The hands behind Malaysia’s false spring

By
Dr Lim Teck Ghee
 | 25 November 2011

To most of the country’s independent political observers, it is very clear now. With the unveiling of the new proposed law restricting our right to peaceful assembly and protest, the Malaysian public has been taken for a ride on the promise of political liberalization and reform made by the Prime Minister on the eve of Malaysia Day this year.

What is the explanation for the apparent turnaround in Najib Razak’s initial plan unveiled on 15 September this year to abandon earlier draconian and repressive legislation and to improve our civil liberties?

Is it that there was really no enlightened plan but in fact a calculated and cynical move aimed at strangling the right to peaceful assembly – a potential game changer in the country’s political dynamics – whilst holding out crumbs of comfort that the government is being sincere about political liberalization on less important fronts?

If so, the Prime Minister must be congratulated on producing academy award performances not on just one occasion but for an entire two-month period in which he consistently extolled the merit of the Barisan Nasional moves to advance civil liberties and good governance in the country when plotting the exact opposite.

Even as late as today the Prime Minister continues to praise the new bill on Peaceful Assembly as a “revolutionary” law and a “giant leap” towards improving individual freedom. He must be the only person in the country to believe that the country will experience a quantum improvement in our basic freedom of assembly with the passing of the new law.

If he is deaf to the overwhelming opposition to the proposed new law coming from all quarters, this coming year’s international assessments on the country’s civil liberties record will be salutary in reminding the Prime Minister that the country’s ranking on civil liberties and his own reputation for honesty have taken an enormous beating from this cynical attempt to kill off political dissent under the guise of improving the law pertaining to the right to assembly.

Were there other forces at work that may have compelled the Prime Minister to engage in this astonishing political turnaround?

If the Prime Minister is not the main actor of this political deception, is it the work of right wing Umno leaders such as Dr Mahathir Mohamad and his son Mukhriz, the Deputy Prime Minister Muhyiddin Yassin, Ibrahim Ali as well as Najib’s ambitious cousin, the Home Affairs Minister who have pushed him to this unprecedented flip- flopping on political liberalization?

Whichever hands finally prevailed on this obnoxious bill now being debated in Parliament, their mission is clear: to prevent the same exercise of the freedom of peaceful assembly and dissent that are toppling similar  authoritarian regimes elsewhere in the world in the hope that they can buy for themselves a longer lease of authoritarian rule and unchecked power in Malaysia.

                This entry was posted on Friday, 25 November 2011, 3:17 pm and is filed under
Human Rights
,
Lim Teck Ghee
,
Najib Razak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Top 10 reasons to oppose the Peaceful Assembly Bill

by
Zan Azlee

The Malaysian Insider

Nov 25, 2011

NOV 25 — I disagree with the Peaceful Assembly Bill which is being tabled in Parliament at the moment and I know that many sane Malaysians also disagree with it.

There’s been (and will be) tons of people writing and voicing their thoughts on the matter and here’s my list of top 10 reasons why I disagree with it:

1. The right for people to assemble is the right to freedom of speech and expression. If you limit and restrict that right, then you are denying democracy.

2. Myanmar just passed a law to allow public protests. I repeat — Myanmar just passed a law to allow public protests.

3. Prime Minister Najib Razak says this new law will be “revolutionary.” Sure! It’s as revolutionary as Iran’s Revolutionary Guards!

4. MITI Deputy Minister Mukhriz Mahathir says that street protests portray the country as having bad governance. Great! Bar the protests instead of addressing the bad governance!

5. Aside from the rules that are obviously stated in the Bill, everything else falls under the “discretion” of the police or the home minister. How conveniently ambiguous.

6. The peaceful assembly law is unconstitutional since protests are a form of expression.

7. The Bill disallows anyone under 21 years of age from participating in assemblies. I didn’t know young people had less human rights.

8. The Peaceful Assembly Bill is actually even more restrictive than the current law, which goes against what was promised by the prime minister in September during his Malaysia Day speech.

9. One of the reasons of protests and demonstrations is to create disruption (but peaceful disruption!) in order to bring attention to issues. Disallowing this disruption goes against the principle of protests and demonstrations.

10. As a member of the Malaysian rakyat, I was not asked my opinion about the Bill. Were you?

We, as Malaysians, need to make sure our voice is heard when it comes to this matter because if we don’t, then our voice will be stifled forever by this Bill.

                This entry was posted on Friday, 25 November 2011, 9:31 am and is filed under
Human Rights
,
Najib Razak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Give Hishammuddin a break

By
Gomen Man
 | 25 Nov 2011

The Malaysian Insider

NOV 25 — Stop blaming Home Minister Hishammuddin Hussein for the proposed Peaceful Assembly Act. He may be the minister in charge of the police but there is a reason why Nazri Aziz and not him proposed the Bill in Parliament: his boss, the Prime Minister does not trust him.

So we can blame him for tolerating the cow head protest, for his childish opposition to Bersih 2.0, for his right wing tendencies and not being the intellectual league of his father or grandfather.

But he cannot be blamed for the new assembly act, which makes Malaysia look decidedly second best to Myanmar. In Umno circles, people are afraid of shadows and enough of Najib’s boys have been talking about the political ambitions of his cousin.

The talk has had effect and Hishammuddin does not enjoy the complete confidence of the PM. Especially after the Bersih debacle where some 50,000 people turned up despite the police advising the capital city to be shut down.

This proposed law was the handiwork of Najib Razak, part of his plan of creating the belief that he is a reformer but instead putting up enough obstacles that it will be impossible for spontaneous street protests to happen.

It is part of the PM’s advisors strategy to blame others when things go wrong, as such it was Hishammuddin’s fault that the stadium offer for Bersih was rescinded on the advice of the police and intelligence circles who put up the spectre of a Thahrir Square sit-in.

Instead, the Bersih protesters ended their demonstration at 4.30pm with the city the way it was and nearly 1,700 enjoying biryani at the expense of the police, most of whom did not have even a nasi bungkus.

All said and done, Najib But signed off on the police crackdown just like he signed off on his “revolutionary” Peaceful Assembly Act. Not Hishamuddin.

So give Hishammuddin a break. He needs all the leeway now to find a safe seat in Johor for the next general election.

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 26 November 2011, 11:28 am and is filed under
Hishammuddin
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Government facing an economic dilemma

By
Ramon Navaratnam
 | 25 Nov 2011

The Malaysian Insider

NOV 25 — At least two economic ministers, Second Finance Minister Datuk Seri Ahmad Husni Hanadzlah and Tan Sri Nor Mohamed Yakcop, the minister in charge of the Economic Planning Unit, yesterday sounded greater caution on our economic outlook next year.

The European economy is weakening and the finance minister stated that government is “closely monitoring the European situation”. This shows his serious concern as to how low the European economies can go and how much we would be adversely affected.

The economic planning minister at the same time stated that “the global economic recovery is likely to stay weak and bumpy with a higher probability that things could get worse.”

We cannot therefore take it for granted that Malaysia can achieve a 5-5.5 per cent growth in our economy this year and anything near 5 per cent next year. Inflation could exceed 3.5 per cent next year and we could move towards stagflation which means stagnant economic growth and rising prices.

The government is now facing an economic dilemma. It would like to stimulate the economy, but the long-standing budget deficits do not allow even more budget spending, which would worsen the wide deficit. More government spending would also mean more borrowing especially for development expenditure. This, we are starkly reminded, is not prudent financing, particularly in the light of the Greece and Italian experience.

Hence the second finance minister indicated at the 16th ASLI Capital Market Conference yesterday that “Malaysia’s economy would primarily be driven by domestic demand”.

He expects private consumption or consumer spending which constitutes about 55 per cent of the Gross Domestic Product to increase by 7.1 per cent to provide the push for growth. But it may be difficult for consumers to spend more at a time of slower income growth and rising prices.

Minister of International Trade and Industry Datuk Seri Mustapa happily announced that foreign direct investment for the first nine months this year has exceeded the RM9.1 billion for the whole of last year.

This is good news .However it is also important to state how much of our own domestic capital has flowed out of the country. Even more significantly, it would be appropriate to ask what can be done to discourage not only the large capital outflows but also the serious brain drain of highly qualified human resources? Both are vital for our capacity to fight likely recession and to progress towards Vision 2020

This may therefore be the right and an opportune time to make more transformational policy changes that would encourage more Malaysian private investors to invest at home .

We can be gratified by the World Bank’s recent assessment that “the ease of doing business in Malaysia” has considerably improved. But the business climate could be spoilt by insufficient longer term confidence in good governance, and in the prospects of better racial and religious harmony and national unity in our country.

Thus increasingly we have to look at our business climate and outlook in more holistic ways since our domestic investors must feel more comfortable in their business sustainability in the longer term future.

Given the weakening US and European economies, and even the possibility of economic decline in China’s and India’s huge economies which are now our major trading partners, we have to take the signals for greater caution more seriously and prepare for more difficult times.

What we need to do to counter the declining economic trends is to liberalise our socio-economic and political policies further, provide a more attractive business environment and a better a more inclusive quality of life for all Malaysians.

Finally, we can step up public private investment partnerships amongst Bumi and non-Bumi businesses in Malaysia and within Asean and our Asian neighbours, especially for the major productive and income-generating projects like the KL-Singapore high-speed railway.

In effect we have to be more resolute and innovative in facing the great dilemma and grave challenges of our times.

________

* Tan Sri Ramon Navaratnam is the chairman of the Asli Centre of Public Policy Studies.

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 26 November 2011, 11:29 am and is filed under
Economics
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Peaceful Assembly Bill a test case whether Najib’s pledge on becoming Prime Minister that “the era of government knows best is over” is serious commitment or just hocus pocus, bunkum and baloney

The Peaceful Assembly Bill is a test case whether the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak’s pledge on becoming Prime Minister in April 2009 that “the era of government knows best is over”, setting the stage for a government that responds to the people’s views and concerns, or it was just hocus pocus, bunkum and baloney with the Prime Minister not meaning what he said and not prepared to “walk the talk” right from the start of his premiership.

