DBKL high-handed policy

by “Angry Housing Developer”

What I am going to relate did happened and if you are doubtful you may check with other developers from the Klang valley who were called to attend a meeting at DBKL on  31st July 2007.

The meeting was for the purpose of releasing the overdue bumiputra quotas of houses which had remained unsold after having complied more than once the stipulated conditions of DBKL.

All the developers who attended the meeting had already complied with the conditions of publishing in the major newspapers for sale of bumiputra units and in addition we were told to book a space in Mid Valley or a designated place for further campaign to sell the bumi units.

The above exercise does not come cheap. Advertising space in the major papers and rental of space at Mid Valley cost us close to RM20,000. Can you imagine our frustration when we were told to repeat the whole exercise when we could not sell the bumi units.

In exasperation I told the DBKL officials that even if we were to give 20% discount to the Malays they would not buy our houses because it was located in Salak South, Sg Besi, an exclusive middle class enclave of the urban Chinese. Nearby there is a market selling pork and a Chinese school. Also in the vicinity is a food court selling non halal food. So would any Malays want to buy them? No said the official, “You have to advertise in the papers again and do the campaign at Mid Valley again” without any compromise.

We are a small housing developer and the total units built was 40 and the bumi allocation was 12. At RM420,000 per unit an amount close to RM5 million was tied down to the project. No wonder alot of small companies were forced to abandon their projects. We had complied with all the stipulated conditions and now after more than a year of waiting DBKL  still did not want to release the units to be sold to non bumis.

Instead we were called to attend a meeting on 31st July 2007. At the meeting DBKL dropped a bombshell. Since we could not sell the bumi’s quota we have to now pay the bumi discount direct to DBKL. In our case since we gave a 7% discount each unit would have to be paid RM29,400. For the 12 unsold bumi unit we have to pay RM352,800 to DBKL.

All the developers who attended the meeting protested vehemently at the atrocious policy and refused to pay and the meeting ended without any resolution. Meanwhile, the approval to release the bumi units remain suspended since no decision was made.

Instead of abolishing altogether the bumi discount of houses DBKL has deemed it fit to demand that the bumi discount instead be paid to them. We would like to ask DBKL what rationale is there to give a discount to bumis who could afford to buy a RM420,000 house? This is clearly an abuse of the NEP.

Further, if DBKL is so adamant that the units be sold to Bumis why dont DBKL buy the units from the developers and sell it at their own leisure to Malay buyers. Why should developers bear the cost of implementing their bumiputra ownership policy. It is thoroughly unfair to expect developers to even bear the cost of advertisement and  conducting roadshow in order to comply with DBKL social engineering schemes.

Finally, we as businessmen are entitled to an explanation from DBKL whether this is government policy or is it merely DBKL acting on its own whims and fancy. As businessmen we have to factor this in our costing and any spontaneous and arbitrary change in policy is certainly detrimental to investors expectation.

                This entry was posted on Friday, 3 August 2007, 8:30 am and is filed under
NEP
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Health care proposals by Karl Karol

by YELVERTON

And what of Karl Karol, appointed by the EPU and MOH, to provide healthcare changes to a much vagaried population here in Malaysia not to mention health care staff.  Well, they appeared to have zeroed in onto a few points and appear to be here to rubber stamp proposals by the same officials from the MOH who put us into our predicament in the first place. Government hospitals are today seen as giant, and on quite a few occasions, crumbling mortuaries with babies getting mixed up, dengue patients dying days later with no treatment, specialists who cannot string a proper sentence in English and of course now the home of the infamous petrolless ambulances.

KARL KAROL’S FINDINGS

1.	Health care funding must come from the public’s purse and not taxes.

Meaning why in God’s name are we paying taxes for then? Our education system is in the gutter. Already our graduates have been made debtors for life and Mustapha has even taken it a step further by revoking their civil liberties by taking away their passports after, of course, humiliating them, their family, relatives and friends by splashing their names in our papers about their misdeeds of not paying up their PTPN loans although they may be unemployed. Our air force copters keep crashing. We pay tolls for our roads. And our soccer team doesn’t need our money because I am sure most Malaysians will now agree we ought not to have one. So why do you need our taxes. Oh OK. Inflation, etc, etc… .so whatever we are paying is just to “top-up” the short fall.

2.	All government hospitals are to be corporatised for greater efficiency.

This sounds fair enough. Only problem is will the hospitals, just like MAS, Telekom and TNB supposed to continue employing deadwood or can we VSS them and will the government pay them off. And worse still as in MAS and PROTON, will the government continue with its lingering interference by placing retired Pengarahs to sit in as directors of these newly independent hospital boards complete with golf memberships, first class travel and holidays abroad? Will politicians walk in and scream “Saya tak mau bayar bill”.

3.	There will be integration of the primary health care sector, the government hospitals and private hospitals.

Now this is where it gets tricky. We are not a developed nation… …yet. And in fact some areas of the country are very much third world. Our MOH has got this curious notion that clean water, clean air, clean food is not their headache. So what do we do when we get hit by cholera, typhoid, dengue, hand foot mouth disease, SARs, a resurgence of TB, not to mention the ever rising incidence of Hepatitis B and HIV? All to be managed by PFI (Private Finance Initiative)? Health Managers will scream not on your life because it doesn’t bring them money… .they will go the way of Britain’s Trusts, running a financial deficit, getting into debt, filing for bankruptcy and having themselves CTOSed and CCrised. For any nation and especially so a developing one, you privatize primary health care and emergency services at your own peril. This involves national security. You might just as well privatize the army and police force.

4.	Financial incentives shall be the main driver of the system

Are health workers in Malaysia ultimately driven by money? Someone has got this equation wrong here. If you are a doctor having worked in Kapit or Manjung and get kicked about when you are trying very hard to pass your Membership examinations on your own and even when you pass, you are told to hang around a district hospital because you don’t have the cables, and after passing are continuously bypassed to be replaced by a local specialist much junior to you and further told your postgraduate qualifications are useless, do you seriously think these doctors leave because they want more money. The “steering committees” advising Karol are a simple case of the blind leading the blind and may be giving this consultant from the outback wrong input causing him to recommend wrong advice.

And what if moneys payable for services rendered by these hospitals are dragged if past standards of our notorious paymasters are anything to go by? Is payment by direct debit or is it going to be 60 to 180 days credit. All these hospitals will wind up if any squabbling regarding payment takes place. But perhaps government hospitals should taste what private hospitals have long since experienced — the uncertainty of payment. And what if consultants are unhappy with the fees offered and like the NHS, tell patients to get themselves admitted to private hospitals and cough up the difference. Driven by financial incentives? Where will the line be drawn and more importantly who in God’s name is going to monitor this especially since we lack specialists in almost every sector? Are these doctors going to be paid a basic with a cut in professional fees or are they wholly going to be independent contractors? Who will track them in a 1000 bedded hospital?

THEIR SOLUTIONS

1.	A National Health Financing Fund will be set up, owned by and controlled by the government.

Are you sure? Are you quite certain these guys won’t request for kickbacks, or that patients need to be referred to only certain specialists or hospitals for otherwise the second signature on that cheque will not be forthcoming? An unfounded fear? It is already rampant between private hospitals and MCOs currently. Is Karol certain they have thought this through? Probably not. We just need to try this out wont we? If everything works, well and good. If it doesn’t, well a couple of patients will die in the ensuing chaos. A small price to pay to overcome the learning curve I guess. When the government holds these funds there is little accountability. Our Auditor Generals can write volumes on this subject. But more importantly, the delay in releasing funds by our bureaucrats for health care can be exceptionally deadly.

2.	This fund will receive income from a separate tax and perhaps some from general taxation.

We are in fact back to square one aren’t we? Our national health budget is only 3 to 4%. Why can’t we raise it to 6% and let professionals manage the show instead of all these Pengarahs, Deputy DGs, DGs, etc who have no clue about IT, marketing, finance, auditing and human resource. Malaysian Healthcare requires professional management as in every other organization. You don’t need to privatize it to be efficient. The Chinese Army, Indian Railways and the United States Department of Defense employ millions of employees but runs very efficiently.  Whichever way you turn this through; in the final analysis it is management of resources. And this is where the crux of the problem has always been with our healthcare system. We should have decentralized yesterday. It is the centralization that has virtually brought the entire system to its knees. Gone are the days when Medical Superintendents could tell the Minister of Health to go to hell. The prevalent submissiveness has blunted creativity and leadership. Everyone toes the line and marks time at the expense of innovativeness.

3.	The Fund will only pay for illnesses categorized in a previously accepted list. And patients must first go to a General Practitioner (GP) to whom they are designated. If specialist referral or hospital admission is required, it must be done by the patient’s GP. The fund will not pay up if the patient by-passes the GP.

	Except in emergencies I guess. And what of illnesses not covered in the list. Are patients expected to die at home? Understandably as a nation we need to ration ourselves. No system in the world can give you everything. It is preposterous that dengue, HIV, hepatitis, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, cancer and obesity are creating such great havoc in our society but our transplant coordinators and heart institute, with no doubt the tacit support of our mainstream media, appear to be championing heart transplants. It is not that we cannot send someone up to space. But in our state of priorities, can we afford it? And what of areas where there are no GPs and the nearest facility is a klinik desa run by a midwife? Can the patient go direct to hospital then or would he/she be penalized?

4.   All GPs will be allocated a certain number of patients and become “fund managers”. They will get the same income per patient whether the patient comes to their clinic ten times in a year or not at all. This is to prevent over investigation and treatment by specialists. If they stay within their budget, the GP will get a hefty bonus. If the GP exceeds this referral budget, he may face a financial penalty! This is to make GPs efficient gate-keepers.

