementation until there is a proper study and the fullest public consultation and preparation, which is reinforced by the decision of the four Pakatan Rakyat state governments of Penang, Selangor, Kedah and Kelantan to suspend the AES implementation in their respective states.

There is however one AES which should be introduced and implemented immediately – and this is to fight and eradicate “grand corruption” by top political and government leaders by making unusual and extraordinary wealth an automatic corruption offence!

There can be no doubt that one of the biggest failures of the Najib premiership, whether his Government Transformation Programme (GTP) and National Key Result Areas (NKRAs), is the battle against corruption.

This is why Malaysia under Najib is even more corrupt than under previous Prime Ministers as reflected in Malaysia’s worst ranking and score in the 2011 Transparency International (TI) Corruption Perception Index (CPI) when compared to all the TI CPIs of the past 17 years.

Malaysia was ranked No. 23 in 1995 and had the best score of 5.32 in 1996, but in the TI CPI, we fell to No. 60 with the worst score of 4.3 while other countries whether in ASEAN, the Asia-Pacific or the OIC countries had been improving by leaps and bounds in their anti-corruption campaigns.

If Najib is serious about giving priority to the battle against corruption, he should introduce and implement the AES to fight “grand corruption” by making unusual and extraordinary wealth an automatic corruption offence, as is to be found in Hong Kong and other countries serious about fighting corruption in high places.

Malaysians have recently been reminded that despite all the boasts of GTP and NKRA giving priority to fight corruption, and the increased funding, staffing and additional powers for the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC), there is simply no political will to combat corruption, particularly “grand corruption” involving people in high places in government.

There is for instance widespread public incredulity at the clumsy manner of the Najib government to cover up the scandal of the RM40 million “donation to Sabah UMNO” trafficked or laundered into the country from Hong Kong by Sabah timber trader Michael Chia four years ago in August 2008.

There is even greater incredulity when the Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz, who publicly cleared the Sabah Chief Minister, Datuk Seri Musa Aman and Michael Chia of any offence of corruption over the RM40 million scandal, went on to proclaim that there was nothing wrong with his son being provided with a  a luxurious Hummer SUV, which retails at over RM459,000, by Chia, showing utter contempt for serious conflict-of-interest issues.

Recently, the Swiss-based NGO Bruno Manser Fund (BMF) issued a ground-breaking and explosive report  which estimated the assets of Sarawak Chief Minister Tan Sri Taib Mahmud’s family at US$21 billion (RM64 billion), with the wealth of Taib himself put at a whopping US$15 billion (RM46 billion) but there has been no response or action from the MACC to the BMF expose of Taib Mahmud’s unusual and extraordinary wealth in his three decades as Sarawak Chief Minister.

If there is a AES making unusual and extraordinary wealth an automatic corruption offence, there would have been immediate anti-corruption actions in both these Sabah and Sarawak cases, and Malaysia would have embarked on the road to clean and good governance where there is zero tolerance for corruption with people in positions of power and authority instilled with  “a natural abhorrence to corruption”.

Is Najib prepared to introduce the AES in fighting corruption by introducing legislation to make it an automatic corruption offence for any public officer to have unusual or extraordinary wealth, as maintaining a standard of living or in control of pecuniary resources or property disproportionate and incommensurate with his official emolument, unless there is satisfactory explanation for such unusual and extraordinary wealth?

(Speech at Himpunan Kebangkitan Rakyat in Seremban on Saturday, 3rd November 2012 at 10 pm)

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 4 November 2012, 9:26 am and is filed under
Corruption
,
Najib Razak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Now, even children are split by race and religion

Kon Onn Sein

Malaysiakini

Nov 1, 2012

As parents who are concerned with playing our responsible role in nation-building and bridging the ethnic divide, we had consciously sent our children to national school despite the horror stories of sub-standard education.

We had intentionally encouraged our daughters to make friends with their Malay and Indian classmates, especially the poor.