If Najib is serious that under his administration, the era of “government knows best” is over, then he should not find any difficultly in postponing further second reading of the Peaceful Assembly Bill and refer it to a Parliamentary Select Committee to have fullest and meaningful public consultation to ensure that the new Peaceful Assembly Act is not more repressive than the regime created by Section 27 of the Police Act by bringing about an environment where all Malaysians, particularly the civil society, human right activists and the political opposition, feel more liberated instead of being more suppressed under the new legislative proposals.

The only people who are happy with the Peaceful Assembly Bill are the Police and the Home Minister, who have been armed with arbitrary powers to impose restrictive and onerous conditions reducing the constitutional rights of Malaysians to freedom of assembly an empty one.

Najib had already run afoul of his declaration that his administration recognized that the era of “government knows best” is over, for the Peaceful Assembly Bill was drafted under the old mindset and mentality that the “government knows best” – which is why the Bill has attracted universal opposition, protest and condemnation.

It would appear that Najib has too many speech writers, with the speech writer responsible for his “the era of government knows best is over” statement after he became Prime Minister in April 2009 a very  different person from the speech writer of his parliamentary speech on Thursday where he could make the ridiculous declaration  that the Peaceful Assembly Bill is a “revolutionary” piece of reform.

One reason why Najib’s public persona suffers from a schizophrenic image is that one set of his speech writers do not know what another set of speech writers have committed on behalf of the Prime Minister, as illustrated by the Peaceful Assembly Bill incident.

It is reported that the Prime Minister has ordered the Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz to review the Peaceful Assembly Bill as Najib was overseas when the Bill was presented to Cabinet for approval.

If this is true, it neither reflects well on Najib’s premiership nor on the Deputy Prime Minister, Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin who would have acted as Chairman of the Cabinet during Najib’s absence.

What about the other Cabinet Ministers? Were they just a Cabinet of sheep who have no views of their own and could not see instantly that the proposed Peaceful Assembly Bill is completely unacceptable and would not pass muster any meaningful consultation with the civic society, human rights activists and the political Opposition?

Although there have been conflicting reports of seven to eight amendments being considered for the Peaceful Assembly Bill, they all seem to revolve around the outrageous provision of 30-day notice for any assembly to be held – which had been made totally unacceptable when only five days’ notice is required in a country so backward on human rights as Myanmar!

The 30-day notice is not the only objectionable provision in the Peaceful Assembly Bill, as other provisions should also be deleted, e.g. arbitrary powers of the police to impose restrictive conditions, the role of the Home Minister in cases of appeal,  the ban on street protests, the list of prohibited areas or 50-metre vicinity disallowing the holding of assemblies, the ban on underaged children and the onerous and crippling fines for offences under the Bill.

Najib should explain what is in the indecent haste that the Peaceful Assembly Bill, despite the universal objection, protest and condemnation of civil society, human rights activists and the political opposition, that it must be passed by Dewan Rakyat next week?

Is it just to allow Najib to have a “trophy” to present to the UMNO General Assembly, although it goes against his commitment on becoming Prime Minister that the era of the government knows best is over?

If Najib postpones second reading of the Bill and refers it to a Parliamentary Select Committee for fullest and meaningful public consultation, he will have a real “trophy” to take to the Umno General Assembly next week that he really meant what he said and that he walked the talk that the era of government knows best is over.

The ball is in Najib’s court.

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 26 November 2011, 3:59 pm and is filed under
Human Rights
,
Najib Razak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Banks brace for eurozone defection

UPI.com

Nov. 26, 2011

BRUSSELS, Nov. 26 (UPI) — Banks in Europe say they are bracing themselves against the eurozone possibly losing one more member because of the ongoing sovereign debt crisis.

“We cannot be, and are not, complacent on this front. We must not ignore the prospect of a disorderly departure of some countries from the eurozone,” said Andrew Bailey, a regulator at Britain’s Financial Services Authority, The New York Times reported Saturday.

Analysts in a research note at Nomura bank said, “The eurozone financial crisis has entered a far more dangerous phase — a euro(zone) breakup now appears probable, rather than possible.”

Banks in Europe and the United States have been divesting their portfolios of tens of billions of dollars worth of European government bonds to minimize losses if one or more countries break away from the eurozone.

While that protects them from losses, it also pushes the eurozone deeper into crisis, as government borrowing becomes more expensive.

There are 17 countries that share the euro as currency, which has created an enormous economic block that helps stabilize ups and downs in the marketplace.

The eurozone is listing, as Greece, Ireland and Portugal have required international loans to keep from going into default. Spain and Italy, with far lager economies, have fiscal problems that also put the euro in jeopardy.

However, there is no Plan B — rules that would make it possible for a faltering country to exit the eurozone and adopt a native currency in an orderly fashion.

An impasse threatens the credit rating of eurozone stalwarts such as France and Germany.

Standard & Poor’s Friday downgraded Belgium’s credit rating from AA+ to AA, indicating its debt problems were not short term. Earlier in the week, credit ratings of Portugal and Hungary were reduced to junk status.

While pressure mounts for Europe to find a solution to the debt crisis, Germany remains consistent with the message the eurozone should hold together. Banks, however, are considering other possibilities, the Times said.

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 27 November 2011, 11:59 am and is filed under
international economic crisis
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Peaceful Assembly Bill – Najib has probably created world history in the speed with which a  “revolutionary” bill becomes reactionary within 24 hrs as to require at least eight amendments

The Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak has probably created world history in the speed with which a Bill which he described as “revolutionary” became reactionary within 24 hours as to require at least eight amendments.

On Thursday, Najib told Parliament that the Peaceful Assembly Bill was “revolutionary” and “a giant leap” in the political transformation of Malaysia. But in less than 24 hours, the Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz was directed by the Prime Minister at Friday’s Cabinet meeting to review and amend the “revolutionary” Bill!

This is the latest proof of the haphazard, insincere and irresponsible manner in which Najib is trying to implement his “political transformation” programme – totally at variance with his pledge that under his premiership, the era of “government knows best” is over and that he would fully consult with all relevant stakeholders and the civil  society on major reform measures for the country.

The amendments to the Peaceful Assembly Bill, primarily on and consequential to the reduction of the requirement of 30 days to 10 days for  notification to the police for any assembly, are not acceptable to give approval to the Bill as they are not wide-ranging enough  as there are also other provisions in the bill which strike at the constitutional rights to freedom of assembly.

Apart from the 30-day notice requirement, other objectionable provisions include the  arbitrary powers given to  the police to impose restrictive and unreasonable conditions for the holding of assemblies, the role of the Home Minister in cases of appeal, the unconstitutional ban on street protests, the list of prohibited areas or 50-metre vicinity disallowing the holding of assemblies, the ban on underaged children and the onerous and crippling fines for offences under the Bill, etc.

The test of whether the Peaceful Assembly Bill is “revolutionary” and “a giant leap” in the political transformation and democratisation of Malaysia is whether the civil society, human rights activists and the political opposition feel freer and more liberated to exercise the fundamental constitutional right of Article 10 on “freedom of assembly” under the new law or  they feel more suppressed, restricted and conscribed than even under the regime of Section 27 of the Police Act 1967.

The Prime Minister must take full cognisance that a former Lord President and the country’s most outstanding and longest-serving Inspector-General of Police had both regarded Section 27 of the Police Act as unconstitutional  and undemocratic in violating Article 10 on the fundamental liberty of freedom of assembly – expressed  in the Police Royal Commission Report of 2005 of which Tun Dzaiddin was Chairman and Tun Hanif Omar Deputy Chairman.

The Police Royal Commission 2005  had  recommended far-reaching amendments to Section 27 to uphold “one of the most basic and indispensable of the fundamental freedoms necessary for the functioning of a democratic society and is provided for in the Federal Constitution” but this recommendation of the Police Royal commission was ignored by  the Barisan Nasional government for more than six years.

Now we have the Peaceful Assembly Bill with provisions which are even more  inimical to the nurturing of a  democratic environment  fully respecting the human rights of Malaysians to freedom of speech, expression, association and assembly.

Najib has only one option when Parliament reconvenes on Tuesday  if he is serious about his latest slogan of “political transformation” and democratisation – to withdraw the Bill or refer it to a Parliamentary Select Committee to engage all stakeholders, the civil society, human rights groups and the political opposition in a meaningful consultation and full engagement.

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 27 November 2011, 1:38 pm and is filed under
Constitution
,
Human Rights
,
Najib Razak
,
Parliament
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Peaceful Assembly flip-flop

— Othman Wahab

The Malaysian Insider

Nov 26, 2011

NOV 26 — Saifuddin Abdullah, the deputy minister, I am sure is a nice enough man and by his public statements, seems to have a level head.

But he is clearly mistaken if he thinks we are going to swallow his ridiculous defence of the Najib government inept attempt to pull wool over our eyes with its Peaceful Assembly Act.

Even more disappointing is his defence of the prime minister, saying that the man’s thoughts were not manifested in the Act which was tabled with much fanfare by no one else than the PM himself.

He absolves the PM by saying that the PM cannot be expected to know the small details of legislation and then suggests that PM’s intentions was not followed by whoever drafted the legislation.

This is another example of everything being everyone’s fault except Najib’s. This is becoming a common trait in Malaysian politics. If there is credit to be given, it is the PM. If there is a mistake, it is not the PM.

The problem with Saifuddin’s explanation is that the failure of the Peaceful Assembly Act had nothing to do with minor details.

It had to do with the intent of the government. And plainly, the intent was to do the minimum and hope that the people will be satisfied. The intent was also to ensure that any liberalising would not endanger the hegemony of the government of the day.

When this subterfuge did not work, the Cabinet had little option but to announce it was making some amendments. Tweaking the notice period from 30 days to 10 days does not do anything because still outlawed is street protests ala Bersih 2.0.

But this is the style of the Najib government: they only respond to calls for change when they are challenged by the people or when they are cornered.

With elections around the corner, they can’t afford the Bar Council and other groups taking to the street.

Saifuddin, I also believe that you are letting off Najib too easily. After all, wasn’t he who said that this Act was “revolutionary”. Surely he would have gone through the legislation before trumpeting it as revolutionary and knocking the Opposition for pointing out its weaknesses.

Or was that an impostor in Parliament?

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 27 November 2011, 12:03 am and is filed under
Human Rights
,
Najib Razak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Rise of unelected ministers

By
Mariam Mokhtar
 | Nov 21, 2011

Malaysiakini

Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak’s impressive performance in a “popularity poll” conducted by the International Islamic University of Malaysia (IIUM), has nothing to do with his leadership qualities or his ability to charm the voters.