In the Malaysian setting, this has to be dangerous. The MOH’s unholy and rabid haste in implementing the PHFSA will now come to roost. If you expect a GP to “hold on” and “manage” the patient and refer when absolutely necessary, then the GP must be knowledgeably equipped. In the NHS a GP needs to have the MRCGP, followed by numerous other courses which include areas of your interest and the respective qualifications in obstetrics/gynaecology, paediatrics, surgery, urology, cardiology, geriatrics, dermatology, respiratory medicine or diabetes. No one GP can know everything. But short sighted officials at the MOH jumped the gun by excluding doctors from this decision making.

It is not registering and compartmentalizing them in a parliamentary edict that is important but equipping them with knowledge that is critical. In the UK, from whence our system evolved, GPs are constantly encouraged and funded to acquire more postgraduate qualifications including resuscitative techniques in ATLS, ATAACS and PHTLS. The current drive is to even include nurse practitioners to this arena and encourage nurses to acquire Masters degrees in areas of their interest. In Malaysia we are currently throwing nurses and MAs caught working in GP clinics in jail and by God, are encouraging sinsehs, bomohs, ayurveds and homeopaths to set up practice in our government hospitals. Now, what warped up mind would do such a thing? A mind that clearly has not seen enough.

5.	Government hospitals will no longer get an annual budget. They will be paid by the amount of clinical service they provide according to a predetermined list of illnesses. Apparently if treatment for appendicitis is RM1,000, then this figure stays irrespective of whether there are any complications. A private hospital that handles an appendix case will also get the same payment from the fund.

You really think private or even government hospital consultants will fall for this one? Their solution would be simple. Either the patient tops up or he will be told to go elsewhere including the traditional medicine specialist at Kepala Batas.

6.	Private insurance will be allowed for illnesses that are not covered by the listed group of illnesses to cover specialist costs that are not incurred through the GP referral system.

This is already the practice in the private sector

TEACHING HOSPITALS

And what of teaching hospitals? Are they included in this proposal? Or will they remain status quo with their working capital coming off the Ministry of Education. And what of training, teaching, etc. How do they find a place here in the general scheme of things? If teaching hospitals are also told to survive in this scheme of self sustenance and financial incentives, would students have their fees raised and will we have our lecturers disappearing to do their public patients in a private hospital to claim their fees as is currently happening now?

CONCLUSION

Health care in Malaysia cannot be managed as Karl Karol has recommended here. In fact it is a wonder that they are even here in the first place. Whose bird brained idea was this? There are enough Malaysians who are experienced and have worked in Australia, the US, Britain including both the public and private sectors in Malaysia who can provide far better and practical solutions. But of course these doctors will not be able to provide their expertise to the Malaysian government because… ..the MOH is not in talking terms with them. The MOH’s current concern appears to be Traditional Medicine and illegal clinics if newspaper reports are to be believed.

The system we have here, put in place after independence and implemented by initial DGs,  served this country well in the initial years but lost track sometime in the late 60’s when the then DG abolished fee charging by consultants accelerating the exodus of doctors and specialists to the private sector. Subsequent years failed to take into account the rapid advances of medicine, emerging illnesses especially those related to cardiovascular disease, cancer and an aging population. Our healthcare now is in dire straits and to wean it off its ventilator; you just cannot yank the tube off its throat and ask it to walk home tomorrow. The weaning has to be measured and whatever changes that have to be made must be kept simple and in this country transparent, for it to survive. The problems facing our Primary health care and hospital systems are not complex. We have to thank our original founders for this. But solutions to these problems should not be further complicated by incompetent handling by our health officials. Their bungling in building sometimes unnecessary hospitals located in the middle of nowhere, or of buying equipment that is scantily utilized and their witless attempts at IT and paperless hospitals costing tax payers billions of ringgit must now belong to the halls of legendary cock-ups in Malaysia.  Our government should look to the private sector where the majority of our doctors are based for solutions. To continue taking advice from our current lot of health administrators is to taunt fate and invite a far greater tragedy.

                This entry was posted on Friday, 3 August 2007, 9:37 am and is filed under
Health
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Is Tsu Koon, new leader of  Gerakan, “conscience of BN”, prepared to back Bernard Dompok?

The honest, principled and courageous statement by the UPKO President and Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, Tan Sri
Bernard Dompok
yesterday that Malaysia is not an Islamic state was completely blacked out by the mainstream media, both printed and electronic.

This is the first time that an  important pronouncement of a Cabinet Minister on a grave and fundamental national  issue had been blacked out by the mainstream media.

It happened on the fourth year of the Abdullah premiership which had promised greater openness, respect for diversity of views and preparedness to listen to the truth from the people, however unpleasant. Such a “blackout” never happened in the 22 years of the previous Mahathir administration.

What  does this foretell about the future of Malaysia in terms of freedom of expression, free press, human rights and democracy after the 50th Merdeka anniversary celebrations, especially after the 12th general election?

One can disagree with Bernard Dompok but why should his statement be blacked out when it is  to correct growing misperceptions, both historically and constitutionally,  that Malaysia is an Islamic state when the fundamental nation-building principle going back to the Merdeka social contract 50 years ago and the Malaysia Agreement 44 years ago  was that Malaysia shall be a secular state with Islam as the official religion and not an Islamic state.

Has Malaysia reached a stage where through sheer  majority rule and administrative fiat, the Constitution can be revised without any parliamentary amendment and fundamental rights subverted without any legal basis — like the ban on mainstream discussion of the 50-year nation-building principle for a secular Malaysia with Islam as official religion and not an Islamic state.

Yesterday, I asked who is the  next Minister or Deputy Minister, whether at national or state level, Sabah, Sarawak or Peninsular Malaysia, to  emulate Bernard to speak  up and defend the truth — that Malaysia was conceived as a secular state with Islam as the official religion and never as an Islamic state.

Nobody seems in sight.  There is one party in the Barisan Nasional which had always prided itself as the “conscience” of the ruling  coalition — Parti Gerakan.

Is Tan Sri Dr. Koh  Tsu Koon, the  new leader of the self-proclaimed  “conscience of Barisan Nasional”, prepared to  back up Bernard Dompok on the  true meaning of the Merdeka social contract and Malaysia Agreement that Malaysia is a secular state with Islam as official religion and not Islamic state?

Or will he prove wanting again, as so many times in the past,  when it comes to the crunch on fundamental nation-building principles and national issues?

Are we reaching a stage where it is only permissible to declare that Malaysia is an Islamic state in the mainstream media while any statement that Malaysia is a secular state with Islam as the official religion is not only banned from mainstream media and “polite circles” but will increasingly be regarded as insensitive and treated as anti-national and even seditious?

Will the idea of a Parliamentary Roundtable to reaffirm the Merdeka social contract and Malaysia Agreement that Malaysia is a secular state with Islam as the official religion and not an Islamic state, planned for Parliament on Friday, be the last expression of its kind in Malaysian history?

                This entry was posted on Friday, 3 August 2007, 3:12 pm and is filed under
Constitution
,
Politics
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


The ‘Stupid, stupid, stupid!’ Minister

by Martin Jalleh

(3 Aug 2007)

The Minister in the Prime Minister’s (PM’s) Department, Mohamed Nazri Abdul Aziz, is living proof that it does not require much intelligence to be a Minister in Bolehland. Before one can be a Cabinet Minister one has to be a Member of Parliament (MP) of a component party of the Barisan Nasional (BN) — and this too is peanuts (nothing to do with monkeys, surely). One only needs to be spineless, silly, sexist and of course ‘stupid’.

Nazri has also very successfully shown by his trademark threats and theatrics, why he deserves the role of the Minister overseeing parliamentary affairs. When intelligent debate and delivery is demanded of him, he would choose to dish out a diatribe of great distinction.

Bark & Bull

Following the detention of blogger and PKR webmaster Nathaniel Tan on July 13 for an investigation under the Official Secrets Act, and a high-level police report lodged by UMNO against the web portal Malaysia Today, Nazri warned (Bernama, 24.07.07):

‘The government will not hesitate to use the Internal Security Act (ISA), the Sedition Act 1948 and Section 121b of the Penal Code against bloggers (who make ‘disparaging statements’). The government has exercised restraint in the matter for a long time and the time has come for it to act according to those laws.’

The government (read as ‘UMNO’) is desperate. For so long it has succeeded in dominating and dictating the thinking of the citizens of Bolehland. The age of information technology has changed this, but the nation’s political dinosaurs still living in an ice age refuse to budge but prefer to bark and bull with the same old tone, tune and threats.

Nazri accuses bloggers of making ‘disparaging statements’ — yet he comes from a party tainted with a culture of political assassinations, poison pen letters and provocative religious statements and racial slurs and stunts. He threatens bloggers with a slew of repressive laws — whilst inferring there is greater freedom now in comparison to the previous regime of  the ‘lack of freedom and some dictatorial tendencies’ (NST, 20.09.06).

Nazri should give ear to the wisdom of woman activist Zainah Anwar (NST, 27.07.07): ‘I wish our political leaders and government servants would wake up to living in the information age. There has been a seismic transformation in how people receive information and form opinions. Those with formal authority are no longer the authorities in the age of information technology. The government can no longer maintain control over what people read, hear, watch, let alone think.

‘Mainstream journalists are no longer the gatekeepers over what the public knows. The ability of technology to cause change is much faster than the ability of government to control change… The big losers in this age are those who hold traditional power.’

Bodoh

On 21 June, in parliament, Nazri was responding to Wan Azizah Wan Ismail’s question on whether the PM was focused on fighting corruption. She had also asked about the measures taken by the government to curb corruption. This was of great concern considering Bolehland’s slide in ranking in the Transparency International’s (TI’s) Corruption Perception Index (CPI), as compared to neighbours such as Indonesia , Vietnam and Singapore .

Nauseated by Nazri’s nonsensical justifications, Opposition Leader Lim Kit Siang leapt to his feet and accused the government of inertia. He used the investigation of Deputy Internal Security Minister Johari Baharum by the Anti-Corruption Agency (ACA) as a case in point.