My seven-year-old daughter has been enthusiastically following our encouragement.

Today, when I chatted with her about her friends in school, she related that she had wanted to join her Malay classmates in their play during recess.

However, one classmate said this to her:
“Kamu bukan Islam, kamu tidak boleh main sini. Kamu Cina”
.

(You are not a Muslim; you can’t play here.You are a Chinese.)

It is so tragic that children at a young age of seven can say things in such a racist manner.

What has become of our education system that it is enabling such polarised thinking and polluting our children’s innocence?

One cannot blame this seven-year old girl.

But it does send an alarm bell of how deeply our nation is being torn apart by decades of racial politics.

Unless more is done to turn back polarised thinking that is inflaming our young, we will become a nation that is divided along ethnic and religious lines.

Religion that is meant to teach caring for one another has been used to justify ‘judgementalism’ and discrimination.

Instead of upholding the values of respect for each other, not discriminating along racial lines and looking for the common good in others, religion is being used in a narrow self-righteous way of private morality.

People are being judged according to the external: what they wear and eat, and how often they pray. True spirituality is ignored.

Integrity, working responsibly, caring for the poor, treating one another with respect, and speaking out against oppression of the poor have become secondary to external righteous behaviour.

Hypocrisy, favouritism, putting another down along non-rational ethnic and religious lines is not perceived with greater or even equal magnitude of evil as different dress and moral codes.

Something has gone terribly wrong with our society where substance is less important than superficial religiosity.

It’s time our political and religious leaders mobilise all of society to reverse this growing tragedy of all Malaysians.

It’s time all our religious leaders sit down to define the real ugliness of bigoted religion and pave a way forward.

Self righteousness of putting private morality above real spirituality is destroying this nation and their own spirituality.

Expressions of hatred, dishonesty, greed and pride are encouraged at the expense of upholding external symbols of faith.

Core values of having the right heart and attitude are sacrificed at the altar of hypocritical lip service professions and external dress codes.

We need to return to the true meaning of our faith, to accept each other as God’s creations, and to appreciate the different ways God has created each person.

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 4 November 2012, 2:10 am and is filed under
1Malaysia
,
nation building
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Revisiting the secular state debate

— Ahmad Farouk Musa

The Malaysian Insider

Nov 03, 2012

NOV 3 — One of the most contentious issues in our country is the debate on Islamic State vis-à-vis Secular State. It should be highlighted at this initial point that the Islamic State concept was borne out only early in the 20th century after the demise of the Ottoman Caliphate. Irrespective of which divide we are on, one basic fact that we have to agree upon is that the terminology Dawlah Islamiyyah or Islamic State was never mentioned in the Qur’an.

However, Islamic State remains the main agenda of political Islam that defines Islam as ad-deen wa-dawlah or “religion and state”. It could be argued that since there is no single predominant interpretation of what an Islamic state is, a vicious contestation still exists among the Islamists about the concept of Islamic State.

The realm of as-siyasi — the political

It is also worth noting from historical evidence that Muslims have been fighting against each other for centuries over political power. Rachid Ghannouchi leader of Hizb en-Nahda – The Renaissance Party – quotes a renowned Muslim historian, Shahrastani, as saying that it was on a question of political power that Muslims drew sword, fought each other and shed blood of one another.

And because of this, Ghannouchi distinguishes what he calls as ad-deeni – the religious, sacred or absolute – to that of as-siyasi – the political, profane or relative. The main problem Muslims especially are facing is in the realm of as-siyasi.

Many Muslims including some conservative political activists from the Islamic Party especially in the Ulama and Youth wings are insistent on the idea of replicating the Medinan city-state model of the seventh century. The Qur’an is considered as a constitution that spells out everything that is needed to form a “truly Islamic” government.