His apparent rise in popularity is in proportion to his absence from the country. In short, the electorate is glad he is absent from Malaysia.

The IIUM lecturer who devised the poll may have his own reasons for attributing Najib’s enhanced popularity to “his relentless efforts to touch base with the people and steer the country to a promising future”.

The PM is besotted with his image as an international statesman and swells with pride when he shakes the hands of the big players like Hu Jintao and Barack Obama. But pride comes before a fall.

Najib has taken several overseas trips since he became PM and it is difficult to keep track of him. Last month, he was in Indonesia, China, Australia, and twice in Saudi Arabia.

One thing is clear. He emulates former prime minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad by being ‘out-of-town’ during national crises.

Mahathir allegedly ‘disappeared’ during the nationwide clampdown of Operation Lalang in October 1987. It possibly been pre-arranged that Hanif Omar, the IGP at the time, would take the rap and try to leave Mahathir smelling of roses.

In the last fortnight, our unelected PM was in Hawaii for the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (Apec) followed by a Bali visit to attend the East Asia summit. He should have stayed at home, to deal with the multi-million ringgit misuse of public funds by the National Feedlot Corporation (NFC).

The unelected Women, Family and Community Development Minister, Shahrizat Abdul Jalil, is embroiled in the NFC crisis.

Token official visit

The office of Prime Minister of Malaysia is cheapened by revelations that Najib had arranged a token official visit, during his personal holiday, as an excuse to get the taxpayer to fund, in full, his travelling expenses for him and his extensive entourage.

Last July, after visits to Turkmenistan, the United Kingdom and the Vatican, the PM was forced to cut short his holiday to Italy and return home. He had to respond to mounting condemnation of the violent assault against the rakyat during the Bersih 2.0 rally, and try to salvage his reputation. He also had to deal with an Umno plot to oust him from power, allegedly led by his deputy, Muhyiddin Yassin.

More of Najib’s insecurities were revealed in the deportation order placed on William Bourdon who was in Malaysia in relation to the Scorpene case.

Najib was also perturbed that the veteran Umno leader Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah was launching Angkatan Amanah Merdeka (Amanah) to revive the Tunku’s true spirit of Merdeka.

Najib, the career politician, only knows life in the political fast lane. He has not struggled like most people to find funds for education or with applying for a job. He has even admitted that his trip on a luxury bus in Perak, was his first bus journey.

Even the most hardened and cynical politicians will balk at using someone else’s misfortune to boost their image. Not Najib. He cut short another holiday, in Australia to return home, ostensibly saddened by the death of a journalist in war-torn Somalia.

Instead of leaving the family to grieve in private, Najib managed to turn it into a publicity circus by showing his mock compassion.

Disturbing questions

The NFC scandal raises very disturbing questions about our version of democracy. Who benefits from our democratic process?

Why are the unelected ministers given a major say in the running of our country? Why are the chosen few from Umno’s political elite manipulating the role of government? Why are the controls to check such impropriety not in place? Where is the enforcement?

Why are the members of royalty who choose to be vocal in some matters, silent when it comes to large-scale corruption and allegations of fraud on a grand scale?

Najib’s handling of Umno is rooted in cronyism. How can he speak out against Shahrizat when he has so many skeletons in his own closet?

That is why the Umno businesses and those of their cronies are run like a family-business empire. It is like the mafia, with different sections of the business managed by different branches of the family. No one betrays the other. Anyone who tries is silenced or risks having his livelihood threatened.

Muhyiddin, who has been tasked to deal with the NFC scandal gives the impression of being out of his depth, really he is just covering up a crime, for one of his cronies.

He claims that Shahrizat had nothing to do with the NFC, which is managed by her husband and her children. He did not think Shahrizat had cause to resign. Then he left it for the people to decide.

He is right. The rakyat thinks that Shahrizat should be suspended without any pay whilst investigations are carried out quickly. If found guilty, she should be made to repay every sen, and spend time in jail.

That goes for him (Muhyiddin) too for misleading the public. The project was approved when he was agriculture minister. He was reticent and sparse with information, only giving out the bare minimum when forced. MPs are accountable to Parliament, and Parliament is accountable to the rakyat.

Tighten belts

Interestingly, it was another unelected minister, Idris Jala who flip-flopped between saying that Malaysia was going bankrupt and doing all right economically.

Last year he said we would have to tighten our belts but a few weeks ago, he said we would manage.

Can he be so confident when ministers abuse public funds and treat them as their own bank account?

The IIUM popularity survey concluded that PKR’s Anwar Ibrahim, Kelantan Menteri Besar Nik Abdul Aziz and Penang Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng declined in popularity, unlike Najib and Mahathir.

The poll asked 1,500 Malay, Chinese and Indian registered voters, how satisfied they were with the leadership qualities of the five.

In October 2008, 35% Malay, 33% Chinese and 41% Indian respondents expressed satisfaction with Najib. In July 2011, their approval increased to 59%, 45% and 62%, respectively.

This survey has left many members of the rakyat wondering if a representative cross section of the public was sampled. They also wondered if these 1,500 registered voters were “real voters” or “phantom voters”.

As the poll suggests that Najib is so popular now, he might want to call the elections soon, despite the scandals, accusations of electoral fraud and revelations of expensive purchases which are surfacing almost every week.

________

MARIAM MOKHTAR is a non-conformist traditionalist from Perak, a bucket chemist and an armchair eco-warrior. In ‘real-speak’, this translates into that she comes from Ipoh, values change but respects culture, is a petroleum chemist and also an environmental pollution-control scientist.

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 27 November 2011, 11:58 am and is filed under
Mariam Mokhtar
,
Najib Razak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Free Enterprise As An Islamic Tradition

Malaysia in the Era of Globalization #90

Chapter11:     Embracing Free Enterprise

Free Enterprise As An Islamic Tradition

By Bakri Musa

There are those who believe that capitalism implies greed, the very antithesis of our core religious value. Nothing can be further from the truth. This misguided notion led many nations to adopt socialism, with its promised egalitarianism.

            The Koran explicitly encourages free market. It commands the faithful to venture into the marketplace and earn a livelihood: “When the prayer is finished, then disperse ye through the land and seek the bounty of Allah.” (Surah Al-Jumu’a, 62:10). Earning a lawful livelihood is a duty second only in importance to that of prayer, preached our prophet (pbuh).

            In Islam it is better to give than to receive a wage; that is, better be an employer than employee. A businessperson enjoys an exalted position in Islam. Contemplate this hadith: “In the Day of Judgment, the honest, truthful Muslim merchant will rank with the martyrs of the faith; the trustworthy merchant will sit in the shadow of the throne of God on Judgment Day.”

            Ibn Khaldun wrote in his Muqadimmah, “Commerce means the attempt to make a profit by increasing capital, through buying goods at a lower price and selling them at a higher price…This may be realized by storing goods and holding them until the market has fluctuated from low to high price…or by transporting goods to another country where they are more in demand.”

            Yet today profits are regarded as sinful. In Iran they execute citizens for “profiteering,” as if those in authority know exactly the “right” amount of profit. This from bureaucrats who have never done any trading!

            In a free market, trading is voluntary. If the buyer feels that he is being gouged, he can simply deny the seller that profit by not entering into the transaction. Those who feel that there is a “right” price and “appropriate” amount of profit are clearly mistaken if not arrogant.

            The market value of anything is what we mortals (seller and buyer) have agreed upon. Only Allah knows the real value of everything. Let me illustrate this. I buy carpets in Afghanistan for $10,000.00 and then sell them in America for $20,000. Assume, to use a favorite term of the economist, that my trip costs $4,000. My profit would then be a straightforward $6,000. Straightforward? Not quite.

            First, who is to say that that amount of profit is excessive, modest, or adequate? What is the price tag of the risk I took in going to Afghanistan? The Talibans could have killed me for being a capitalist. Then there is the value of my time away from my family. And if Americans in their dislike for the Talibans refuse to buy my carpets, who will compensate for my loss? Thus the real costs cannot begin to be fully quantified when we consider all the factors.

            Second, ponder the benefits of my work. An American family gets to enjoy plush Afghan carpets. More significantly, the Afghan weaver now has a lucrative market for his product. I am in fact providing a living for him. No wonder Islam looks kindly on traders.

            A frequent criticism of capitalism is the resultant inequality of wealth and income. In contrast, with communism and socialism, every one is equal. This canard is just that. The communists may be all equal but some are definitely more equal. Besides, as the late development economist Lord Bauer once wrote, “It is by no means obvious why it should be unjust that those who produce more should enjoy higher income.” Bauer, like Hayek, was an early advocate of free trade and a severe critic of central planning. Of special interest is that Lord Bauer spent his formative years as an economist studying the Malaysian rubber industry.

            Islam recognizes that in a free economy there will inevitably be differences in the wealth of people. The Koran admonishes against envy, and to respect wealth. In Surah An-Nisa’a (The Women, 4:32), “In no way covet those things in which God has bestowed His gifts more freely on some of you than on others; to men is allotted what they earn, and to women too. Ask Allah for His bounty, for God has full knowledge of all things.” Islam demands justice, not equality.

            Central to free enterprise are two related concepts, namely, property rights and contract rights. These too are spelled out in the Koran and hadith. In Surah Al-Baqarah (The Heifer, 2:188), “Do not devour one another’s property by unjust means, nor bribe judges in order that you may wrongfully and knowingly usurp the possessions of others.” Another, “Enter not houses other than your own; until you have asked permission and greeted those in them…If you find no one in the house, enter not until permission is given.” (24:27). A clear affirmation of property rights!

            The sanctity of contracts is stated thus, “Keep faith with God when you make a pledge. You shall not break your oaths after you have sworn to them.” (16:91-92). Elsewhere (4:33), “As for those with whom you have entered into agreements, let them too have their due. God bears witness to all things.”