Johari was alleged to have received RM5.5 million in bribes to free several suspects held under the Emergency Ordinance. He denied this. An investigation was launched, ACA findings made, but no decision was taken by the Attorney-General (AG). (The latter cleared Johari of the allegations recently.)

Lim asked: ‘How can he (Johari) come clean when the ACA has not released its findings, and when the AG also keeps mum?’

Nazri turned nasty: ‘ Malaysia will never develop as long as we have people like Lim. All these (corruption allegations) are lies. Why are you so stupid? Where are the allegations? You have no brains. Stupid, stupid, stupid!…’

Shouts of bodoh were hurled across the floor with the Speaker Tan Sri Ramli Ngah Talib making a significant contribution to the ‘stupid’ scenario with his statement that he cannot cite Nazri for using unparliamentary language because ‘such language was used all the time’.  Grinning like a school bully having his last say, Nazri added to his string of ‘stupid’ salvoes: ‘OK, tidak cerdik (not smart) then. It’s like stupid too.’

Buffoon

Two years ago, Nazri, had, with admirable honesty declared: ‘Compared to other parliaments in countries of equal development as Malaysia , our quality of debate is still relatively low.’ (NST, 9 April, 2005)   Judging from his  intellectual outburst, the citizens of Bolehland now know how instrumental the Minister is in lowering the quality of parliamentary debates to new depths as never seen before.

The man who called Lim Kit Siang ‘stupid’ countless times recently is the very same man who had in 2005 also insisted that: ‘We want our MPs to get their facts right and debate in an objective, civil manner. Only then can we start talking about having a First World Parliament.’ Alas, only Nazri can make calling a MP ‘stupid’ synonymous with civility!

Two years ago also a senior Minister had advised MPs to be ready to take a lot of stick. He said all MPs ‘should not be too thin-skinned and should accept criticism made against them…  MPs, who cannot take criticism are old-fashioned… ‘

‘Society is becoming smarter and critical, thus putting an MP under public scrutiny all the time… If they cannot stand such a situation, they should stay away from politics.’ (Star, 25 April 2005)

That Minister is none other than Nazri himself. Of course we would be stupid if we were to believe that Nazri practices what he preaches — which explains why he is still in politics and why he gets into a caustic delirium when he is criticized.

Coming back to the Johari issue, it was quite apparent that Nazri could not take the heat even though he had taken upon himself a few more hats — that of the director of the ACA and the AG. He absolved Johari without a final ACA finding and an AG decision.

In his response to Wan Azizah, Nazri had also said that Malaysia must not be compared to countries like Indonesia , Singapore and Vietnam . Then, with a touch of intellectual brilliance he added: ‘ Singapore is not a real country, it is a small island. Singapore ‘s population is just three to four million and there are no opportunities for corruption, unlike in our country.’

Nazri’s inference of larger countries being more prone to corruption and smaller countries being less corrupt was wrong. The TI CPI reveals that several countries with a much larger population than Malaysia fared better than Malaysia in the ranking and several smaller countries were found to be more corrupt.

Nazri’s ignorance became even more ‘prominent’ when he said that although the perception on corruption in Bolehland is considered to be unfavourable, ‘ Malaysia is still included in the premier league comprising 50 countries with the least corruption’ (Bernama, 21 June 2007). The ‘premier league’ is reserved only for the Top Ten countries regarded as least corrupt.

Still on the issue of corruption, parliament would hear Nazri say that we should not question the PM’s commitment in combatting corruption. The Minister would even declare that a lot has been done to fight corruption but what is needed is a public relations blitz… like in (not-a-real-country) Singapore !

Nazri once told parliament that the Government was satisfied with the ACA’s performance. But as Dato’ Param Cumaraswamy a former TI Malaysia president once pointed out succinctly: ‘It is not the satisfaction of the Government that the ACA is handling its responsibilities effectively that matters. It is the satisfaction of the public that matters most.’

Nazri has also said that the ACA is free to act on its own without orders from the Government. Nazri should know that as long as the ACA is under the PM’s Department such ‘non-interference’ is hard to come by.

In 2003, during his war-of-words over the monopoly of some 6,000 taxi licences, with the then ACA  Investigations Director Nordin Ismail, Nazri (who was then Entrepreneur Development Minister) had said that he would advise the Cabinet to replace Nordin with someone ‘neutral and of high calibre’. Non-interference?

Bloody racist

Perhaps there is no better example of Nazri’s intelligence deserting him than when he shouted (in Bahasa Malaysia and English) ‘racist’ at opposition parliamentarian M Kula Segaran 41 times in a space of a few minutes. His theatrics took place at the end of the opposition’s emergency motion to debate the government’s decision to withdraw recognition of the Ukraine-based Crimean State Medical University (CSMU) — which affected about 1,400 Malaysian students, the majority of whom were Indian Malaysians.

Kula Segaran had contributed to the situation by quoting then education minister Musa Mohamed as allegedly saying on a visit to CSMU: ‘How (can) this be? Why are there so many Indians in this university?’

At one point, the Minister yelled ‘bloody racist, racist, racist… you are racist, you have got no place in this country’ as he pointed at Kula Segaran. There was chaos in the House as a shouting match ensued.

Later Nazri confirmed that his blistering attack was also aimed at fellow front-bencher and Deputy Minister for Natural Resources and Environment S Sothinathan who was subsequently suspended for arguing with Deputy Health Minister Dr Abdul Latiff Ahmad over the de-recognisation.

‘We don’t work on (the basis of) racism and I really object to that (such claims). I don’t like racism… we are all Malaysians, so never ever say that we make certain decision because we hate certain ethnic groups. That’s unbecoming.’

Kula Segaran believed that Nazri’s repeated use of the word ‘racist’ was intended to divert attention from the dispute involving the two front-benchers — even though Nazri had later hugged him (Kula) outside the MPs lounge, saying that each of them had a job to do.

The heroic anti-racist image painted by Nazri of himself soon faded. He was rather subdued when he revealed recently that no Umno member has yet to be brought to court as a result of making racist speeches at the Umno general assembly last November.

Neither was he as vociferous against the racist remarks of UMNO Youth deputy chief Khairy Jamaluddin or those of Minister for Science, Technology and Innovation Jamaludin Jarjis, nor of Hishamuddin Hussein’s racist keris-wielding antics at Umno general assemblies.

Brain dead?

In April this year, Lim Kit Siang had highlighted the alarming trend in the exodus of the bright and brilliant from Bolehland — which he estimated to be as high as one to two million over the past four decades. Lim added that Malaysia used to be better than Japan and Singapore in terms of economic development, but now the country is lagging behind because of brain drain that is ‘due to discriminatory policies in the country’.

He called on MPs to take heed of a speech by Perak Regent Raja Nazrin Shah wherein the latter had urged the government to instill ‘a sense of belonging’ in all Malaysians to lower the rate of brain drain.

Nazri agreed with Nazrin but felt that the brain drain was not the result of a lack in a sense of belonging but of ‘money sense’. He likened the brain drain to ‘ants attracted to sugar’ and added that Malaysians ‘leave to make money but they will return. You don’t have to press the panic button yet.’

Lim said Nazri’s response was ‘not only offensive to Malaysians forced to migrate due to unfair policies, but is proof of the stubborn continuance of the denial syndrome for an urgent reappraisal of the 50 years of BN nation-building policies.’

Was Pak Lah pressing the panic button when he had declared in 2004 that ‘…Malaysia is offering a host of incentives, including better financial perks, favourable retirement age and terms of contract, to lure an estimated 30,000 of its graduates working overseas to return home’?

Was the PM ‘stupid’ in adding: ‘We must also show them that we have equal and quality opportunities for them to continue what they are doing.”

Nazri should follow his own advice which he had once given to MPs: ‘It is better that you keep quiet and let others assume you are stupid rather than talk nonsense and confirm that you are really stupid.’

Brain drained

That Nazri’s brain seemed strained and drained could also be seen in his profound ignorance in the ‘bochor’ scandal — in spite of his insistence that the government acted correctly in handling it.

Nazri came to the defence of the two MPs who had made the sexist remarks following Fong Po Kuan’s (DAP — Batu Gajah) observations of leaks in the Parliament building. He said that they ‘should not apologise to Fong or the DAP for their remarks.’
(The Star, 17.05.07)

‘To apologise to Fong is not on. I don’t agree… This is part of parliamentary debates. Both MPs uttered the words during the heat of their debate, and you cannot control people’s emotions’. Whatever happened to Nazri’s ‘civility’?

He made excuses for them:  ‘It is unfortunate that the press has played up the incident. It is part and parcel of parliamentary debates, and parliamentarians should not be easily offended by the heckling between one another… Such unguarded outbursts always happen during debates.’

The Joint Action Group for Gender Equality (JAG) (a coalition of women groups) accused the two MPs and Nazri of showing that they clearly ‘have not fully understood what being gender sensitive is all about’. By excusing the behaviour of the two MPs, Nazri ‘has effectively condoned the use of low level coffee shop talk, including foul language and sexual innuendoes, in the august Dewan Rakyat.’

Contrary to what Nazri had claimed they saw in the defence of the sexist remarks a reflection of “an underlying, deeply entrenched patriarchal culture that thrives on gender discrimination. Such a culture, which upholds male domination in society, is systemic and ingrained in our social structures and institutions.’

‘In this context, the sexist remarks that were made recently are not an isolated case. Such remarks have been tolerated with no disciplinary actions taken by the Parliament since 1995. In 2002, we met up with the Parliamentary Speaker to work towards ending sexism and discrimination in Parliament. As we can see, all these efforts have come to naught.’

In a letter to Malaysiakini, European Commission Ambassador to Malaysia , Thierry Rommel said that the sexist remarks “had an effect on Malaysia ‘s international reputation … they have a far greater and adverse impact than some people in position of power care to admit. Witnessing moreover the impunity that has accompanied such remarks, astonishment and disbelief prevail.’

