Singapore redefines braggadocio

By
Tunku Aziz

MySinchew.com

2010-12-18

FOUR years ago, on 18 October 2006, I wrote an opinion piece from my 30th floor office in the UN Secretariat, New York, for the New Sunday Times. The title, Singapore is simply a neighbour too far, I thought fairly described my assessment of the state of our relations with neighbouring Singapore. It upset a great many Singaporeans; it also made many realise that “what’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.”

A Singaporean behaves too much like an insecure lover, forever seeking assurance that she is the fairest of them all and that she is much admired and loved. The insatiable craving for praise and adoration would, in normal circumstances, point to a serious flaw in the national character. This much I remember from the Child Psychology lectures I attended in college all those long years ago. How else can you explain their supercilious behaviour towards us, the Japanese and Indians, all falling into the category of “stupid?”

Singapore is not an unknown quantity to us in Malaysia. In a sense it is of us, but not part of us. Forget the so-called historical ties that are supposed to underpin our relations because they amount to nothing in practice.

To view them through rose-tinted spectacles as is our wont would distort even further a relationship that has never been known for its convergence of views on even the most pedestrian of issues. Rather, it has always had all the makings and attributes of a potentially protracted and acrimonious future.

Singapore has no time for sentiments; emotion is anathema to its national make-up. So, do not use that tack because it simply will not wash with it. Singapore is brutally clinical and rarely takes prisoners in any engagement with it.

Being small is not always easy, especially when you are trying to flex your muscles and punch above your weight. To be constantly reminded that you are nothing more than a little red dot on the face of the earth as President B.J. Habibi of Indonesia once did, somewhat insensitively, must touch some raw nerves, especially for a country that can justifiably claim a string of successes on so many fronts.

Now, even the Minister Mentor has doubts if his creation is really a country. For a “country” that has yet to establish an identity, Singapore is overbearingly obnoxious.

In our dealings with Singapore, we must never take it at face value. Let us disabuse ourselves quickly of the notion that sentiments and goodwill will cut any ice with it. We have to adopt an equally cold, clinical and legalistic approach, as it always does.

Think how often we have ended up drawing the proverbial short straw in our negotiations with Singapore? The most celebrated was undoubtedly the MSA (Malaysia-Singapore Airline) divorce from which we came away with barely the shirt on the back. Singapore has always made it clear that it has no time for the sort of sentimental nonsense we wallow in, and operates simply on the basis of exacting maximum advantage, the pound of flesh, it can wangle out of any deal, no matter what.

Based on past experience with it, and in order to avoid unnecessary unpleasantness, such as being accused of bullying a small neighbour and of other unfair and malevolent behaviour, we should, as far as possible, leave Singapore to revel alone in its glorious splendour. In short, it is a neighbour too far, with apologies to A Bridge Too Far.

It has become apparent that it is simply not worth the effort to cultivate this uncultivable bad mouthing neighbour of ours. You cannot ever be right with it because it is never wrong. Winning some and losing some is not a thing that sits well with it. Winners take all, much like Mahathir, is a strategy that appears to be well entrenched and suited to its national psyche.

Our relations with a neighbour such as Singapore, with its propensity for, and unseemly preoccupation with, scoring a debating point or two at every turn, must be circumscribed by the most formal and correct behaviour on our part.

While it is clear that we cannot avoid Singapore altogether as it is a neighbour after all, we should lead separate lives, taking nothing from it that is not ours, and, in turn, give it nothing such as the KTM land that is not its due.

With a neighbour that has developed bad mouthing into a fine art form, its Foreign Minister has the temerity to tell us not to take their condemnation of all things Malaysian out of context. Pray, what exactly is the context, Mr Yeoh?

Now that Najib the peddler of durian diplomacy knows what his admirers across the narrow sluggish waterway really think of him, a view no doubt shared by many in his own backyard, I wonder what other great plans he has in mind to develop with Singapore. They have even implied that he is connected with a deed most foul. And what is more, he is dim witted in their estimation. I do not necessarily disagree with them on this score. Who says there is no freedom of speech in Singapore?