            Hernando De Soto, in his book The Mystery of Capital, observes that capitalism fails in the Third World precisely because there is no respect for these rights, especially by those in power. The poor in these countries may have homes and enterprises, but without the sanctity of property and contract rights, they cannot convert their assets into capital. One important component of property rights is the right of the individual to the fruits of his labor. Islam rightly condemns slavery and indentured labor, which are the ultimate manifestations of the loss of this right. As Ibn Khaldun wisely observed over 700 years ago, “One of the greatest injustices and one contributing most to the destruction of civilization is the unjustified imposition of tasks and the use of subjects for forced labor.” Sadly throughout history, the state is the one agency that is responsible for most of the abuses in this regard.

            The legitimate role of the state is to ensure that trading is not interfered with and that free trade is indeed free, with minimal or no intrusion by the state in the form of tariffs, quotas, permits, licenses, and other encumbrances. The state must ensure parity of power between buyer and seller. Hence antitrust and other laws to prevent business collusion, price fixing, and other anti-competitive practices. That is, the state must ensure not only a level playing field so the various participants do not have an unfair advantage over their competitors but also the gates to the fields are not unduly restrictive to bar new players from entering. The state will always have an important role, as there is no such thing as the economists’ ideal of a market with “perfect competition.”

            Additionally the state must also provide an environment where property and contract rights are enshrined and respected. Lastly, the state has a moral duty to provide for those who are unable to look after themselves: the sick, the aged, and the disabled. Perversely, when the state is consumed with matters that are rightly the purview of business, it is inevitably at the expense of this basic function. The poor and the disabled are much better looked after in capitalist America and Western Europe than in communist China or Russia.

            Free enterprise is by no means a perfect system, but despite its defects it has proven to be the most successful and fairest. Capitalism as it exists today is much different from the raw exploitative form during Dicken’s time, and it will again be different a century hence. Critics of free enterprise harp on the shortcomings instead of focusing on the benefits. Besides, these deficiencies pale in comparison to the colossal failures of socialism and communism. And a point worthy of note is that some of the severest critics of free enterprise—like George Soros—are themselves successful capitalists. I am sure communism too had critics amongst its midst, but not many survive.

            As capitalism continues to evolve, its imperfections are being remedied or improved. Indeed the 2001 Nobel Prize winners in Economics were awarded to three practitioners who devoted their intellectual pursuits in clarifying real-life imperfect markets, or “markets with asymmetric information.” One of them, Stanford’s Michael Spence, has a special connection to Malaysia as he was an advisor to Mahathir for the Multimedia Super Corridor project. The second, Columbia University’s Joseph Stiglitz, is a strong critic of the IMF over its handling of the Asian economic crisis. In a paper he co-wrote in the early 1980s he found that banks tend to restrict credit in a downturn rather than increase interest rates to compensate for the extra risk (as one would expect) because they know that only companies that are in trouble are likely to seek loans. Thus in a recession banks tend to choke off credit, thus exacerbating the downturn. This was what happened to Indonesia and Thailand with the IMF’s prescription. Mahathir’s policy in handling that crisis by lowering interest rate and loosening credit even at the risk of weakening the currency was well founded as proven by later developments. He restored confidence and allowed the market to function again.

Next:   Malaysian Capitalism

                This entry was posted on Monday, 28 November 2011, 10:14 am and is filed under
Bakri Musa
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Najib forewarned he is heading for another political disaster if  rejects proposal for a PSC and forces  PAB through all readings in  Dewan Rakyat tomorrow

The Police Royal Commission Report 2005 listed the complaints against bias, unreasonableness and discrimination in the exercise of police powers under Section 27 of the Police Act 1967 which vests police with the power to regulate assemblies, meetings and processions through the granting of a permit, including the following:

*Permits granted to opposition political parties or NGOs perceived to be critical of the government or aligned with opposition parties always have a number of conditions which are considered ridiculous and difficult to implement and tantamount to an indirect refusal of permission.

*There are complaints that the police do not seem to be neutral and impartial in the granting of permits, as would appear to be the case from their alleged numerous refusals of permits to opposition political parties and organisations perceived to be linked to them.  There were also allegations that those attending the events were arrested and questioned as to why they did so and why they expressed opposition towards the government.

*According to some complaints, a peaceful demonstration that turned into rioting was not caused by the action of demonstrators but on the provocation of the police.

There is nothing to demonstrate that in the six years after the publication of the Dzaiddin Police Royal Commission Report and  its 125 recommendations, the Malaysian Police has won public confidence as it has transformed itself into an independent, incorruptible and professional police force, discarding the outmoded colonial police concept of “regime protection” and replacing it with the modern principles and concept of “democratic policing”.

As a result, the rampant complaints against the lack of police independence and professionalism under Section 27 of the Police Act will continue to remain as major grievances under the Peaceful Assembly Bill unless there is a total change of police mentality and mindset that the  police serve the people and the laws of the land and not the political masters of the day.

To end all politicking and bias, and suspicion that the police are serving the agenda of their political masters, the role of the Home Minister as the final arbiter in the Peaceful Assembly Bill should be removed and replaced by the courts.

The Australian Home Minister and the various Australian State Police Ministers have no role whatsoever in the decision-making process on freedom of assembly in Australia.

Under the Queensland Peaceful Assembly Act, which is one of the models adopted by the Barisan Nasional government  for the Peaceful Assembly Bill, only five days’ notice to the relevant authorities is required for the holding of a public assembly and the courts are the final appellate authorities over any police decision to prohibit any  assembly.

Is the Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak prepared to make amendment to Clause 16 of the Peaceful Assembly Bill which gives the Home Minister the powers as the final arbiter whether a peaceful assembly could be held and to vest these powers in the courts as in the Queensland Peaceful Assembly Act 1992 so as to eliminate all possibilities of political bias and politicking in the decision-making process?

The Home Minister, Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Hussein is very fond of telling other people not to “politicise” issues when he as Home Minister had been most guilty of such politicking – as in the notorious cow-head stamping sacrilege in Shah Alam in September 2009 and the seditious lie by Utusan Malaysia earlier this year that DAP wants to create a Christian Malaysia.

The Home Minister’s powers as final arbiter under the Peaceful Assembly Bill on whether assemblies could be held is only one of the objections to the Bill and this is why more time must be given not only to MPs but to the civil society, human rights groups and all concerned Malaysians to study the implications of the very badly drafted Peaceful Assembly Bill by referring it to a Parliamentary Select Committee.

I call on Najib to reconsider the decision to force the Peaceful Assembly Bill through all three readings in the Dewan Rakyat tomorrow as it will be proof that he has not learnt the lessons of his massive misjudgement  and mishandling of the July 9 Bersih 2.0 peaceful rally for free,fair and clean elections in Malaysia.

Najib should be forewarned that he is  heading for another political disaster after his July 9 Bersih 2.0 misjudgement if he rejects the proposal for a Parliamentary Select Committee on the Peaceful Assembly Bill.

                This entry was posted on Monday, 28 November 2011, 12:25 pm and is filed under
Human Rights
,
Najib Razak
,
Parliament
,
Police
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Najib has taken the rakyat for a ride!

By
Aliran

November 28, 2011  | The Malaysian Insider

NOV 28 — The much-heralded reforms promised by Najib to bring us into a new era of liberalism has exploded in the face of the rakyat as a sham, a shameful promise.

We were promised that the ISA would be revoked — and the rakyat rejoiced prematurely. The joy was shortlived when it was revealed that two other laws would replace the ISA, retaining the obnoxious detention without trial. The same undemocratic features of the ISA will now come under a new name, gravely disappointing the rakyat.

We were promised easier democratic freedom of assembly without the need for police permit. The rakyat applauded this sensible approach, which seemed to guarantee the right of assembly as enshrined in the Federal Constitution. With the presentation of the Peaceful Assembly Bill, now they realise that they have been deluded once again.

The Barisan Nasional is not capable of respecting the people’s human rights or honouring its solemn word. The BN is only used to restricting our rights, denying our freedom, controlling our space, destroying our faith in the electoral process, trampling upon our judiciary and completing ignoring what is fair and just.

Old habits die hard and that is the reason it is unwilling to surrender those rights that are justly due to the rakyat. It may proclaim that it is prepared to revoke restrictive laws but in reality it is incapable of returning these rights to the people. It can only rule forcefully; it cannot govern according to the rule of law.

We cannot and should not expect the BN to return our rights. It is not a realistic expectation. We have to take possession of our rights. We have to claim our democratic space; we have to defend our freedom.

It is in this spirit that the lawyers have decided to march on November 29, 2011 from the Lake Gardens to Parliament in protest against the sham Peaceful Assembly Bill, which has made a mockery of our right to assemble peacefully and spontaneously.

This Bill imposes many unjust restrictions and conditions and subjects organisers and all participants to heavy penalties. It is clearly meant to discourage and stop peaceful protests from ever taking place. We cannot tolerate this. We cannot condone this undemocratic Bill.

Aliran urges every freedom-loving Malaysian to be part of the Bar Council march to Parliament — the March for Freedom! Let us gather peacefully and march orderly to Parliament to convey how upset and disappointed we are with this Bill that was promulgated without consultation with the public.

This is not a Peaceful Assembly Bill — it is a Bill against the Freedom of Assembly. It completely ignores Article 20 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which states: “Everyone has the right to freedom of assembly and association.”

                This entry was posted on Monday, 28 November 2011, 10:17 am and is filed under
Articles
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Najib’s “clarification” is proof that PAB is the worst and most slipshod bill in 54-year parliamentary history

The Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak’s last-minute clarification today of the Peaceful Assembly Bill (PAB) is testimony that the PAB is the worst and most slipshod bill ever drafted in the 54-year history of Malaysian Parliament as well as raising questions about Najib’s bona fides in political reforms and transformation.

Najib blamed Pakatan Rakyat (PR) for “confusing” the public with regard to the 30-day notification requirement.

He said:

“Actually the wording is within 30 days, it can be within five or 10 days but that word led to so much confusion so we decided that 10 days to be specific, so that there will be no doubts.”
(The Malaysian Insider)

Najib said the previous 30 days’ notification did not mean a month’s notice was needed.

Najib’s ”clarification” is utterly ridiculous. In fact, Najib is presenting a sorry public spectacle of a Prime Minister who does not know what he is talking about, and even worse does not understand the content of the  Bill he introduced in Parliament on Thursday though he described it as  “revolutionary”.

It is a terrible reflection of the quality of leadership and governance in Malaysia that the Prime Minister can be so badly advised as to the  Bill he presented in Parliament as to cause the Prime Minister to totally mislead Parliament and the country about its import and implications.