Banal excuses

The independence and future of the judiciary in Bolehland depends very much on one man — the de facto (also read as ‘defective’) Law Minister, Mohamed Nazri Abdul Aziz. He has even made it very clear that we have to ‘convince’ him first if things are to improve in the judiciary.

In June last year, Nazri told parliament that there was no basis for the allegations of corruption in the judiciary as contained in a letter written by former High Court judge Datuk Syed Ahmad Idid. He added that the case had been investigated by the Government, the ACA and the AG.

In a NST interview Syed Idid revealed that the allegations were ‘never really investigated’. This was confirmed by a former AG Abu Talib Othman (Mingguan Malaysia, 4.06.06) who added that ‘on the other hand, the poor judge who wrote it was investigated’.

In August 2006, the Bar Council renewed its call for a review of the 1988 judicial crisis, which led to the sacking of Salleh Abas as Lord President. Nazri dismissed such a call and said he would agree to a review of the crisis only ‘if there are new and important facts in the case’.

Nazri placed great reliance on the fact that acceptance of the recommendations by both tribunals was also accepted by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong. Yet according to the Federal Constitution, the Yang di-Pertuan Agong is not allowed to refuse advice tendered by the Cabinet or the Prime Minister.

Nazri justified the refusal by Hamid Omar (who was second in line after Salleh) to disqualify himself from being in the tribunal by saying that “as Lord President, there could not have been someone more senior than him (Salleh) to sit in the tribunal”.

Nazri was wrong again. There were two living and very renowned retired Lord Presidents (then) and several retired Supreme Court judges who would have been suitable to sit in the tribunal.

Nazri’s assertion that a review of the 1988 judicial crisis would open the floodgates of similar requests for other cases, thwarting efforts to put finality to past cases was pooh-poohed by retired Federal Court judge Tan Sri Azmi Kamaruddin:

‘I think this finality principle is only applicable to ordinary court cases, where you have the right to appeal. But in this case, we are not dealing with a court as such, but a tribunal formed under the Constitution.’ (The Sun 20.09.06)

Nazri’s aura of openness came to a close with him declaring that the Cabinet had endorsed his statement and the case was closed (The Star, 28.09.06). He had turned a deaf ear to Salleh’s five new points for a review. There would be no finality to the Minister’s ignorance and arrogance.

His next sandiwara took place in the Bar Council Auditorium in Kuala Lumpur in a debate with MP for Kota Bharu, lawyer Datuk Zaid Ibrahim. Here again he would portray himself as a Minister who is sincere and so very open to change. ‘I can be convinced’ — he proudly declared.

Nazri managed to convince himself that he alone was right and everyone else (lawyers and several retired judges) in the hall were wrong — “there is no need for an independent judicial commission relating to the appointment and promotion of judges unless the judiciary made a request for it”.

Lawyer Malik Imtiaz who attended the debate wrote in his blog: ‘Nazri was a surprise, not so much for speaking like a politician but rather for assuming that members of the audience, comprising largely members of the Bar, were stupid enough to believe the line he was taking… ‘

Will the Chief Justice ask Nazri for an independent judicial commission?  The obvious answer came from Bar Council president Ambiga Sreenevasan: “It is highly unlikely that the judiciary will agree to the independent judicial commission as one with power will not give it up so willingly… ‘

Bungling

Alas, there is no ‘finality’ in Nazri’s naivety. Below are further examples.

In May 2004 Nazri told parliament that ‘Suhakam’s report was never meant to be debated in Parliament’. Yet, Suhakam is a creation of Parliament and it is a legislative requirement for Suhakam to submit annual reports to Parliament

In April 2005 Nazri explained in parliament that the Cabinet’s plan to form a select committee was dropped because ‘the King wanted water privatisation to be in place by the end of the year’. Lim Kit Siang rebuked Nazri for dragging the King’s name into the outcry over the decision not to set up a select committee on water privatization —  ‘as the Royal address is the policy pronouncement of the government of the day’.

In the same month Nazri told Parliament that Bibles in Bahasa Malaysia or Bahasa Indonesia could not be circulated in the country as this could be seen as an effort to spread Christianity among the Malays. ( Star, 13 April 2005). He added that the prohibition had been in force since Independence and was in line with the Constitution.  About a week later the PM clarified that there was no such ban.

In July 2006 Nazri said that ‘the presence of foreigners, including those with IMM12 documents, did not cause social, security and economic problems in Sabah ‘.  Sabah Progressive Party (SAPP) (part of the state ruling coalition) leader Tham Nyip Shen, replied that the problem was genuine and serious, and ‘if Nazri was genuinely ignorant of the issue, it would be better for him to keep his mouth shut, or to let someone else who has a better understanding of the issue do the talking.’

In Nov. 2006, Nazri declared that the ACA ‘has no powers to initiative investigations on reports and charges of money politics and bribery within Umno… because these offences are confined to political parties and not public transgressions’. This of course contradicted the stand of his boss who when he was the Deputy PM in 2001 had publicly invited the ACA to clean up money politics in Umno. Nazri later denied ever making such a statement.

Pak Lah started his premiership with promises of change. In January this year Election Commission (EC) chairman Tan Sri Abdul Rashid Abdul Rahman declared that the EC’s current rules and regulations are outdated and have many loopholes. An independent commission should be set up to oversee changes in the election laws and regulations. Nazri told parliament: “As I’ve said, there is no need to revamp the EC. In the past 50 years we have not revamped any ministry. So why must the EC be singled out (to be revamped)?”

In March this year, Nazri dismissed calls by rights groups for an independent inquiry into the graft and sexual assault allegations against ACA director-general Zulkipli Mat Noor: ‘There is only one process in this country and the process is that you make a report to the police and the police investigate … I think these NGOs are stupid…We don’t need another system, independent inquiry and all that.’  And so we have  the police investigating the (then) chief of the ACA and at the same time the ACA investigating the current top police officer of the nation… .and the AG deciding (recently) that both are clean!

In May this year, Bernard Dompok resigned as the chairman of the Parliamentary Select Committee on Integrity .  He had disagreed with Nazri on the committee’s scope of duties was only to get feedback from the people for the Government to formulate unity programmes. Nazri claimed that Dompok might have been influenced by Lim Kit Siang, who is a member of the committee.  Dompok’s reply to his colleague — ‘It’s a cheap shot.’

Mohamed Nazri Abdul Aziz represents the high calibre MP that BN has succeeded in producing after 49 years of Independence. As the country celebrates her 50th birthday surely the Minister in the PM’s Department who is also the overseer of parliamentary affairs and the de facto Law Minister, will take us to greater heights in hype, hypocrisy and of course, hysterics and histrionics in Parliament!

With the Cabinet contributing its fair share of soiled reputations, spent characters and senior ministers calling others stupid, surely Parliament will continue to be perceived as a solid rubberstamp, a symbol shorn of substance, stripped of essence, sidelined and side-stepped by the executive.
Malaysia Boleh!

(The above article is an edited and expanded version of an original article written for the latest issue of Aliran Monthly. )

                This entry was posted on Friday, 3 August 2007, 7:27 am and is filed under
Martin Jalleh
,
Parliament
,
Politics
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


What a shame — ignominous setback instead of historic  50th Merdeka breakthrough!

What a shame indeed!  It should have been a major breakthrough for Malaysia giving special meaning to the 50th Merdeka anniversary but it has turned out to be an ignominous setback.

It would have been the first occasions all religions in Malaysia coming  together in recent times to unite on  common ground and speak on the human rights to water.

Even more significant, this one-day event entitled
“United for Water: Religions Speak on the Rights to Water”
is to be held at the Conference Centre of the National Mosque, Kuala Lumpur tomorrow, to be attended by some 200 people representing NGOs, civil society, religious groups and residents’ associations.

This program to  bring together various religions in Malaysia to deliberate religious views on the human rights to water, with specific reference to the United Nations’ General Comment No. 15, seeks also to raise awareness among Malaysians to conserve water and respect and protect the human rights to water as a key responsibility.

But it was not to be.  Although the National Mosque authorities were ever-ready to make available their Conference Centre for the path-breaking event, the police had scuttled the programme on the ground that there could be a protest demonstration.

The  programme has the support from all religious groups  as evident from the list of the participating organizations which include:

Angkatan Belia Islam Malaysia (ABIM)

Archdiocesan Office for Human Development (AOHD)

Buddhist Missionary Society of Malaysia (BMSM)

Council of Churches of Malaysia (CCM)

Malaysia Hindu Sangam (MHS)

Malaysian Gurdwara Council (MGC)

Centre for Orang Asli Concerns (COAC)

Group of Concerned Citizens (GCC)

Monitoring Sustainability of Globalisation (MSG)

Malaysian Trade Union Congress (MTUC)

The organizers had been working for a month to make a success of this path-blazing inter-faith programme on the human rights to water.

On Tuesday, representatives from the organizing committee paid a courtesy call to the National Mosque to thank the mosque officials for allowing their venue to be used for the event.  The mosque officials said they looked forward to the use of mosque conference centre for such functions.

On Wednesday, however, National Mosque officials were told by the police that it had received information that there could be protest or demonstration which was complete news to the participating organizations, including ABIM.

Yesterday, representatives of the organizing committee who  met with the Special Branch of Dang Wangi Police district to ask for a police permit were told that there would be no problem of approval.

This morning, the police changed its mind because of  rumours that there could be a protest or demonstration if the event is held at the National Mosque.

The
“United for Water: Religions Speak on the Rights to Water”
event will now be held at the NUBE House, Brickfields (next to Petronas) according to the scheduled hours.

If the Police are capable of seeing the big national picture, it should have ensured that the programme at the National Mosque conference centre is held successfully.

Instead, the Police have allowed irresponsible and mischievous elements to scuttle the programme at the National Mosque.

Is the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, who is also the Internal Security Minister, aware of what is happening under his watch?