Obviously this understanding is anything but a fallacy. The Qur’an only lays the basic foundation that guides mankind. As the erudite Muhammad Asad said: “Every generation faces different circumstances and thus many laws and ways for society cannot be fixed for all time. This is also why the Qur’an fixes time-less law, ethics and restrictions that are universal in its appreciation.

The companions of the Prophet were not left with a set of rules as to how to settle disputes or lead their worldly lives. However they were compelled to perform ijtihad or independent reasoning, using God-given faculty in order to find their own ways.

The en-Nahda leader, Ghannouchi argues that if Islam is the final divine revelation to humanity then it is only appropriate that no fixed prescriptions are given for matters that are of a changing nature such as governing a country. Muslims should be able to exercise their independent reasoning to devise suitable solutions for emerging problems. And the result of this exercise, Islam is then suitable for all times and all places.

Many Islamists argued that the Qur’an provides a solution to every single problem that faces humanity. Many verses have been cited to prove that Muslims need not find answers anywhere else. Among the most famous is: Today have I perfected your religious law for you, and have bestowed upon you the full measure of My blessings, and willed that self-surrender unto Me – al-Islam – shall be your religion.” [al-Ma’idah – The Repast 5: 3]. And another verse is: ‘No single thing have We neglected in Our decree.” [Al-An’am – Cattle 6: 38]

In interpreting these verses, Ghannouchi asserted that many misunderstood them to mean that the Holy Qur’an has a solution to every problem whether major or minor. However what these verses really meant is that while some answers are already there, which if considered absolute, belong to the realm of ad-deeni; only guidelines and foundations are provided in the case of as-siyasi, so that Muslims may search for the detailed answers in accordance with the requirements of their respective time and place.

To exemplify this, Ghannouchi draws the attention to the Qur’anic declaration that: “And there is no living creature on earth but depends for its sustenance on God”. [Hud 11: 6] For in spite of such a declaration many creatures, including human communities, die of thirst and hunger. Where is then their sustenance? Their sustenance has indeed been stored in the earth and the heavens, but to become readily available, it requires exploring, an exertion of effort, on the part of those to whom it has been destined.

The need for human intellectual exegesis

Having said that, we have to acknowledge the fact that there exist shortcomings of a great deal of what we may believe to be sacred. The acceptance of God as Lord of the universe does not mean that everything is a priori. Islam is not a panacea that provides ready-made answers to all human problems. Muslim scholars have not solved all the problems of humanity, in history and for all times. Rather, Islam provides a moral and just perspective within which Muslims must find answer to all human problems.

Ultimately governing a state is a human endeavour. And there is only one thing that could rescue us from our current impasse: democracy. Democracy is essential for any Muslim group and only democracy could guide Muslim societies towards Islam, where the operation of the community and the demands of Islam are freely debated and refashioned.

This point needs further examination because a key and stubborn misperception of Muslims in regard to democracy is based on the notion that in Islam sovereignty belongs to God, while in democracy it belongs to people.

This is a naive and erroneous notion or interpretation. God IS the true and ultimate Sovereign, but He has bestowed a level of freedom and responsibility upon the human beings in this world. God has decided not to function as the Sovereign in this world. He has blessed humanity with revelations and His essential guidance. We are to shape and conduct our lives, individually and collectively, according to that guidance. But even though essentially this guidance is based on divine revelation, its interpretation and implementation are human.

God does not seek to regulate all human affairs and instead leaves human being considerable latitude in regulating their own affairs. In the Qur’anic discourse, God commanded the angels to honour man because of the miracle of human intellect — an expression of the abilities of the divine.

When we humans, search for ways to approximate God’s beauty and justice, we do not deny God’s sovereignty; instead we honour it. But if we were to say that the only legitimate source of law is the divine text, and that human experience and intellect are irrelevant to the pursuit of the divine will, then divine sovereignty will become an instrument of authoritarianism and an obstacle to democracy. And in effect, that authoritarian view denigrates God’s sovereignty.