I do not believe that Najib has deliberately told a lie about the PAB, but clearly he had been told a lie by his advisers causing him to spread a lie!

I challenge Najib to explain how he could claim that under the PAB, before the proposed amendment tomorrow to reduce the 30-day notice requirement to 10 days, it would be possible to organise an assembly “within five or 10 days”?

Let us take a hypothetical case. Say an organiser wants to hold an assembly on 30th December 2011.

Clause 9 (1) of the PAB on “Notification of assembly” provides:

“An organizer shall, within thirty days before the date of an assembly, notify the Officer in Charge of the Police District  (OCPD) in which the assembly is to be held”.

Can Najib explain how the organiser could comply with the PAB if he gives notice to the police “within five or 10 days”, i.e. from 20th December or 25th December?

This is clearly impossible because Clause 12 requires the OCPD concerned to inform “persons who have interests” within 48 hours of the assembly notification and who have five days to communicate to the Police their “concerns or objections to the assembly”.  This would have taken up  seven days –  exceeding the five-day claim by Najib that a proposed assembly could be held.

Under Clause 14, the OCPD has to respond to the notification of assembly within 12 days. Clause 16 provides four days  for the right of appeal of the organiser to restrictions and conditions imposed by the police to the Home Minister, who has six days to give his decision.

This means that the quickest an organiser will know about the outcome of his notification of  an assembly on Dec. 30 is 12 days after submission of notification, provided the police does not impose restrictions and conditions.

If there are police restrictions and conditions followed by appeal to the Home Minister, the quickest  an organiser can clear the bureaucratic notification  process is 22 days.

This means that an organiser must give notification at least 22 days before the proposed assembly date or he may not be able to complete the maximum of  22-day  bureaucratic notification process.

The words “within thirty days before the date of an assembly” in Clause 9(1)  is utterly misleading and meaningless and is no help to  Najib to explain how  an assembly under the PAB could be held “within five to 10 days”.

Najib should not blame the Pakatan Rakyat for the atrocious PAB drafting but the parliamentary draftsmen, the Attorney-General and his legal officers, as well as the entire Cabinet who have proven to be sleeping on their jobs.

Najib said that under the PAB:
 “The Peaceful Assembly Act is divided into two categories, for designated areas, they only need to inform the police and there will be people to supervise even if it’s on a short notice.

“For non-designated areas, then it will require a 10-day period so the police can negotiate with the local community to get their views.” (Malaysiakini)

Here is further testimony of the atrocious drafting of the  PAB.  Where does the PAB say that the police must be informed for assemblies to be held in designated areas?  The PAB is silent on the matter.

Najib is offended at the comparison with Myanmar but can he explain why Myanmar can pass a law on freedom of assembly requiring only five days’ notice but Malaysia needs 10 days’ notice?

In actual fact, if Article 10 of the Constitution guaranteeing freedom of assembly as one of the fundamental rights of Malaysians is to have real meaning, the government should not be designating permissible places of assembly, as all areas should be open to Malaysians to exercise their right to freedom of assembly – except for certain designated areas declared/gazetted “out of bounds” for security and  other considerations.

The “designated areas” should be places where freedom of assembly is not allowed rather than where freedom of assembly is permitted.

Najib has only provided more grounds why there should be no indecent haste to force through the passage of PAB in Dewan Rakyat tomorrow and that it should be referred to a Parliamentary Select Committee for full, meaningful and mature consultation, consideration and consensus.

                This entry was posted on Monday, 28 November 2011, 4:55 pm and is filed under
Constitution
,
Human Rights
,
Najib Razak
,
Parliament
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


The imperative march against the Peaceful Assembly Bill

By
Low Teck Kuan

November 26, 2011 | The Malaysian Insider

NOV 26 — Have you ever felt a sense of discomfort sitting on your chair whenever you read the news?

Or sometimes (most of the time for me) a sense of disbelief and appal at how politics has screwed our rights, liberties and monies over and over again?!

Just when we had to digest all the poor spending and misappropriation (for example, the Auditor-General’s Report, the National Feedlot Corporation scandal and Kedai 1 Rakyat Malaysia fiasco), now we are told that a Bill will be passed to restrict our natural right to assemble!

The government tells us that we can assemble, and it says it is “revolutionary”. However, they seek to implement various criteria and obstacles before we “can”, or rather more accurately, be allowed to assemble (one fine example would be the requirement of a 30 days’ notice). This clearly illustrated the government’s pure hypocrisy in singing the tune of “best democracy”, “revolutionary” or even “upholding democratic principles” when it in fact it seeks to restrict the rakyat’s natural right to assemble!

Taking into consideration the beautiful wording of section 2 (a) of the Bill which recognises “… citizens… right to organise assemblies or to participate in assemblies, peaceably and without arms”, one ponders how he/she can exercise that right if he/she has to subject himself/herself to unreasonable conditions first.

In addition, this Bill and its restrictions can only point us to the fact that the government intends to stifle dissent of the people who express themselves through street protests. One would also suspect that such a proposal was drafted in the memory of the previous Bersih 2.0 rally, which was organised to advance the cause of having a free election (much to the embarrassment of our government who had handled the situation poorly).

As the rushed Peaceful Assembly Bill is already at its second reading, a quick and drastic action must be taken. A strong message with the force of changing federal lawmakers’ actions must be sent across collectively. At this rate, any delay or indecisiveness will only permit this Bill to be passed into an Act. As this Bill only requires a simple majority from Parliament, any opposition or proposed amendments in the parliamentary debate by opposition lawmakers will have insufficient effect or inadequate persuasion for this Bill to be thoroughly reviewed. Hence, a mass collective voice is urgently needed. More so from the organisation that eats, sleeps and breathes the law (i.e. the Bar Council).

Legal practitioners are bound by the Legal Profession Act 1976, and one most important provision which defines the very soul of this noble profession lies in section 42 (1)(a) which states that:

“(1) The purpose of the Malaysian Bar shall be —

(a) to uphold the cause of justice without regard to its own interest or that of its members, uninfluenced by fear or favour.”

Therefore, let us, as lawyers (and pupils alike), pursue the cause of justice by protecting the very fundamental human right that is the right to freely assemble! Let us show to the public the true reason why the legal profession is said to be a noble one by upholding and promoting just laws and fundamental legal principles in accordance to our moral and legal obligation! Let us also demonstrate to the lawmakers, without fear or favour, our opposition (as readers of the law) against such a restrictive Bill!

Fellow honourable members of the Bar, regardless of the location you reside or practise in, let us step out of practise momentarily and appear on November 29, 11.30am at the Royal Lake Club in Kuala Lumpur to object against this Bill that threatens the supremacy of the Constitution, rule of law and respect for basic human and individual rights!

                This entry was posted on Monday, 28 November 2011, 10:18 am and is filed under
Articles
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Time Runs Short for Europe to Resolve Debt Crisis

By
 LANDON THOMAS Jr.

November 27, 2011 | The New York Times

LONDON — Eighteen months into a sovereign debt crisis — and after many futile efforts to resolve it — the endgame appears to be fast approaching for Europe.

While its leaders may well hold to the current path of offering piecemeal solutions, nervous investors are fleeing European countries and banks.

Two main options exist: either the euro zone splits apart or it binds closer together.

Each of these paths — Greece, and possibly others, dropping the euro or the emergence of a deeper political union in which a federal Europe takes control of national budgets — would lead to serious political, legal and financial consequences.

But with financial panic now threatening to move beyond Italy and Spain to Belgium, France and Germany, the euro zone’s paymaster, the pressure to arrive at a solution is at a new level of intensity.

In Britain, even the satirical weekly Private Eye has weighed in, proposing last week that the answer was for Europe itself to leave the European Union.

Underlying these possible outcomes has been Europe’s persistent inability to address the central weakness of its common currency project: how to get money from the few countries that have it, mainly Germany and the Netherlands, to the many that need it — Greece, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Ireland and perhaps even France.

In recent days, euro zone leaders have been pursuing a deal that would institute strict new budget rules while avoiding the need to rewrite existing treaties.

The consequences of continued inaction are dire. Uncertainty and austerity have decimated the euro zone’s growth prospects, and analysts now expect the region’s economy to shrink 0.2 percent next year — a blow for the many American companies that export there.

American financial institutions are also at risk. According to the Institute of International Finance, they have $767 billion worth of exposure through bonds, credit derivatives and other guarantees to private and public sector borrowers in the euro zone’s weakest economies.

With the European Central Bank continuing to refuse to print money as its counterparts in the United States and Britain have done, investors now foresee a much greater likelihood of a broad market crash and a worldwide recession.

Such anxieties were on display last week when Vítor Constâncio, the vice president of the central bank, gave a speech to investors in London.

It was billed as an address on the international monetary system, but given the circumstances, there was little interest among investors in Mr. Constâncio’s views regarding fixed versus floating-exchange rates and quite a lot about what steps the central bank might take to address the crisis.

One somewhat frantic investment banker noted that beyond the Italians and the Spanish, even the Germans were having problems selling their bonds. What, he asked, was the European Central Bank going to do about it?

Mr. Constâncio mentioned the central bank’s bond buying program and making loans available to banks, but he was blunt in saying that unless countries like Greece and Italy followed treaty rules and reduced their budget deficits, there was not much the central bank could do.

“The countries must deliver,” said Mr. Constâncio, a former governor of the Portuguese central bank. “In the end, it is governments that are responsible for the euro area — it is not just the E.C.B.”

It is this eat-your-spinach policy approach, however, that many analysts now say is making the situation worse as countries throughout the euro area — including Germany, the region’s economic locomotive — cut spending and raise taxes to meet budget deficit targets.

In a recent paper, Simon Tilford, an economist at the Center for European Reform in London, argues that imposing additional rules rather than creating a federal framework to allow the euro zone to commonly transfer or borrow money — as can be done in the United States — will end in disaster.

“The solution to the problem has become the problem itself,” he said. “And investors see this: you cannot just keep cutting spending in the teeth of a recession.”

Bernard Connolly, a persistent critic of Europe, estimates it would cost Germany, as the main surplus-generating country in the euro area, about 7 percent of its annual gross domestic product over several years to transfer sufficient funds to bail out Europe’s debt-burdened countries, including France.