It would appear that even water has become a national security problem!

The S
un carried an article by
Charles Santiag
o, a key organizer, on the theme of the inter-faith seminar:

Religions guard the basic right to water

Charles Santiago

Wed, 01 Aug 2007

The religious community and human rights fraternity have found a common cause: promoting and protecting people’s right to water as stipulated in the United Nations General Comment No. 15 on the Right to Water.

These groups argue that water is God’s gift to all, to be managed efficiently, conserved and provisioned as a human right.

Unfortunately, only the rich have access to a clean water supply while the poor must struggle for it or be constantly confronted with disconnections, high tariffs and unclean water supply. A lack of access to clean drinking water can result in a health crisis.

For these groups, water should not be turned into a commodity for profits.

Water has a central place in the practices and beliefs of many religions of the world. It is considered sacred as a source of life and a purifying agent in many religions. Water is central to the religious practices of all indigenous people.

In an environment where water is a commodity, where vulnerable communities are denied access to water including high levels of disconnections, right to water is rapidly becoming a right to life issue.

For this reason, religions and human rights communities are focusing their attention on the notion that access to clean water is a basic human right.

Islam ascribes the most sacred qualities to water as a life-giving, sustaining and purifying resource. It attaches the principle of equity to water distribution and warns human beings against its unfair distribution. In fact, Islam recognises water as a vital resource, one in which all people have the right to a fair share, which effectively makes water a community resource to which all, rich or poor, have a right.

The Vatican notes that the respect for life and the dignity of the human person must be the ultimate guiding norm for all development policy, including environmental policy. The human person must be the central point of convergence of all issues pertaining to development, the environment and water. The centrality of the human person must thus be foremost in any consideration of the issues of water.

The first priority of every country and the international community for sustainable water policy should be to provide access to safe water to those who are deprived of such access.

The Orang Asli treat water and rivers as an essential component of their spiritual and material perception of the world as one of the elements in the eco-spiritual domain that has ruai (soul). For them water is soul and a sacred life force.

Hinduism believes that the provisioning of water for sustenance is recognised as a grace of God. In prayers God is thanked for His benevolence for creating and providing water. In fact, the right to water is recognised as an inalienable divine right of people. Thus, management of water in Hinduism is perceived as welfare.

Furthermore, in Hinduism no individual or group can claim ownership of God’s provisions and it is considered a bad karma or a sin to deny people access to water.

In 2002 the United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, – confronted with unequal distribution of water and widespread denial of the right to water in the developing and developed world – adopted the General Comment No 15.

It noted that: “the right to water clearly falls within the category of guarantees essential for securing an adequate standard of living, particularly since it is one of the most fundamental conditions for survival.”

The Comment unambiguously states that access to water is a human right and a public commodity fundamental to life and health. In fact, the realisation of the right to water is essential to the realisation of all other rights.

Furthermore, governments have a responsibility to progressively realise, without discrimination, the right to water. Specifically, the human right to water entitles everyone to sufficient, affordable, physically accessible, safe and acceptable water for personal and domestic uses.

The state has an obligation to respect, protect, and fulfil this right.

                This entry was posted on Friday, 3 August 2007, 10:15 pm and is filed under
Human Rights
,
Religion
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


RM4.6 billion Port Klang Free Zone scandal – heads must roll or Abdullah’s integrity campaign in tatters

The RM4.6 billion Port Klang Free Zone (PKFZ)  scandal will be top agenda in the forthcoming parliamentary meeting — as I have submitted a question asking the Finance Minister  to explain in the first week of next Parliament  later this month why the multi-billion ringgit malpractices and cost overruns were not checked despite warnings from Attorney-General and Auditor-General.

I also wanted to know whether the Federal Government has now decided to bail out the RM4.6 billion PKFZ project with taxpayers’ money.

It is most regrettable and irresponsible on the part of both the Finance Minister and Transport Minister that they had maintained a deafening silence despite many disturbing reports in the past two months about the RM4.6 billion PKFZ scandal — in particular recent reports in
Malaysiakini
and
Singapore Business Times
, viz:

	That the development costs for PKFZ have ballooned to RM4.63 billion from the original estimate of RM1.1 billion;

	That the government has to step in to salvage the 405-hectare PKFZ project with a bail-out package as a result of massive cost overruns;

	The PKFZ  had been approved on the assurances that it would both feasible and self-financing. It has proved to be neither.

	The controversy over the purchase of the 1,000 acres of land for the PKFZ, with the Finance Ministry and Attorney-General Chambers proposing forcible land acquisition at official valuations — then RM10 a sq foot — but the port authority got its way to  buy it at RM25 per sq foot on a willing-buyer-willing-seller basis and  the Transport Ministry’s assurance that the PKFZ would be both feasible and self-financing.

	The multi-billion ringgit cost overruns were unauthorized and therefore illegal as any RM100 million increase in a project’s cost had to be approved first by the Ministry of Finance, which had not been done.

	The Transport Minister had illegally and without sanction from the Finance Ministry issued letters of support to enable Kuala Dimensi, the private company tasked by the Port Klang Authority to develop the site, to issue bonds in excess of RM4 billion to cover its costs — the totality of which have now to be bailed out by the Federal Government.  The unauthorized and unlawful  letters of support by the Minister of Transport “were instrumental in getting the bonds at the time a triple-A rating” as such letters “are akin to government guarantees”.

	The Cabinet has ordered the Chief Secretary to investigate whether the Transport Ministry had wrongly issued the  letters of support which has resulted in the RM4.6 billion PKFZ scandal.

Has the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi given his approval for the first multi-billion ringgit bail-out operation in his premiership?

The question Parliament and Malaysians want to know is why should the public coffers be taxed to bail out the RM4.6 billion PKFZ scandal when the project was from the beginning conceived to be self-financing, without having to use a single sen of public funds?

The next question is why nobody in Cabinet, the Finance Ministry and the Transport Ministry is being held responsible for the RM4.6 billion scandal, when those responsible for such a colossal loss of public funds should not only face disciplinary action but should be hauled to court to face the full consequences of their RM4.6 billion misdeeds?

As the  RM4.6 billion PKFZ scandal is the first mega scandal to erupt in his premiership, Abdullah must ensure that there is no continued culture of impunity with him adhering fully with the principles of responsibility, accountability and transparency  in accordance with the National Integrity Plan which he launched in May 2004.

Heads must roll for the RM4.6 billion scandal before any bail-out for the mega-scandal can be contemplated by Cabinet and Parliament.

Abdullah should realize that if Malaysians continue to see the perpetuation of the culture of impunity like previous mega scandals of “heinous crimes without criminals”, the Prime Minister’s campaign for  integrity, accountability and good governance  will be completely in tatters.

Furthermore, he will be personally assuming responsibility for the RM4.6 billion PKFZ scandal since he will be seen to be protecting all those whether in Cabinet, Finance Ministry or Transport Ministry who should be bearing responsibility for the  PKFZ scandal.

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 4 August 2007, 11:00 am and is filed under
Good Governance
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Cabinet must be made collectively responsible for the crime situation with weekly crime report which must be made public

Malaysians are horrified by the  brutal rape-and-murder of Universiti Tunku Abdul Rahman (Utar) student
Tang Lai Meng
 from Menglembu, Perak at  Bandar Mahkota Cheras three days ago, which has again reminded Malaysians on the occasion of the nation’s 50th Merdeka anniversary that they have lost the most precious of all human rights — the fundamental right to be free from crime and the fear of crime, whether in the streets, public places or the privacy of their home.

There is a danger that Malaysians, whether the authorities including the police, and the citizenry have become numbed to the vicious spiral of the crime index in the country as to accept that the escalation of crime is an inevitable part and price of Malaysia’s development.

This is not acceptable and Malaysians from walks of life must make it clear that their most important wish on the occasion of the nation’s 50th Merdeka anniversary is the restoration of a safe country where Malaysians can walk the streets and public places as well as return to their  home without fear of being victims of crime.

A crime-infested society knows no race, as illustrated by the case of the Malay woman motor-cycle pillion rider in Johor Bahru two days ago who was abducted, gang-raped and robbed by six robbers.

I call on Cabinet Ministers to be collectively responsible for the worsening crime situation in the country and to demand weekly police report on security situation until the crime rate is brought down to pre-Royal Police Commission period.

When Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi became Prime Minister about four years ago, he promised to make the war on crime one of his administration’s top agendas.

As a result, he established the Royal Police Commission to make recommendations to create a world-class police force which can keep crime low.

In its report, the Royal Police Commission expressed shock that there had been  a 29 per cent increase of crime in the eight years from121,176 cases in 1997 to 156,455 cases in 2004, and sounded the warning that unless this trend was checked and reversed, there would be “major social and economic consequences for Malaysia”.

It recommended a major police crackdown on crime and the “immediate target of a minimum of 20 per cent decrease” in the incidence of crime within the first 12 months.

Instead of a 20 per cent reduction of crime in the first 12 months after the Royal Police Commission Report, there had been a 27 per cent increase in the crime index from 156,455 cases in 2004 to 198,622 cases in  2006 — when it took eight years for the crime index to increase 29 per cent from 1997 to 2004 which the Royal Police Commission had found completely unacceptable.

In the first six months of this year, the crime index worsened by 5.11 per cent when compared to the same period last year.    Just to illustrate the gravity of the worsening crime problem, there were 8.2 cases of rape a day in the first six months of this year as compared to 4 cases a day in 2003!

This is clear proof that the crime situation had got very much worse after the Royal Police Commission Report, although the reverse should have taken place — as the government had given up to 42% increase in salaries for police personnel, RM2.5 billion for police housing, as well as hundreds of millions of ringgit of other allocations for  improvements in police service as recommended by the Royal Police Commission Report.

Yet, the crime situation has continued to escalate, without a  word of concern whether by the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister or the Cabinet  about this worsening crime problem.