The democratic ideals

It should be emphasised that a state has to govern the relations between human beings and the ultimate aim of the state is to set up a society based on justice and benevolence – or ‘adl and ihsan in the Qur’anic terms. ‘Adl and ihsan are most fundamental human values and any state worth its salt has to strive to establish a society based on these values.

But for this, no particular form of state is needed. Even an honest monarch can do it. It is for this reason that the holy Qur’an praises prophet-rulers like David and Solomon, who were kings and just rulers. But the Qur’an is also aware that such just rulers are normally far and few in between. The governance has to be as democratic as possible so that all adults can participate in it. If governance is left to an individual, or a monarch, the power may corrupt him or her as everyone knows absolute power corrupts absolutely.

It is for this reason that the Qur’an refers to democratic governance when it says: “And those who respond to their Lord and keep up prayer, and whose affairs are (decided) by mutual consultation, and who spend out of what We have given them”. [Ash-Shura – Consultation 42: 38]

Thus the mutual affairs – those pertaining to governance – should be conducted only by mutual consultation which in contemporary political parlance will be construed as democratic governance. Since in those days there was no well-defined practice of political democracy, the Qur’an refers to it as ‘amruhum shura baynahum, i.e. affairs to be conducted through mutual consultation, which is a very meaningful way of hinting at democracy.

The Qur’an is thus against totalitarian or absolute monarchical rule. This injunction, implying government by consent and council, must be regarded as one of the fundamental clauses of all Qur’anic legislation relating to statecrafts, and is binding on all Muslims and for all times as asserted by Muhammad Asad, in his book, State and Government in Islam.

Whether the people will decide to choose the path to heaven or hell is a human decision. Whether they will choose Islam or another path, it is a human decision. Whether people will choose to organise their lives based on Islam or not is a human decision. It can be argued that for making wrong choices in this world, Muslims might be facing negative consequences in the life hereafter. But, still it is a matter of choice; there is no room for compulsion or imposition.

Then what happens when the society and leadership faces a conflict where for example the majority of the Muslim society does not want to uphold Islam? It must be emphasised that the leadership cannot coerce the society into what it does not want. There is no compulsion or coercion in Islam. Coercion never delivers sustainable results, and the foundation of Islam cannot be based on coercion.

Observe that God IS the sovereign from the viewpoint of Islamic reality, but not from practical standpoint. When our decisions are to be made based on Ijtihad – and we could be wrong; where our constitution and policies would be formulated through human consultation – and we can err; when our judicial system would be guided by the revealed guidance, yet, based on the evidence presented, there would be chance for an innocent to get convicted and a guilty to go free, God is not acting as a sovereign in this world.

De jure in contrast to de facto

Indeed, ruling a country is human endeavour. Nobody has the right to acclaim that his rule resembles God’s will and wish. Even a Mufti decreeing religious verdict should not assume infallibility. We have seen how a state in this country formulated an enactment that a Mufti’s verdict could not be challenged in the court of law. We shudder to think about the future if such a ruling party that upholds Guardianship of the Jurist or Kepimpinan Ulama rules this country.

The recently enacted law was a clear breach of democracy and basically an exploitation of the democratic process towards authoritarian rule. When such an institution declares that God is the sovereign, then they have the legitimacy to impose their own rule or whims in the name of the sovereign.

History is full of such abuses even in countries that claimed to impose Sharia. We have seen incidents where Sharia has been enforced for the people, but some powerful members of the Royal family or privileged ruling elites remained above the Sharia. Imposition of Sharia does not warrant a government to assume infallibility and that it is God’s shadow on earth.

It is to be noted that we accept the fact that all systems of government are imperfect, and we have to be perpetually vigilant against abuses of any form of government. However, it may also be the case that a genuine and robust democracy is the least imperfect of all imperfect political models today.