That amount, he has argued, would far surpass the huge reparations bill foisted upon Germany by the victorious powers after World War I, the final payment of which Germany made in 2010.

Analysts say it is the unbending attitude of Germany, Europe’s richest country, that it not become responsible for the debts of weaker economies that has so far stymied progress on the widely supported idea of a euro area able to issue its own bonds.

Lack of movement on a federal Europe has pushed investors to consider what would happen if a country like Greece exited the euro zone. Analysts predict dire consequences for the departing country, ranging from default to a collapse of its banking system.

A recent report by UBS estimated that in the first year, the citizens of the exiting nation would face costs of as much as 11,000 euros a person on top of the austerity-induced pain already incurred.

Such a move might be legally impossible: there is no provision in any European treaty for a country to leave or be expelled from the euro zone — a conscious choice by the framers of the project.

But if a country made such a decision, it would have to leave the 27-member European Union as well, thus entering a more profound state of exile.

A view is now taking hold among many European leaders that the ever-worsening crisis may result in Brussels being given direct control over the budgets of countries that continue to run excessive deficits — a proposal made recently by the euro’s most passionate advocate, Jean-Claude Trichet, former president of the European Central Bank.

“The will to make this thing work is stronger than you might think,” said Larry Hatheway, an economist at UBS and one of the authors of the report on the cost of one or more countries leaving the euro zone.

In this vein, several economists at Bruegel, a research institute in Brussels, are calling for a euro zone finance minister, elected by the European Parliament, who would have limited federal powers to raise revenue.

With time short, pressure is building on the European Central Bank to defy German objections and buy more distressed government bonds, but there is little indication the bank has decided to do so.

Last week, Mr. Constâncio actually appeared to boast about the bank’s restraint thus far, explaining to harried investors that the central bank’s bond-buying effort represented about 2 percent of euro area G.D.P. That compares with an intervention of 11 percent of G.D.P. by the Federal Reserve in the United States and 13 percent by the Bank of England.

“We are not financing the deficits of countries,” he said.

                This entry was posted on Monday, 28 November 2011, 10:45 am and is filed under
international economic crisis
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Pakatan walks out, will not vote on Assembly Bill

Malaysiakini

Nov 29, 2011

Pakatan Rakyat MPs walked out of the Dewan Rakyat during the debate on the Peaceful Assembly Bill 2011 and will not participate in voting on the Bill.

The MPs said that they were disgusted that the speaker had only allowed three Pakatan Rakyat MPs – one from each party – to debate what they consider to be a very important piece of legislation.

The three who were allowed to speak were Opposition Leader Anwar Ibrahim (Permatang Pauh-PKR), Lim Guan Eng (Bagan-DAP) and Abdul Hadi Awang (Marang-PAS).

Upon Abdul Hadi’s concluding his debate, Pakatan MPs walked out just as Ibrahim Ali (Pasir Mas-Independent) was beginning his speech.

Ibrahim was followed by P Kamalanathan (BN-Hulu Selangor), after which Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Mohd Nazri Abdul Aziz addressed the House.

Speaking to reporters later, Shah Alam MP Abdul Khalid Samad decried the unfair treatment and said Pakatan MPs were unlikely to stay back and vote.

Serdang MP Teo Nie Ching also said the speaker’s decision to allow only three Pakatan representatives to speak was unfair.

“For example, during the debate on the Supply Bill 2012 at the Education Ministry committee stage, 42 MPs spoke. About half of them were from Pakatan,” she told Malaysiakini.

Abdul Khalid said that there was “no point” for their presence in the House as they have presented their views, but it does not appear that their call would be heeded to withdraw the Bill.

“The government has done whatever they think they should do, in terms of amendments, but everything is still the same,” he said.

“Their attitude is very slipshod… (We are walking out and boycotting voting) as it is all just window dressing.”

Asked if Pakatan will participate in the debate in the committee stage reading of the Bill, Teo said that they are still deciding on this.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 29 November 2011, 5:25 pm and is filed under
Human Rights
,
Pakatan Rakyat
,
Parliament
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Standing up to bullies

— Jacob Sinnathamby

The Malaysian Insider

Nov 29, 2011

NOV 29 — It may sound simplistic but the choice before Malaysians in the coming general election boils down to either good or evil.

And we don’t have to fear evil because evil can never prevail against goodness. You do not have to take my word for this. Hosni Mubarak and Muammar Gaddafi and Saddam Hussein believed that they could rule forever with an iron fist. They subjugated their own people, threatened them, killed them and struck fear into their hearts with secret police.

But when their time came, they were hunted down like animals and treated with utter contempt, treated nothing more than common criminals. They will be remembered with contempt in history. Contrast that with meek and humble people like Gandhi, Mother Theresa and others who are remembered fondly because of the good works they did and because they carved goodness in the hearts of everyone they met.

These people may not have been rich, backed by the state apparatus or holding senior positions in government but they were men and women of virtue and had goodness in their hearts.

Contrast that with people like Ahmad Maslan, the Umno information chief who today sought to create more division in a country polarised along racial and religious lines. Contrast that also with the state-sponsored demonstrators who were allowed to disturb a peaceful march by lawyers who disagreed with the Peaceful Assembly Bill.

Ahmad Maslan speaks through both sides of his mouth, a common characteristic of the likes of Gaddafi. On one hand, he makes a pitch and says that Umno members should not hurt non-Malays. And then before an Umno audience he says that the DAP are agents of Christianisation. Who gave this man the authority to denigrate Christianity, the religion of many Chinese and Indians and east Malaysians?

He then went on to frighten Malays about the loss of political power? When threatened, this is also what Mubarak, Gaddafi and Saddam did; they painted minorities or foreigners as bogeymen.

Interestingly, these dictators also unleashed supporters against their people who went to the streets with legitimate grouses. In the last days in Tahrir Square, Mubarak’s hoodlums tried to intimidate the people calling for his resignation. They rode horses through the crowds and bashed up leaders of the protest movement.

In Kuala Lumpur and Penang, the state-sponsored thugs come dressed in yellow (aimed at discrediting Bersih) and are tasked with the job of intimidating those who don’t agree with the establishment. Today, they were given the task of disrupting the march by lawyers. Like their counterparts in Egypt and Libya, they never fall afoul of the authorities and don’t have to worry about being arrested.

And I believe that if we are united in our love for this country and belief in each other, these forces of evil and their sponsors in the high positions will not prevail.

History has shown that the meek and good-hearted, guided by our belief in God, can wear the mantle of victory over the forces of evil.

It is up to us to stand up to bullies like Ahmad Maslan.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 29 November 2011, 5:51 pm and is filed under
DAP
,
nation building
,
UMNO
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Ahmad Maslan dan kedangkalannya

— Sakmongkol AK47

The Malaysian Insider

Nov 29, 2011

29 NOV — Anggota Umno diminta tidak mendabik dada dengan kejayaan parti mendaftarkan 3.4 juta anggota setakat ini, kata Ketua Penerangan Umno Datuk Ahmad Maslan. Beliau berkata, jumlah sebesar itu belum menjamin kemenangan Barisan Nasional (BN) pada pilihan raya umum akan datang. “(Ini kerana) ahli Umno hanya satu per empat daripada 12 juta pengundi,” katanya kepada pemberita selepas merasmikan Seminar Agenda Melayu ke-7 anjuran Alumni Kelab-kelab Umno Luar Negara, di sini hari ini. Beliau berkata setakat ini kira-kira tiga juta anggota Umno adalah pengundi berdaftar. Justeru katanya, semua anggota Umno perlu berusaha keras meraih sokongan pemilih lain, terutama yang ‘di atas pagar’. “…..kita kena dekati dan tarik pengundi selebihnya untuk menyokong Umno dan BN,” katanya.

Inilah kenyataan yang paling dangkal yang saya dengar dari Ahmad Maslan, ketua penerangan Umno. Nampak sangat dia malas membaca kerana kalau dia membaca dan faham apa yang dibaca, dia tidak mengeluarkan kenyataan yang bingung macam ini. Helo brader, semua orang dah tahu hal ini.

Lihat sahaja keputusan pemilu 2008. Jumlah pengundi Melayu semuanya 5.7 juta. Calun Umno mendapat 2.38 juta undi. Katakan lah 380,000 pengundi tersebut adalah pengundi bukan Melayu. Itu bermakna, dari 5.7 juta pengundi Melayu, calun Umno hanya mendapat 2 juta undi. Jika ahli Umno sahaja sudah ada 3 juta lebih, maka itu bermakna 1 juta lebih ahli Umno tidak mengundi calun Umno sama ada kerana mereka tidak mendaftar diri atau enggan mengundi calun Umno.

Umno tidak lagi boleh mendakwa mereka mewakili suara dan aspirasi bangsa Melayu. Umno dah hilang monopoli.Bolehkah orang Melayu yang merupakan 65 peratus penduduk Malaysia, hilang dominance mereka? Matematik mana Ahmad Maslan pelajari?

Ertinya, Ahmad Maslan tidak perlu mengulangi kelemahan Umno. Dia lebih perlu menjawab mengapa rakyat meluat melihat Umno. Sekurang kurangnya, presiden Umno lebih teliti dalam observasinya. Orang dah kenal sangat sifat-sifat orang Umno yang ek — baju linen, kereta besar, cermin mata hitam dan lain-lain lagi petanda2 luaran. Dan orang tahu, kebanyakan pemimpin Umno seperti Ahmad Maslan adalah tin kosong.

Ahmad Maslan ini sendiri semasa jadi ketua penerangan Umno akan sentiasa memulakan ucapannya dahulu dengan mencerita hal dirinya sendiri. Bagaimana dia yang tak tahu apa2 pun, tiba2 di angkat oleh Datuk Najib jadi pegawai yang in charge Felda, kemudian di lantik timbalan menteri dan terus ketua penerangan.

Boleh jadi kerana kamu, Ahmad Maslan sudah jampi Datuk Najib dengan serapah 7 petala langit dan 7 petala bumi dan apa apa lagi. Semua orang yang mendengar ucapan Ahmad Maslan pada masa itu tertanya-tanya, apa jadahnya kaitan cerita nasib baik kamu dengan tugasan yang mendepani organisasi Umno? Syukurlah kamu bernasib baik tapi jangan melembukan ahli Umno yang lain dengan cerita karut marut dan buah fikiran yang dangkal.