The causes of the worsening crime situation are many, including socio-economic problems of  family breakdowns, failure of educational system, drug menace, illegal immigrant presence, police professionalism, etc, but one major cause is undoubtedly the lack of political leadership and responsibility for the escalating crime problem.

As the Internal Security Minister, Abdullah should bear personal and direct responsibility for the worsening crime situation — but as Prime Minister, Abdullah appears to be responsible for nothing even though he is also Internal Security and Finance Minister.

This atrocious state of affairs cannot continue with the deteriorating crime situation which has made life a nightmare not only to Malaysians, but also tourists and investors.

Unless and until the crime index is brought back to the pre-Royal Police Commission period, the Cabinet must collectively be responsible for the crime situation, asking for a weekly crime report to monitor police progress in beating crime, and such a weekly police report to the Cabinet should also be made public.

Beating crime and restoring the fundamental right of personal safety must be the top challenge of the Cabinet and Parliament.

Henceforth, every Minister, regardless of his or her portfolio, must be prepared to answer public questions and concerns as to what the Cabinet is doing to reduce crime to the pre-Royal Police Commission levels, or Malaysians must exercise their right to demand for the Minister’s resignation for evading the most basic responsibility to ensure that the country is safe for the citizens.

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 5 August 2007, 1:25 pm and is filed under
Crime
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Changing Malaysia from “Islamic to theocratic state” will be much easier compared to the quantum jump from “secular to Islamic state”

One of the causes of gloom for many Malaysians on the occasion of the 50th Merdeka anniversary comes from the question whether Malaysia has lost one of its fundamental nation-building underpinnings agreed by the forefathers of the major communities in the Merdeka social contract and Malaysia Agreement half-a-century ago that ours is a secular state with Islam as the official religion and not an Islamic state?

The Prime Minister,
Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi
 said in Bukit Mertajam on Saturday that Malaysia was  not a secular or  theocratic state but one which was based on parliamentary democracy.

What Abdullah did not say is as important as what he said.  He deliberately omitted reference to the Islamic state.  Is he saying that Malaysia is or is not an Islamic state?

Abdullah’s omission  is understandable as general election is around the corner and he wants to make life easier for the Gerakan, MCA and other non-Umno Barisan Nasional leaders to mislead the people that the Merdeka social contract and Malaysia Agreement were  still intact and honoured although one of the  core nation-building principles had been demolished.

Although Abdullah studiously avoided any reference to Islamic state, nobody can accuse Umno leaders of camouflaging their   clear intentions as the declaration that Malaysia was an Islamic state had not only been made by  Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad as Prime Minister on Sept. 29, 2001 but reiterated by Deputy Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak on July 17, 2007 who went on to say  that Malaysia was  not and had never been a secular state.

Furthermore, there had been unanimous support by Barisan Nasional leaders to Mahathir’s “929 Declaration” that Malaysia was an Islamic state, with  the then Gerakan President, Datuk Seri Dr. Lim Keng Yaik even anticipating Najib’s “717 Declaration” arguing at the time that Malaysia had been an Islamic state from  Day One of the new nation!

After the next general election, what is there to stop the stitching together of  these various declarations by the top Umno leaders which have received explicit support of the other Barisan Nasional leaders  into one all-encompassing declaration that Malaysia was an Islamic state and was not and had never been a secular state?

For 44 years until the Mahathir’s “929 declaration” in 2001, the position of the UMNO and Barisan Nasional leaders were clear and unequivocal –   that Malaysia was conceived as  a secular state with Islam as the official religion and that It was  not an Islamic state.

On the 50th Merdeka anniversary, the position has varied to: Malaysia is not a secular state. It is an Islamic state. It is not a theocratic state.

The abandonment of the “Malaysia is a secular state and not an Islamic state” stand and its replacement by the  “Malaysia was  an Islamic state and was not and had never been a secular state” position involved a quantum jump and tectonic shift, going against the very grain of the Merdeka social contract and Malaysia Agreement which had been openly defended by the nation’s forefathers including the first  three Prime Ministers, Tunku Abdul Rahman, Tun Razak and Tun Hussein.

Once it is accepted that Malaysia is an Islamic state, then the call to transform  Malaysia into a theocratic state would involve a smaller and much easier jump as compared to the quantum leap from Malaysia as a secular to an Islamic state.

If Malaysia as a secular state with Islam as the official religion which was totally unchallenged and undisputed for the first 44 years of Malaysian nationhood could be so summarily, undemocratically and unconstitutionally jettisoned, what is there to stop another small leap for those who want to see Malaysia’s Islamic state assuming full Islamist characteristics on the road towards a theocratic state?

It will not require another 50 years for such a smaller and much easier jump unless the present generation of  moderate Malaysians, both Muslims and non-Muslims, are prepared to heed  the recent advice of the Raja Muda of Perak,  Raja Dr. Nazrain Shah in quoting a leading jurist: “We have to stand up and be counted. We have to protect the things that make our nations great…”

                This entry was posted on Monday, 6 August 2007, 1:24 pm and is filed under
Constitution
,
Politics
,
Religion
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


National Integrity Plan an abysmal failure – public hearings in JB, Malacca, Ipoh, Alor Setar

I have received public inquiries as to whether the second series of public hearings of the Parliamentary Select Committee of Integrity will be held in Johor Baru and Malacca on Wednesday (8th August) and Thursday (9th August) respectively.

As many seems to be in the dark, I want to publicly confirm that the second series of the public hearings of the Parliamentary Select Committee on Integrity will be held in Johor Baru, Malacca, Ipoh and Alor Star this week and next on the following dates and venues:

	Johor Baru – August 8 – 10 am

(Bilik Gerakan Tun Razak, Dewan Undangan Negeri Johor, Johor Bharu)

	Malacca – August 9 – 10 am

(Bilik Gerakan Tun Mutahir, Dewan Undangan Negeri Melaka, Melaka)

	Ipoh – August 15 – 10 am

(Bilik Gerakan Negeri, Dewan Undangan Negeri Perak, Ipoh)

	Alor Setar – August 16 – 10 am

(Bilik Gerakan Dewan Undangan Negeri Kedah, Alor Setar, Kedah)

The  announcement of these public hearings  is also available at the parliamentary website,
http://www.parlimen.gov.my/,
 inviting organizations, associations and individuals to the public hearings to  give their views and proposals on integrity, in particular the National Integrity Plan.

This is an opportunity for Malaysians to express their views on the betterment of the nation on grave issues of integrity, corruption, abuses of power and lack of good governance, particularly on the occasion of the 50th Merdeka anniversary, which should not be missed.  Organisations and individuals from Negri Sembilan who wish to appear before the Select Committee should make it to the JB or Malacca public hearing as it is unlikely that there would be a separate public hearing date for the state.

The  National Integrity Plan (NIP) was  launched by  the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi in May 2004 to implement “in a systematic and planned manner involving the co-operation of all sectors and institutions in the country”.

It sets five-year objectives to be a “catalyst for enhancing integrity among leaders, administrators, businessmen, politicians, youths, students, women, people of different faiths, members of NGOs and others”.

The first five-year target of NIP, Target 2008, for the first five years (2004-2008) is reaching its end, providing an opportune occasion for a review of its success and failures to date.

The first and most important of the five “targets” of Target 2008 is to “effectively reduce corruption, malpractices and abuse of power” with the specific objective — to improve  Malaysia’s ranking in the Transparency International (TI) Corruption Perception Index (CPI) from 37th place in 2003 to at least 30th position in 2008, and the score of 5.2 for Malaysia in 2003 to at least 6.5 by 2008.  (10 being the best and 1.0 the worst).

We have been heading in the opposite direction in the past three years, falling to 39th placing in 2004 and 2005 and plunging to 44th placing in 2006, with all signs of further drop this year.  Malaysia’s TI CPI score for the past three years were also dismal, being 5.0,  5.1 and  5.0 for 2004, 2005 and 2006 respectively — a far cry from the target  score of 6.5 for 2008.

The message is clear — the NIP had been an abysmal  failure.

The other four  targets of NIP  are:

2. Improve efficiency in the public service delivery system and overcome bureaucratic red tape.

3. Enhance corporate governance and business ethics.

4. Strengthen the family institution.

5.. Improve the quality of life and people’s well being.

Target 5 is particularly pertinent at  the present  time which is witnessing the  escalation of the crime wave where Malaysians have lost their fundamental rights to be free from crime and the fear of crime.

The NIP stated that achievement of Target 5 will be measured among other things “Reduction in the incidence of crimes in the society, especially serious crimes, crimes against property and sexual crimes. Such reduction is a measure of safety in the community.”

When Abdullah  became Prime Minister about four years ago, he promised to make the war on crime one of his administration’s top agendas.

As a result, he established the Royal Police Commission to make recommendations to create a world-class police force which can keep crime low.

In its report, the Royal Police Commission expressed shock that there had been a 29 per cent increase of crime in the eight years from121,176 cases in 1997 to 156,455 cases in 2004, and sounded the warning that unless this trend was checked and reversed, there would be “major social and economic consequences for Malaysia”.

It recommended a major police crackdown on crime and the “immediate target of a minimum of 20 per cent decrease” in the incidence of crime within the first 12 months.

Instead of a 20 per cent reduction of crime in the first 12 months after the Royal Police Commission Report, there had been a 27 per cent increase in the crime index from 156,455 cases in 2004 to 198,622 cases in 2006 — when it took eight years for the crime index to increase 29 per cent from 1997 to 2004 which the Royal Police Commission had found completely unacceptable.

In the first six months of this year, the crime index worsened by 5.11 per cent when compared to the same period last year. Just to illustrate the gravity of the worsening crime problem, there were 8.2 cases of rape a day in the first six months of this year as compared to 4 cases a day in 2003!

This is clear proof that the crime situation had got very much worse after the Royal Police Commission Report, although the reverse should have taken place — as the government had given up to 42% increase in salaries for police personnel, RM2.5 billion for police housing, as well as hundreds of millions of ringgit of other allocations for improvements in police service as recommended by the Royal Police Commission Report.