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 18 December 2010, 5:18 pm and is filed under
Articles
,
Tunku Abdul Aziz
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


The debate on pluralism

By
Thomas Lee

MySinchew.com

2010-12-17

Over the last few days, a controversy has been brewing over a statement by the Institute of Islamic Understanding (Ikim) that Islam considers that not all religions are equal, and that the concept of pluralism is antithetical to Islam.

The Umno-owned and controlled Utusan Malaysia daily has gone to town with stories suggesting that religious pluralism is a threat to Islam, and that Pakatan Rakyat supremo and opposition leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim is pushing for other religions to be put on an equal footing with Islam.

According to the newspaper, those who question the position of Islam and the Malays are practitioners of religious pluralism, in what appears to be a claim that Anwar’s rejection of Umno’s “ketuanan Melayu” concept is unIslamic, or even anti-Islam.

I think we should not just jump at Ikim and unilaterally condemn its view about the exclusivity of Islam without some serious objective evaluation and understanding of the teaching of the religion.

From the strictly theological perspective, Ikim is right. Islam, like Christianity, is certainly an exclusive religious faith, claiming in the Shahada (Declaration of Faith) that “There is no god, but Allah” (La ilah illa Ilah) and Muhammad is Allah’s messenger (Wa Muhammad rasul u’llah). The Ikim position is consistently with the fundamental theology of Islam.

Like Christianity, Islam also claims exclusivity to its beliefs and teachings. A Muslim’s faith is firmly based on the belief that the source of his religion Islam is God and Muhammad is the only and last and final prophet and spokesman for God on the Earth. A true Muslim holds that Islam is not just one of the many religions, but THE religion per se, the only true religion of God, the religion of the created natural order (din-al-fitrah).

The religion is called Islam because Allah had decreed it in the Quran: “Lo the religion with God is Al Islam to His will and guidance” (3:19) and “I have chosen for you as religion Al Islam” (5:3). Islam, an Arab word, means submission, total surrender and obedience, and that is the practical implications for Muslims. There are several greetings based on the word Islam, such as “Peace be upon you” (salamalek) and “Go in peace” (bissalma, masalma). Thus, the teaching of Islam is about a life of faith and peace through submission to the one and only true God Allah. The word “Muslim” means a person who has totally surrendered his whole life to Allah. The Islamic faith is not just purely an organized ritualistic religion, but a complete way of life, covering every area of life and thoughts, including politics.

Hence, the Ikim claim to exclusivity for Islam is not without theological merit.

As a Christian, I can understand the Ikim position, since my faith is also an exclusive one. No Christian will dispute or challenge my contention that Christianity also claims exclusivity to be the only way of salvation for mankind, and that the Lord Jesus Christ is “the way, the truth, and the life” and “No one comes to the Father (God) except through me (Jesus)”. (John 14:6), and that “Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12).

The issue before us, therefore, is not the question of theological belief per se, but how to relate an exclusive faith to other religions in a multi-racial, multi-religious, multi-cultural, and multi-lingual society like Malaysia.

The word “pluralism” has been used unilaterally by almost everyone – religious leaders, politicians, journalists – without fully understanding what the concept actually means and implies.

The Oxford Dictionary defines “pluralism” as “a condition or system in which two or more states, groups, principles, etc co-exist”.

The keyword, I believe, is “co-exist”. The context in which pluralism exists and practiced is the widely diverse and varied range of religious faiths in a given society, such as Malaysia which has Islam as its official religion and other faiths being part of the scenario.

The fundamental issue we face in a plural society like Malaysia is the matter of peaceful and harmonious co-existence among the people of various races and religious beliefs.

Although I believe that Ikim is theologically consistent with the teaching of Islam, its statement that “Islam rejects religious pluralism that claims all religions to be equally good and truthful” is certainly not politically correct in the context of the Malaysian plural society.