Belum sempat saya habis baca ulasannya mengenai Umno ada 3.4 juta ahli(yang semua mahu menunggang Umno) saya terbaca komennya dalam ucapannya di sebuah forum Melayu pasca PRU13. Ini satu lagi buah fikiran yang dangkal lagi.

Macam mana Melayu hilang kuasa dan kedudukan? Melayu akan hilang kuasa kalau mereka tidak ada pelajaran, kalau mereka tidak kompetitif dan sebagainya. Melayu tak hilang kuasa jika tidak bertali urikan Umno. Umno yang banyak menjahanamkan kepentingan Melayu. Tajuk forum yang terlebih baik ialah Melayu Umno pasca PRU13. Hari ini, kepentingan Melayu boleh di perjuangkan diatas wadah apa sekali pun, ianya bergantung kepada dedikasi dan kepandaian yang empunya diri.

Kita tanya Ahmad Maslan, bila Shahrizat bertindak sebabagi pemudah cara pemberian grant kepada Dr Salleh, ada dia fikir mengenai kepentingan bangsa Melayu? Apakah Dr Salleh akan senang dapat grant tersebut ketika rekodnya mengurus Technology Park Malaysia sangat buruk kecuali merit yang dia ada ialah dia suami Shahrizat Jalil? Tidak bukan. Sebab dia mahu melembukan semua orang Melayu. Setelah sebulan isu feedlot ini di bangkitkan baru sehari dua, Shahrizat kata, dia takde kena mengena dengan isiu feedlot?

Dan bila kita membayar pembelian kereta APC oleh Deftech dengan membayar RM6 billion lebih tinggi dari harga RM1.2 billion, duit RM6 billion itu untuk orang Melayu? Dan di mana Umno menghilangkan diri bila MAS yang sepatutnya menjadi kebanggan negara Malaysia, sedang di canibalise supaya beberapa orang membuat wang yang banyak.

Si Ahmad Maslan ini betul2 tidak membaca apa guruh yang sedang membuak di kalangan orang Melayu. Orang Melayu melihat Umno hari ini organisasi yang membenarkan perlanunan dan samun dan rompakan keatas orang Melayu sendiri. Dan kalau Ahmad Maslan membaca dengan teliti lagi, dia akan dengar orang ramai berkata Ahmad Maslan can shove his remarks up that part of his anatomy where the sun does not shine! — sakmongkol.blogspot.com

* Sakmongkol AK47 is the nom de plume of Datuk Mohd Ariff Sabri Abdul Aziz. He was Pulau Manis assemblyman (2004-2008).

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 30 November 2011, 9:30 am and is filed under
UMNO
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Limit the parliamentary majority

— Lucius Goon

The Malaysian Insider

Nov 29, 2011

NOV 29 — In a democracy it comes down to numbers. Barisan Nasional has more numbers in Parliament and is able to push through legislation, even when it is self-serving and meant for regime preservation.

This afternoon the Peaceful Assembly Bill was passed in Parliament by BN members and the frogs (calling them independent would be a disservice to independents the world over). Pakatan Rakyat MPs walked out because they wanted the Bill to be withdrawn and redrawn.

But that was never going to happen. As it is the Najib government was forced to eat humble pie and amend the Bill after it was pointed out that the legislation was even more regressive than Myanmar’s new laws on protests.

There is no use wailing or crying foul. BN has the numbers and we gave them the numbers in 2008. So it is perfectly legitimate for them to rubber stamp any legislation they want, except any change in law which requires two-thirds of Parliament’s support.

It is not the end of the world. We can always take back the numbers we gave them in 2008 and make sure that the next government repeals the Peaceful Assembly Act.

But if there is one lesson which we should take from today, it is this: it will be a dangerous gambit for us to give BN enough seats for them to have two-thirds majority in Parliament. Very, very dangerous.

Because then they will be able to change the Federal Constitution, put restrictions on the freedom of religion, assembly, revocation of citizenship and the like.

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 30 November 2011, 9:02 am and is filed under
Human Rights
,
Najib Razak
,
Parliament
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Muhyiddin! Kalau panik pun janganlah tunjuk sangat

— Aspan Alias

The Malaysian Insider

Nov 30, 2011

30 NOV — Muhyiddin Yassin semasa meresmikan perhimpunan 3 sayap Umno, Wanita, Pemuda dan Putri semalam menggunakan isu sensitif yang tidak masuk akal semata-mata kerana desperate mendapat sokongan orang Melayu yang tidak mungkin mahu bersatu lagi di bawah payung Umno.

Ramai yang menghubungi saya bertanyakan kenapa Timbalan Presiden Umno itu menunjukkan sangat rasa desperado beliau dengan membidas parti-parti lawan dan individu yang tidak sealiran dengan Umno dengan tuduhan yang bukan-bukan.

Orang ramai tahu yang Umno sedang desperate tetapi sebagai pemimpin besar kepada parti yang buat sementara ini masih memerintah, elok jangan tunjukan rasa tertekan itu terang-terangan. Jika rakyat nampak serta membuat penilaian terhadap roh ucapan Muhyiddin itu ia tidak lari dari rasa desperate untuk terus berkuasa dan boleh di kira sebagai ucapan yang tidak setimpal dengan jawatan besar yang beliau pegang itu.

Apa yang di katakan oleh Muhyiddin itu boleh di baca dengan tepat. Kita boleh “menyelam air dalam tunggak” tentang apa sebenarnya dirasakan oleh Timbalan Presiden Umno itu. Agaknya sudah puas memendam rasa desperate itu, maka ianya terluah semasa ucapan perasmian pergerakan wanita, pemuda dan putri semalam.

Isu yang paling besar ialah tuduhan beliau terhadap DAP yang beliau katakan tidak menghormati institusi raja-raja. Bila pula DAP menolak dan tidak menghormati institusi raja. Yang kita semua tahu Umnolah yang telah menelanjangkan Raja-Raja Melayu semasa krisis perlembagaan pada tahun 1993 dahulu. DAP mengakui kedaulatan raja-raja kerana mereka tahu mereka perlu perlindungan raja-raja Melayu untuk keselamatan mereka.

Raja-Raja di hina oleh pemimpin-pemimpin Umno yang Muhyiddin menjadi ahli dan sekarang menjadi Timbalan Presidennya. Akhirnya di pinda perlembagaan untuk menyekat kuasa Raja-Raja dalam banyak hal secara biadap dan tidak bertemaddun.

Kalau dahulu orang Melayu ibarat duduk di dalam peti besi yang mempunyai 9 kunci untuk mempertahankan bangsa kita itu tetapi semua sembilan kunci itu di buang dan orang Melayu terdedah dengan segala ancaman.

Ini semua perbuatan pemimpin besar Umno yang saya sudah malas untuk menyebut nama mereka. DAP tidak pernah menghina raja-raja Melayu. Umno lah parti yang terbukti menghina raja-raja Melayu dan institusi raja itu.

Orang seperti saya masih hidup untuk melihat dan menjadi saksi terhadap segala kecelakaan yang di cipta Umno yang baru ini. PAS tidak pernah menghina raja-raja Melayu seperti yang di lakukan oleh Umno. Muhyiddin sepatutnya ada sedikit kesiluan untuk menuduh orang lain yang tidak menghormati raja-raja itu.

Jika dahulu mereka pernah hina raja-raja apa yang boleh menghalang mereka untuk menghina baginda raja-raja Melayu jika raja Melayu bertindak untuk membetulkan keadaan buruk ciptaan Umno ini.

Umno berkemampuan untuk melakukan apa sahaja waimma menghina raja Melayu sendiri apabila berada di dalam kesempitan seperti pernah berlaku hampir 20 tahun dahulu.

Muhyiddin seterusnya menuduh DAP akan menubuhkan negara Republik dan ini merupakan satu tuduhan yang sangat gila. DAP telah menyatakan dengan jelas yang mereka tidak akan menjadi PM kerana mereka tahu mereka tidak boleh menungkah arus kerana orang Melayu merupakan rakyat majoriti dalam negara ini.

DAP juga telah jelas menyatakan yang parti itu tidak mungkin menghantar wakilnya menjadi PM kerana parti itu tidak mempunyai cukup kerusi jika menang semua kerusi yang di tandingi mereka. Kalau hendak mengira pun tidak tahu bagaimana rakyat hendak meningkatkan keyakinan terhadap kepimpinan kita khususnya terhadap Muhyiddin?

Dalam isu DAP ini Muhyiddin nyata bercakap bersalah-salahan dalam satu rangkap kata-katanya. Muhyiddin menyatakan yang DAP itu sebagai sebuah parti multiracial yang di dominasi oleh kaum cina. Tetapi apa bila DAP bergerak untuk meminta orang Melayu menyertainya orang-orang Melayu itu di anggap sebagai pengkhianat kepada negara pula.

Muhyiddin tidak langsung mahu mengaku bahawa pemimpin-pemimpin yang mencuri harta rakyat itu adalah pengkhianat negara yang sebenarnya. Apakah bezanya perasuah-perasuah dalam pimpinan Umno itu dengan perompak Botak Chin yang dibunuh oleh polis dalam siri tembak-menembak dengannya pada pertengahan lapan puluhan dahulu?

“Pembangkang itu anti Islam, dan tidak memperjuangkan Islam” kata Muhyiddin. Jika itu kata beliau persoalannya adakah Umno itu benar-benar memperjuangkan Islam seperti yang di war-warkan. Jika benar Umno itu memperjuangkan Islam kenapa rakyat mempunyai persepsi yang pemimpin Umno kebanyakannya ada pemimpin rasuah?

Adakah persepsi buruk ini ciptaan pembangkang? Bagaimana pembangkang hendak memfitnah pemimpin Umno itu rasuah kalau tidak ada bukti yang jelas yang Umno itu benar-benar rasuah? Kalau pemimpin parti itu rasuah, adakah layak parti itu di anggap sebagai parti yang memperjuangkan Islam?

Rasuah berlaku di setiap peringkat dalam kerajaan BN ini, kenapa tidak malu untuk mengaku yang kerajaan BN itu memperjuangkan Islam? Takkanlah mengambil rasuah itu perjuangan Islam. Islam apa itu?