Again, since no particular Muslim can claim to have a theocratic authority, and since there are all sorts of Muslims with diverse views, ideas and aspirations, the only system that would be fair for all including those who do no profess the faith would be the one that would include all of them in the political process: a democracy.

A secular democratic state

It is argued then that the best state for Muslims is still a secular state that embraces democracy and will allow people to be Muslim by conviction and free choice, which is the only way one can be a Muslim. Under such a system of governance, it is agreed to respect the fundamental rights of all people irrespective of race and religion or social status without discrimination and without any commitment to religious frames of reference. What matters in such a system is that despotism is checked.

One of the great accomplishments of secularism is the space it provides for pluralism and a reasonable degree of coexistence. Muslims have been able to live harmoniously in the majority non-Muslim societies for the first time in such significant numbers simply as a result of the secular revolution that liberated the state from the hegemony of the church.

It should also be noted that there is a big difference between a secular state and a secularist one. The former is a state that is neutral to religion and respects the right of its citizens to live by their faith. A secularist state, on the other hand, is hostile to religion and wants to curb its influence in public life, and even in the lives of individual citizens.

Accepting a secular state will allow Muslims not only to follow Islam in the way they genuinely believe but also to eliminate the endless discussions over the ideal “Islamic state” and its system like “Islamic economy” or even the disputable hudud laws. We should instead focus on the fundamentals of a civil state such as justice, freedom of conscience, freedom of expression, good governance, separation of power, rule a of law, respect for human rights and economic equality.

The road forward

The issue is not about some mythical blending of “Islam” and “democracy.” All of us, Muslims and non-Muslims, are now citizens of a pluralistic society where we live together as neighbours. We have to begin by realising the holistic nature of justice, and injustice; that what happens to a minority of us has a profound political and moral impact on all of us.

If we are going to insist that Muslims in Europe or other non-Muslim majority countries are full and complete citizens, not merely tolerated guests, then moral consistency demands of us that we recognise the exact same set of rights and responsibilities for non-Muslim citizens in our society in this country.

In other words, the fundamental commitment of justice demands that our commitment to democracy goes hand in hand with a robust notion of citizenship that encompasses every citizen of a country regardless of race, religion, gender, class and ethnicity.

We have to honour the divine imperative to live justly, learn to be just to ourselves and to others. Constant striving is required to overcome the fragmentation to which most human beings are subjected in the technological age.

We also have to embrace pluralism and to eliminate any form of sexism, racism, classism, and all forms of totalitarianism that lead to the injustices and inequities which characterise the country in which we live in today.

“Man’s capacity for justice makes democracy possible; but man’s inclination to injustice makes democracy necessary!” [Reinhold Niebuhr in The Children of Light and the Children of Darkness] — New Mandala

* Dr. Ahmad Farouk Musa is a director at Islamic Renaissance Front. This essay was presented at a dialogue on Islamic State: Which Version, Whose Responsibility at the Full Gospel Tabernacle, USJ Selangor on November 3, 2012. The initial groundbreaking article was entitled Arguing for A Secular State.

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 4 November 2012, 1:59 am and is filed under
Islamic state
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Whether Najib likes it or not, its countdown for 13GE as Parliament has life-span of  less than six months before it is automatically dissolved

Malaysians have been waiting for the past two years for the 13th General Election but the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak has been dilly-dallying as he hunts for the best timing for the dissolution of Parliament not so much for UMNO and the Barisan Nasional, but to ensure that he could remain ensconced in Sri Perdana after the polls.

Whether Najib likes it or not, its countdown for the 13GE as the 12th Parliament which was elected in the political tsunami of 8th March 2008 has a life-span of less than six months before it is automatically dissolved followed by the “mother of all general elections” in Malaysia.

There is just four months left if we take into account the polling day on 8th March 2008.

However, as Article 55 (3) provides that “Parliament unless sooner dissolved shall continue for five years from the date of its first meeting and shall then stand dissolved”, the 12th Parliament’s tenure will only end on April 27, 2013 as its first meeting was held on 28th April 2008.