                This entry was posted on Monday, 6 August 2007, 11:38 am and is filed under
Corruption
,
Parliament
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Merdeka statement – Cabinet should deplore the Zainuddin-led attack

With two Muslim groups joining the Information Minister, Datuk Zainuddin Maidin in his attack on the
Merdeka Statement
initiated by the Asian Strategy and Leadership Institute (Asli)’s  Centre for Public Policy Studies (CPPS), which had the endorsement of 42  supporting organizations,  the Merdeka Statement has proven to be more than right  when it said “recently the state of unity has been fraying at the edges”.

The Merdeka Statement said:

“Ethnic, linguistic and religious divides have deepened, causing genuine pain and hurt to many in our nation. Such a fragile state of unity should not have happened after 50 years of nation building”.

The accusation of the two Muslim groups, Allied Co-ordinating Committee of Islamic NGOs (Accin) and Muslim Youth Movement (Pembela), which have opened their fire at those behind the Merdeka Statement for having a hidden agenda to renegotiate the social contract is most shocking, as it is clear that this was never the intention of the Merdeka Statement.

Such an accusation is most surprising coming at a time when the country is witnessing a blatant rewriting of the Merdeka social contract and Malaysia Agreement, totally in an arbitrary, undemocratic and unconstitutional manner, with regard to the fundamental nation-building principle of Malaysia as a secular state with Islam as the official religion and not an Islamic state.

The Merdeka Statement is a commendable roadmap to achieve a more united, competitive, innovative and prosperous Malaysia, which celebrates the nation’s diversity and avoids past  pitfalls and mistakes.

If such a sincere, genuine and patriotic effort to help chart future nation-building directions could be the subject of a Minister-led attack for being “anti-national”, it raises grave questions as to whether any purpose is served in having grand and costly “sight-and-sound” celebrations of the 50th Merdeka anniversary without addressing the issue why Malaysians seem even more divided than ever  before in the nation’s half-a-century history.

The solution is not to impose further clampdown on public debate on the future direction of the nation but to have  trust and confidence in the maturity,  good sense and patriotism  of Malaysians after 50 years of nationhood to have open, rational and responsible discussion of the best nation-building policies for  the country.

For a start, the Cabinet  tomorrow must deplore Zainuddin’s attack on the Merdeka Statement.

Let the Cabinet boldly return  to the pledge of Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi who had promised when he became Prime Minister four years ago to lead an administration which is clean, incorruptible, efficient, accountable, trustworthy, democratic, people-oriented and prepared to hear the truth from the people, however pleasant,  by removing all the undemocratic curbs and restraints on the mainstream media to encourage full, free and responsible public debate on policies and issues which affect Malaysians and future generations.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 7 August 2007, 3:41 pm and is filed under
nation building
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


PM should invite Raja Nazrin as personal adviser

by Dr. Chen Man Hin

Raja Nazrin’s deep and superb insight and analysis of the country’s political situation makes him eligible to be personal adviser to Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi

This was demonstrated by his
keynote address
 to students at the first Malaysian Student Leaders Summit 2007 on Sunday.

He deplored the lack of national unity and  commented that “..yet, 50 years after Merdeka, we are still grappling with concerns about unity.”

This is happening because of the strains on unity by introducing a bumiputra policy in 1966, the NEP in 1970 and Islamic state during Dr Mahathir’s premiership.

To make matters worse, at the UMNO general assembly  last year, the ultras rejected the concept of ‘bangsa malaysa’ and proposed the implementation of a  ‘Malay agenda’ where Malays are conferred
‘ketuanan melayu’
 status, while the rest are plain or ordinary Malaysians.

Then last month, the deputy prime minister heightened the unease amongst the people when he unilaterally announced that Malaysia was Islamic and not secular, claiming that the constitution did not state Malaysia was secular. This claim was contrary to the declaration by former prime ministers, Tunku Abdul Rahman, Tun Razak and Tun Hussein Onn that the Malaysian constitution  was secular.

Raja Nazrin called on the students (and the people) to get a copy of the Constitution. He said “the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. It guarantees the rights of every Malaysian. The integrity of that document must be protected at all cost.”

This is the constitution which is the basis of the “Social Contract” agreed on by our forefathers. The contract knows only citizens as Malaysians and not bumiputras and non-bumiputras.

There is no mention of  an NEP except for an affirmative action clause in article 152 conferring special rights for indigenous ethnic communities without at the same time overriding the rights of other races.

The country needs to re-invent itself to return to a state of equilbrium where there is national unity, political equality, economic justice and religious freedom

Let us start with the advice by Raja Nazrin to respect and adhere to the Constitution.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 7 August 2007, 8:15 am and is filed under
Constitution
,
nation building
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Secular/Islamic state contention just word-play or argument over labels?

As I said  at the DAP public forum
“An Islamic State after 50 years?”
 at the KL/Selangor Chinese Assembly Hall on  25th July 2007, there are  diverse non-Muslim responses to the “717 Declaration” by the Deputy Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak  on July 17, 2007 that Malaysia is an Islamic state and not and had never been a secular state.

One is to deride the claim that Malaysia is an Islamic state, asking how anyone could entertain the notion that Malaysia is an Islamic state when gambling and alcohol are allowed in the country.

Another is to ask how Malaysia could be an Islamic state when there is no full implementation of the hudud and syariah laws.

I also quoted an Islamic scholar Asghar Ali Engineer as representing another school questioning  the validity of the “Islamic state” claim, arguing that an Islamic state should have the following characteristics: (1) it should be absolutely non-discriminatory on the basis of race, colour, language and nationality; (2) it should guarantee gender equality; (3) it should guarantee equal rights to all religious groups and accept plurality of religion as legitimate; and (4) lastly it should be democratic in nature whose basic premise will be human dignity. Asghar Ali Engineer concluded his contention: “Only those states which fulfill these criteria can be construed to be Islamic in nature. Thus an Islamic state is the very epitome of modern democratic pluralistic state.  (
The Concept of Islamic State — Asghar Ali Engineer
)

There is certain validity in these three and other arguments challenging the claim that Malaysia is an Islamic state, but they failed to capture the whole dynamics and implications  of the Islamic state contention.

On the part of Muslims in Malaysia, there are also those who reject the claim of top Umno leaders that Malaysia is an Islamic state.

But there are also  those like ABIM  who defended the Islamic state claim, declaring that Malaysia has been an Islamic state in practice ever since Independence.

Dr. Chandra Muzaffar argues Malaysia is not a secular state within the conventional use of the term and neither is it an Islamic state in the classical sense.  He said it is unwise to insist that Malaysia is a secular state or an Islamic state which will only widen the chasm between the communities and exacerbate ethnic tensions.

Are the contentions between “Secular state” and  “Islamic State” just word-play and  a problem with labels?

There is very pertinent article in the J
ournal of Southeast Asian Studies
, 37(2), pp 249-266 June 2006 by Joseph M. Fernando from the Department of History, University of Malaya who delved into recently-available primary constitutional documents between 1956 and 1957 to trace the origin of Article 3(1) of the Federal Constitution and to determine the intentions of the framers in inserting this provision in the constitution.

These primary constitutional documents include the minutes of the Working Party which reviewed the Reid Constitutional Commission report; the documents relating to the Constitutional talks in London in May 1957; the Constitutional papers of the Alliance Party; and Colonial Office documents relating to the Constitution-making process.

These are some of the excerpts from Joseph Fernando’s article:

“The Reid Constitutional Commission, which drafted the 1957 Malayan Federal Constitution between June 1956 and February 1957, did not provide for an article declaring Islam the religion of the Federation despite the Alliance Party’s request in its memorandum to the Commission that this be done.  This was largely because the Commissioners felt that such a provision would contradict the secular nature of the state.  Further, they took note of the strong objections of the Malay Rulers to the inclusion of such a provision. The Alliance memorandum urging the Commission to provide for Islam as the religion of the Federation had stated unequivocally that such a provision would not impose any disability on non-Muslims and did not imply that the state was not secular.” —
(p. 253)

“While officially the Reid Commission cited the submissions of the Rulers in omitting a provision making Islam the religion of the state, in private the Commission expressed concern over the contradiction between the Alliance’s declaration that Malaya would be a secular state and its proposal for Islam to be the official religion of the Federation.”
(p. 254)

“When the Working Party, comprising the Alliance and Rulers’ representatives and the High Commissioner, met for the first time on 22 February 1957 to review the Reid Commission’s draft, the Alliance and UMNO chief Tunku Abdul Rahman requested that an article declaring Islam the religion of the Federation be included in the new Constitution, as had been proposed in the Alliance memorandum. The Tunku assured the committee that the state would be secular…  In the Working Party, UMNO leaders had argued that the provision for an official religion would have an important psychological impact on Malays… The MCA and MIC representatives in the Working Party did not raise any objection to the insertion of the new article, despite concerns expressed by many non-Muslim organizations, as they were assured by their UMNO colleagues that it was intended to have symbolic significance rather than practical effect, and that the civil and political rights of the non-Muslims would not be impaired.”
(p.257-258)

“The possibility of Article 2A (later renumbered Article 3) on state religion being misinterpreted was also raised (in the 19th Working Party Meeting on 17th April 1957)… On the possibility of the provision on religion being misinterpreted, the Tunku assured the Working Party that ‘the whole Constitution was framed on the basis that the Federation would be a secular state’.  The minutes of the 19th Meeting are perhaps the clearest indication of the real intentions of the Allinace leaders. The Tunku, in this instance, states unequivocally that the whole Constitution was framed on the basis that the Federation would be a secular state.”
(p. 259-260).