Saya ingin bertanya, adakah pemimpin utama negara yang menggunakan kuasa dengan mengambil lebih dari satu billion wang rakyat bagi menyelamatkan perniagaan anaknya yang kerugian besar? Islamkah itu? Berniaga apa itu?

Sebenarnya yang ramai dalam Umno ini ialah orang Muslim tetapi Islamnya sudah pupus. Kalau di negara maju di barat, Muslimnya tidak ramai tetapi Islamnya banyak. Seorang ahli kabinet Britain telah hilang jawatannya hanya kerana mempercepatkan proses memberikan permit pekerjaan kepada pembantu rumah kawannya.

Itu pun di anggap salah kerana di sana etika kepimpinannya amat tinggi seperti etika kepimpinan Islam yang tulin. Itu sebabnya saya katakan walaupun mereka bukan Muslim tetap nilai yang dipakai dalam kepimpinannya adalah nilai-nilai Islam.

Itulah sebabnya saya selalu mengatakan yang di sini Muslimnya ramai Islamnya sudah hampir lupus sedangkan di sana Muslimnya kurang sangat tetapi Islamnya di mana-mana.

Ucapan Muhyiddin benar-benar menanamkan sifat benci membenci di antara kita. Adakah itu tuntutan Islam yang dikatakan Muhyiddin sebagai perjuangan Islam Umno? Sikap Muhyiddin ini bertepatan dengan perbilangan, “sayang bertompok-tompok, benci merata-rata”.

Apa yang diucapkan Muhyiddin itu menampakan yang Umno itu sebagai parti yang “unIslamic” dan jauh sekali sebagai parti kebangsaan orang Melayu serta sebagai sebuah badan politik yang boleh menyatukan rakyat. Orang Melayu sendiri pun sudah tidak mahu lagi bernaung di bawahnya.

Apa yang Umno mampu meningkatkan ialah gerombolan yang sentiasa terintai-intai peluang untuk mendapatkan keuntungan peribadi dan kekayaan keluarga dan kelompok mereka sendiri.

Hakikatnya Umno sudah lama tiada. Umno itu hanyalah tinggal sebagai satu bahan sejarah perjuangan orang Melayu. Umno hanyalah satu nama… sama seperti nama-nama yang diberikan kepada jalan-jalan raya dengan nama-nama mereka yang sudah tiada lagi hidup di dunia ini lagi seperti Jalan P. Ramlee, Jalan Tuanku Abdul Rahman, Jalan Siamang Gagap, Jalan Burhanuddin Helmi, Jalan Loke Yew dan sebagainya.

Rakyat tahu yang parti Umno ini hanyalah sebuah parti asing yang meminjam nama Umno itu sahaja. Seperti seorang kawan saya, Haji Arshad, yang memberi nama anaknya Sudirman. Walaupun anaknya bernama Sudirman Haji Arshad, Sudirman ini tidak pandai menyanyi. Haji Arshad ini menamakan anaknya Sudirman kerana minat beliau kepada Sudirman seorang penyanyi yang telah lama meninggalkan kita. Begitu jugalah Umno ini. Ia hanya nama kepada parti yang telah mati lebih dari dua dekad yang lalu.

Itu sebabnya Umno yang ada ini susah hendak di fahami orang kerana hakikatnya ia adalah parti lain yang hendak berlagak seperti Umno. Serba serbi tidak menjadi. — aspanaliasnet.blogspot.com

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 30 November 2011, 6:45 pm and is filed under
DAP
,
Muhyiddin Yassin
,
UMNO
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Muhyiddin’s speech at UMNO General Assembly “the mother of all lies, falsehoods and racism”

The speech by Deputy Prime Minister and UMNO Deputy President Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin at the UMNO General Assembly last night to UMNO Youth, Wanita and Putri wings is the “mother of all lies, falsehoods and racism”.

It qualifies as the worst and most irresponsible speech ever delivered by a Deputy Prime Minister and Deputy UMNO President and I challenge any UMNO leader to cite any speech made by any Deputy Prime Minister and UMNO Deputy President at previous UMNO General Assemblies which is  worse, more  racist and tell more lies  than Muhyiddin’s rants last night.

Muhyhiddin accusations against the DAP as anti-Islam  and anti-Malay are false, baseless and pure unadulterated lies.

DAP is a fully patriotic Malaysian party wholly committed to the betterment of all races, whether Malays, Chinese, Indians, Kadazans or Ibans and all religious, whether Islam, Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Sikkhism or Taoism.

What is most despicable are Muhyiddin’s  irresponsible, incendiary and seditious allegations, as for instance, that the DAP’s agenda is to form a republic, with the rhetorical question founded on the lie:

“If not, do they dare to suggest the prime minister’s position be selected based solely on elections and without being chosen by the Yang di Pertuan Agong? What is the meaning of this?”

For the record, DAP had never proposed that “the Prime Minister’s position be selected based solely on elections and without being chosen by the Yang di Pertuan Agong”.

What new lie and mischief  is the Deputy Prime Minister and UMNO Deputy President up to now and I challenge Muhyiddin to substantiate his dastardly falsehood that the DAP wants to set up a republic.

Right from the beginning, the DAP had declared in Parliament in my first speech 40 years ago in Parliament on Feb. 23, 1971 that DAP fully supported the system of constitutional monarchy and that we “do not and have not questioned the sovereignty of Rulers”.

In making the most irresponsible and racist speech ever made by a Deputy Prime Minister and UMNO Deputy President, Muhyiddin has lived up to his declaration that he is Malay first and Malaysian second – totally at variance with the 1Malaysia transformation programme of the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak in wanting to create a Malaysia where all Malaysians perceive themselves as Malaysians first and their race, religion, region and  socio-economic status second.

As it is rightly said, a leopard cannot change its spots.

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 30 November 2011, 11:48 am and is filed under
DAP
,
Muhyiddin Yassin
,
UMNO
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


My invitation list to Umno’s assembly

— Spencer Gan

The Malaysian Insider

Nov 30, 2011

NOV 30 — I can predict how this week’s Umno assembly will go: Some bit players will play the Malay card (this includes Ahmad Maslan and Muhyiddin Yassin) but then the man of the hour — Najib Razak — will saunter in and make this grand speech of how Umno cares for everyone, etc.

He will talk about how Umno needs to unite and win the coming general election because only Umno can guarantee the future of Malaysians. It will be one big party over the next few days.

All this is boring. To spice things up a bit, and since this will be the party of the year, I think we should also invite:

1) The MACC. This organisation has been talking tough about tackling corruption and how it needs more manpower. But here is the deal of the year: The biggest collection of miscreants is in town and all of them are situated in one hall. There are big fish (ministers, division chiefs) and ikan bilis (branch officials). All the MACC officials have to do is check out the cars many of these “unemployed” officials arrive in.

2) Income tax department. Apparently we have an increasing number of millionaires but a much smaller number of people who pay the highest tax rates. This means that quite a lot of Malaysians are evading or avoiding paying tax. I bet many of them may be attending the annual racist convention at the Putra World Trade Centre. Tax officials just have to check out the Birkin bags, the expensive jewellery and linen shirts.

3) Religious leaders of Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, and Sikhism. Please sit through the debates and you will realise two sad facts of life: The IQ of many of the people who are governing us is low and that it is not only Ahmad Maslan who is a racist and suspicious of all non-Muslims. This is a party of racists and all talk of inter-faith dialogue is just talk.

4) Bernard Dompok, Joseph Kurup, Joseph Pairin Kitingan and other Christians in the Cabinet. Don’t just go for the opening ceremony but stay for the whole nine yards and then cringe when the attack against Christianity starts.

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 30 November 2011, 8:48 am and is filed under
Corruption
,
Muhyiddin Yassin
,
UMNO
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Rough politics in 1 Malaysia

— The Malaysian Insider

Nov 30, 2011

NOV 30 — Datuk Seri Najib Razak wants a high-income and united nation under his 1 Malaysia concept, which is a continuation of the Vision 2020 idea and going back as far as 1971, the Rukun Negara or National Principles.

The Rukun Negara has five principles, namely 1) Belief in God 2) Loyalty to King and Country 3) Upholding the Constitution 4) Sovereignty of the Law and 5) Good Behaviour and Morality.

Number 5 is the basis of what is expected of all Malaysians, more so politicians.

But not today.

Today, Umno state youth chiefs took turns attacking Pakatan Rakyat (PR) parties with a specific focus on DAP, using foul language to accuse the party of systematically eroding the rights of Malays in states like Penang and Kedah.

One leader, Shaik Hussein Mydin, claimed that Malays and Islam were at risk in Penang, and said that PKR and PAS had “no power” to stop the repression of the Malay community there.

“PKR and PAS are ‘bapok’ (transvestites) and ‘pondan’ (effeminate) as these days they have no power to challenge DAP. A vote for DAP is a vote for the destruction of Islam,” said the Penang Umno Youth chief to loud applause and shouts of “PKR, PAS tak ada telur!”

Really? Name calling in politics has reached such a low. And these are the youth that Umno will depend on to perpetuate its dominance and its party president’s 1 Malaysia campaign.

The youth leader also tore at DAP, saying “Under DAP, Malays have become their ‘baruas’. I won’t mince my words, because I mean what I say.

“Anyone who supports DAP is a ‘bangsat’ (bastard),” said Shaik Hussin.

What does using such words say about Umno Youth? Can anyone condone such uncouth behaviour? Is this the way to widen Umno’s appeal to first-time voters? That it is fine to curse and swear in politics and to say that those who don’t support you are bastards?

How 1 Malaysia is this? Fact is, how stupid are those who believe such methods will win them votes?

Najib has gone to great lengths to befriend the youth, to watch football with them, attend concerts, even cycle in Penang, to impart a better image for his party. But it is people like this youth leader who will undermine such efforts.

Of course, Umno’s political foes are no better. But Umno must set the standard. Have any of its previous presidents or leaders of distinction use such uncouth language in the past? Is this the party that wants to continue providing leadership in the most rude of ways?

Umno needs a better crop of future leaders who think before they spew out anything. Otherwise, they are no better than street thugs who should only earn our contempt.

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 30 November 2011, 7:43 pm and is filed under
DAP
,
Pakatan Rakyat
,
UMNO
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.