I believe Ikim should look at the issue of pluralism from two broad perspectives, before making a sweeping dismissal of pluralism per se.

First, there is the pluralistic perspective that all religions are equal and “all roads lead to God”. Obviously, Islam, and, for that matter Christianity, will never endorse such a view.

Islam and Christianity both teach and propagate that their respective faith is the only true religion, with all other religious systems and faiths being considered “pagan”. Hence, it is simply impossible for a true Muslim or an honest Christian to agree to inter-faith “spiritual activities”. For a Muslim or Christian to participate, for example, in an inter-faith “worship” is to acknowledge that his faith is just one among many others, to place his God on equal standing with the deities of other religious faiths.

This is what justifies the Ikim position in relationship to other faiths. And I will say that the Ikim concern is valid and theologically consistent with the Islamic teaching. As a Christian, I take a similar stand that I cannot participate in an inter-religious worship service or other inter-faith spirituality activities, without dishonouring and betraying my Lord Jesus.

But, there is another perspective of pluralism which does not involve the matter of spiritual compromise, and that is the common universal moral values among all peoples of the world. And it is this common earthly destiny of all peoples that Ikim should consider the vital role of Muslims to help promote peace and harmony among the people, who are the vice-regents of Allah (khalifa Allah) on Earth.

As I said before, as a Christian, I will not participate in an inter-faith worship service which will place my Lord Jesus as being among one of the gods, on equal standing with them. If I do, it will mean I am not consistent with my faith in the Lord Jesus as the only way, the truth, and the life. Such a compromise in matters of spirituality is surely not correct and honest.

My Muslim friends, too, are correct in taking a similar stand, or else their Shahada becomes a vain recitation, rendering their faith to be meaningless. Hence, Ikim is theologically correct in its stand.

However, in the matters of morality, justice, righteousness, equality, freedom, human, civil and constitutional rights, I will endorse and support any inter-faith “dialogue” and joint stand and actions. This is the other perspective of pluralism that I believe Ikim should seriously study and evaluate, before dismissing the whole concept of pluralism per se.

Although the people of Malaysia are adherents of various faiths and religious systems, they are united for the common purpose of nation-building, and are jointly dealing with many fundamental issues relating to their role as citizens. Hence, the need to come together to talk and compromise.

There is an urgent need for inter-faith dialogues on matters such as the freedom to worship, teach and propagate each other’s religion, the matter of land for places of worship and burial, the right to use the national language Bahasa Malaysia without restriction in worship and religious education, the legal disputes over the conversion of individuals, particularly children, and the vital matter of co-existence.

Ikim, and all responsible Muslim leaders should be willing to participate in such inter-faith dialogues as the common-interest issues need not involve doctrinal compromise or theological dispute.

I hope all parties concerned with the dispute over pluralism will understand and accept that the fundamental matter is the peaceful and harmonious co-existence of all persons or all faiths, with each practicing his faith with full sensitivity and due respect to people of other faiths. What we want is not a theological war, but a channel for inter-faith dialogues and a medium for communication on issues of universal common interests.

May God bless our beloved nation real good!

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 18 December 2010, 5:45 pm and is filed under
Islam
,
Religion
,
Thomas Lee
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Pakatan pledges ‘100 day’ reforms for Putrajaya win

By
 Shazwan Mustafa Kamal

The Malaysian Insider

December 19, 2010

KEPALA BATAS, Dec 19 — Pakatan Rakyat (PR) finally revealed a detailed policy framework today, emphasising quick economic and political reforms should the coalition win federal power.

Titled the “Pakatan agenda”, the policy framework is seen as PR’s answer and solution to questions surrounding the opposition’s administrative plans in comparison to Barisan Nasional (BN).

Speculation is rife that a general election will be held as early as next March although BN’s mandate does not expire until May 2013.