Najib has already created two “history” –  firstly, being the longest Prime Minister without an elected mandate of his own, compared to any of his predecessors which would include his father, Tun Razak, as well as the ensuing three Prime Ministers Tun Hussein, Tun Mahathir and Tun Abdullah.

His second “history” is to be Prime Minister of the longest Parliament to be dissolved, now entering into the last six months of its tenure.

The question is whether Najib will achieve a “triple” in making Malaysian history – of being the last UMNO Prime Minister in Malaysia.

It is because of this fear of making this “triple” history that has caused Najib to keep changing his mind as to when is the best timing for him to call for  the 13th General Election in the past two years.

This is also the reason why UMNO and Barisan Nasional under him have become so desperate as to resort to the most irresponsible and unprincipled politicking, disseminating contradictory  lies and falsehoods when campaigning to different racial groups, causing UMNO and Barisan Nasional to lose all credibility, legitimacy and moral authority to continue to rule in Malaysia after 55 years.

To the Malays, UMNO leaders and propagandists spread lies and falsehoods as warning that DAP will be the real power if Pakatan Rakyat forms the federal government in the 13GE, that the Malays will lose political power and become “beggars in their own land”, the position of Islam as the official religion of the country would be displaced with Malaysia becoming a Christian state, the Rulers would be abolished and Malaysia become a Republic.

Even the MCA leaders do not believe these UMNO lies, falsehoods and deceit about the DAP  – as for instance  it is not Malays but UMNO leaders losing political power – but the MCA leaders kept their silence as it served their ulterior objective of frightening the Malay voters not to vote for Pakatan Rakyat.

To the Chinese, MCA leaders and propagandists spread lies and falsehoods as warning  that PAS will be the real power if Pakatan Rakyat forms the federal government in the 13 GE, that the Chinese and non-Muslims will lose even more of their political, economic, educational, religious and citizenship rights.

Even UMNO leaders do not believe in such MCA lies, falsehoods and deceit but again, they kept their silence as it is all part of their nefarious ulterior objective to scare the Chinese and non-Muslim voters from voting for Pakatan Rakyat.

Undoubtedly, UMNO and Barisan Nasional component parties are indulging in the most irresponsible, unprincipled and anti-national politicking, seeking to further polarize Malaysians along racial and religious lines just to gain short-term electoral advantages for themselves while utterly heedless and reckless of the great harm to Malaysian nation-building.

This is where Pakatan Rakyat differs from Barisan Nasional. DAP, PKR and PAS do not send out different messages to different groups of Malaysians, whether racial, religious or geographical.

Pakatan Rakyat and the component parties of DAP, PKR and PAS  have only one and the same message for all Malaysians – to restore justice, freedom, democracy and good governance and to uphold the fundamental features of the Malaysian Constitution. In short, to save Malaysia from the excesses of UMNO/BN.

In continuing their divisive and destructive role to perpetuate their “divide and rule” tactics, UMNO and Barisan Nasional leaders are sowing the politics of hate and conflict with contradictory messages for different ethnic and religious groups in the country.

How can the Barisan Nasional component parties reconcile the lies, falsehoods and deceit spread by UMNO among Malays with the lies, falsehoods and deceit spread by MCA among the Chinese?

This is why UMNO and  Barisan Nasional deserve to be defeated and replaced by Pakatan Rakyat as the new federal government in Putrajaya in the 13GE as they have lost all credibility, legitimacy and moral authority to continue as the national government of plural Malaysia when they are prepared to act in such an  irresponsible and anti-national fashion.

[Speech (2)  at Himpunan Kebangkitan Rakyat in Seremban on Saturday, 3rd November 2012 at 10 pm]

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 4 November 2012, 10:52 am and is filed under
Elections
,
Najib Razak
,
Pakatan Rakyat
,
Parliament
,
UMNO
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.