“At the London Constitutional talks in May 1957, the Colonial Office, while apprehensive at first of Article 3 providing for an official religion, did not object after being assured by the Alliance leaders that they ‘had no intention of creating a Muslim theocracy and that Malaya would be a secular state’.”
(p. 260)

“In Malaya, the Alliance government tabled a White Paper in Parliament in July 1957 to explain the changes made to the Reid Commission’s draft Constitution by the Working Party in Kuala Lumpur in March and the tripartite body at the constitutional talks in London in May. The White Paper (Legislative Council Paper No. 42 of 1957) explained that while a new provision, Article 3, declaring Islam the religion of the Federation was now included in the Constitution, this would not affect the position of the Federation as a secular state, or the powers and privileges of the Malay Rulers as Heads of Religion in their respective states.”
(p. 262)

“In the ensuing debate in the Malaysian Parliament on 10 July 1957… .The Tunku did not attempt to go beyond the White Paper to explain the meaning of this provision. But his colleague (later Tun) Tan Siew Sin’s remarks on the provision while speaking in the House in support of the Constitutional bill, reinforces the intention of the Alliance leaders in inserting Article 3 in the Constitution. Tan told the  Federal legislature that although it had been provided that Islam would be the official religion, it had also been expressly laid down that ‘this does not in any way derogate from the principle, which has always been accepted, that Malaya will be a secular state and that there will be complete freedom to practice any other religion. Tan’s remarks indicate clearly the consensus reached by the Alliance parties.’
(p.263)
.

In his conclusion on the “intentions of the framers of the Constitution”,  Joseph Fernando wrote:

“The passage of time has blurred the real intentions of the Malaysian framers of the Constitution and some recent scholarly works and discussions have questioned the secular basis of the state.  An inadequate examination of the primary documents has largely contributed to these varied interpretations.  The problem is not limited to scholars alone.  Barely a year after independence, the Prime Minister Tunku Abdul Rahman had to clarify the meaning of this provision during a debate in the Legislative Council. Said the Tunku: ‘I would like to make it clear that this country is not an Islamic State as it is generally understood, we merely provide that Islam shall be the official religion of the State.’ The historical evidence presented in this article, based on primary documents, clearly affirms the secular basis of the state.”

I have no doubt that the first three Prime Ministers, Tunku Abdul Rahman, Tun Razak and Tun Hussein would have had no hesitation in any period of their lives  to reaffirm that Malaysia is a secular state with Islam as the official religion and not an Islamic state.

On the nation’s 50th Merdeka anniversary, are there any leaders in the ruling coalition who is prepared to reaffirm the Merdeka social contract and Malaysia Agreement that Malaysia is a secular state with Islam as the official religion but not an Islamic state?

It is clear from Joseph Fernando’s research and article, the contention over the terms “secular state” and “Islamic state” are not just word play or a problem of labeling, but are very grave issues with the most far-reaching implications for the nation and the citizenry as the abandonment of the  50-year-old secular basis of nation-building represents a tectonic shift in jettisoning the  core and  essence of nation-building agreed by the forefathers of the major communities on the attainment of Independence and establishment of Malaysia which could only undermine Malaysia’s pluralist diversity and global competitiveness.

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 9 August 2007, 2:26 am and is filed under
Constitution
,
Politics
,
Religion
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Merdeka social contract/Malaysia Agreement principle of secular Malaysia “driven underground”?

This Parliamentary Roundtable on the occasion of the nation’s 50th Merdeka anniversary is to reaffirm the Merdeka social contract and Malaysia Agreement that Malaysia is a secular state with Islam as official religion and not Islamic state.

One of the causes of gloom for many Malaysians on the occasion of the 50th Merdeka anniversary comes from the question whether Malaysia has lost one of its fundamental nation-building underpinnings agreed by the forefathers of the major communities in the Merdeka social contract and Malaysia Agreement half-a-century ago that ours is a secular state with Islam as the official religion and not an Islamic state?

I have no doubt that the first three Prime Ministers, Bapa Malaysia Tunku Abdul Rahman, Tun Razak and Tun Hussein would have had no hesitation in any period of their lives  to reaffirm that Malaysia is a secular state with Islam as the official religion and not an Islamic state.

It is a sad reflection of 50 years of Malaysian nation-building that this cannot be said for the present generation of government leaders.

The Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi said last  Saturday that Malaysia was  not a secular or  theocratic state but one which was based on parliamentary democracy.

What Abdullah did not say is as important as what he said. Although he  deliberately omitted reference to the Islamic state, the “929 Declaration” of the then Prime Minister, Dr. Mahathir Mohamad  on Sept. 29, 2001 that Malaysia was an Islamic state and the “717 Declaration” of Deputy Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak on July 17, 2007 that Malaysia was an Islamic state was  not and had never been a secular state remain unchallenged.

Tun Dr. Mahathir said in Langkawi on Tuesday that
Malaysia is an Islamic state even though it is not officially called that
.

He said: “Officially we are not an Islamic state, neither are we a secular state. But by definition, as recognized by most international societies, Malaysia is an Islamic state.”

For 44 years until the Mahathir’s “929 declaration” in 2001, the position of the UMNO and Barisan Nasional leaders were  clear and unequivocal –   that Malaysia was conceived as  a secular state with Islam as the official religion and that It was  not an Islamic state — backed up by constitutional documents and history as well as the highest judicial pronouncements of the land.

On the 50th Merdeka anniversary, the position has varied to: Malaysia is not a secular state. It is an Islamic state. It is not a theocratic state.

The abandonment of the “Malaysia is a secular state and not an Islamic state” stand and its replacement by the  “Malaysia was  an Islamic state and was not and had never been a secular state” position involved a quantum jump and tectonic shift, going against the very grain of the Merdeka social contract and Malaysia Agreement which had been openly defended by the nation’s forefathers including the first  three Prime Ministers, Tunku Abdul Rahman, Tun Razak and Tun Hussein.

Once it is accepted that Malaysia is an Islamic state, then the call to transform  Malaysia into a theocratic state would involve smaller and much easier jump as compared to the quantum leap from Malaysia as a secular to an Islamic state.

If Malaysia as a secular state with Islam as the official religion which was totally unchallenged and undisputed for the first 44 years of Malaysian nationhood could be so summarily, undemocratically and unconstitutionally jettisoned, what is there to stop a series of small leaps for those who want to see Malaysia’s “Islamic state” increasingly  assume the full Islamist characteristics on the road towards a theocratic state?

It will not require another 50 years for such a series of smaller and easier jumps to take Malaysia down the road towards a theocratic state  unless the present generation of  moderate Malaysians, both Muslims and non-Muslims, are prepared to heed  the recent advice of the Raja Muda of Perak,  Raja Dr. Nazrain Shah in quoting a leading jurist: “We have to stand up and be counted. We have to protect the things that make our nations great…”

The  ban on media reporting of public debate to reaffirm the  secular  basis of Malaysian nation-building and to  debunk the arbitrary and unconstitutional attempt to rewrite the Merdeka social contract and Malaysia Agreement on the secular basis of Malaysian nation-building must be viewed with alarm.

The time has come for a  nation-wide campaign to reaffirm Merdeka social contract and Malaysia Agreement that Malaysia is a secular state with Islam as official religion and not Islamic state before this fundamental principle of nation-building is branded “sensitive” and driven underground unfit for public discussion.

(Speech at the Parliamentary Roundtable on 50th Merdeka anniversary to reaffirm Merdeka social contract and Malaysia Agreement that Malaysia is a secular state with Islam as religion of Federation  and not an Islamic state held in Parliament on Friday, 10th August 2007 at 10 am)

                This entry was posted on Friday, 10 August 2007, 9:26 pm and is filed under
Constitution
,
nation building
,
Religion
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Parliamentary Roundtable reaffirms Malaysia a secular state and not Islamic state

Statement unanimously adopted by Parliamentary Roundtable (10th August 2007) to reaffirm Merdeka social contract and Malaysia Agreement on the occasion of 50th Merdeka anniversary  that Malaysia is a secular state with Islam as the  religion of the Federation  and not an Islamic state

When Malaya achieved independence in 1957 and Malaysia was formed six years later in 1963, a national social compact was reached that the nation shall be a secular state with Islam as the religion of the Federation and not an Islamic State.

The Merdeka social contract and Malaysia Agreement that Malaysia is a secular state with Islam as the religion of the Federation and not an Islamic state was given expression in the Federal Constitution, articulated by the founding fathers of the nation including the first three Prime Ministers, Tunku Abdul Rahman, Tun Razak and Tun Hussein and given full recognition by the highest court in the land.

For over four decades, there was national consensus of the secular character of Malaysian nation-building which was  only disrupted in the past six years, raising questions about the national commitment to protect and sustain this fundamental cornerstone of Malaysian nation-building.

The  Parliamentary Roundtable on August 10 2007 resolves  to reaffirm  the Merdeka social contract and the Malaysia Agreement that the nation was conceived and shall remain  a secular state with Islam as the religion of the Federation and not an Islamic state.

This is to send out a clear and unequivocal message on the occasion of the 50th Merdeka anniversary of the nation in 2007 that  the Merdeka social contract and the Malaysia Agreement that Malaysia is a secular state with Islam as the religion of the Federation and not an Islamic state must continue to be the bedrock of the  Malaysian nation-building process.

We urge Malaysians regardless of race, religion, political affiliation or territory to come forward in  a national campaign to reaffirm this fundamental nation-building principle as agreed in the  Merdeka social contract and Malaysia Agreement.

The panel of speakers at the  Parliamentary Roundtable includes:

Malek Imtiaz Sawar (HAKAM)

Karpal Singh (Chairman, DAP)

Farish Noor (academician)

Honey Tan (AWAM)

Lim Guan Eng (Secretary-General DAP)

Harcharan Singh (MCCBCHST)

Dr. Nasir Hashim, Protem Chairman, PSM

Andrew Khoo (Bar Council)

                This entry was posted on Friday, 10 August 2007, 1:49 pm and is filed under
Constitution
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.