“Pakatan Rakyat will initiate reform plans throughout the country in all fields following the original principles underlined in the common policy framework,” an excerpt from the 56-page orange-bound booklet read.

According to the booklet, PR promised instant reforms within the first 100 days of them taking over Putrajaya.

Among the reforms are:

1. A restructure of institutions including the Elections Commission (EC), the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC), the Attorney-General’s Chambers and the Royal Malaysian Police. During a debate on the policy framework, DAP’s Anthony Loke said PR bring the MACC under the purview of Parliament.

2. A repeal of the Internal Security Act (ISA)

3. Instruct Khazanah Berhad, Employees’ Provident Fund (EPF) and other government bodies to take over highway assets from the concessionaires in order to abolish the toll system.

4. A restructure of the country’s subsidies, to lessen subsidies given to the private sector (such as the RM19 billion in gas subsidies given to independent power producers) and transferring these to subsidies for the man on the street.

5. Acknowledging the role and sacrifices of civil servants by studying the current pay schemes and increasing the incentives for teachers by RM500 a month

6. Transferring private water concessions to the government

7. Offering free wireless Internet access to those in urban and semi-urban areas

8. Cancelling Felda Plantations and opening up its farms to second- and third generation Felda settlers.

9. Increasing oil royalty payments to Sabah, Sarawak, Terengganu and Kelantan to 20 per cent from 5 per cent currently.

10. Formation of a Royal Commission to solve the problem of illegal immigrants and citizenship issues in Sabah and Sarawak.

“This is what we can promise you immediately, within 100 days, if you vote us in. We can deliver results, which BN has never done,” said Loke earlier today.

PR’s CPF last year touched on issues of federalism, separation of powers, along with fair and free elections, but was heavily panned for lacking details in its implementation details.

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 19 December 2010, 9:58 pm and is filed under
Election
,
Pakatan Rakyat
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


1Choice for Malaysia

Malaysiakini

Mariam Mokhtar

Dec 20, 10

Malaysia’s upcoming general election offers the country its most significant choice for several decades.

The political tsunami of 2008 was an eye-opener. At the second Pakatan Rakyat convention in Kepala Batas, PAS president Abdul Hadi Awang acknowledged the weaknesses in the opposition pact and urged party member to unite and remain focused.

The nation faces enormous challenges in the years to come. The economic demands are tremendous. The next government needs to stabilise the economy and stimulate growth in the private sector. It has to deal with its burgeoning debt, cut subsidies and rein in borrowings if it does not want to risk bankruptcy.

Our problems are not just economic. We are faced with a rising tide of extremism from Malay groups, borders which are porous, a rise in Islamic fundamentalism, a rise in racist incidents, problems in our schools and hospitals, the destruction of the police and judiciary, babies being abandoned, high levels of corruption and a weakening of civic society.

These problems demand a robust solution and a strong government to tackle them. The burning question is: Which party is best suited to lead us out of this quagmire?

PKR recently held elections, whilst BN and the other component parties have deferred theirs. DAP and Gerakan have followed suit. This is indicative of the pressures these political parties face. All want to mount a strong challenge when the country goes to the polls.

The parties have resolved to capture the imagination of the voters and the differences between them are obvious. BN believes that only it can solve the country’s economic and social ills. Its slogan 1Malaysia remains just that – a slogan because in practice, certain races are held back by an invisible wall – the ketuanan Melayu (Malay supremacy) concept.

In contrast, the Pakatan coalition believes that it can do a better job. It realises that the public mindset is changing. Race-based politics is a thing of the past. It is convinced that Malaysia is an increasing enlightened nation which believes in justice, the recognition of the rights of everyone regardless of race and that each Malaysian desires to be a part of the nation and be able to contribute towards its future.

The future of Malaysia, according to the BN administration, is to capitalise on mega-projects to boost the economy, just as during the Mahathir era.

In his Budget 2011 debate, Opposition Leader Anwar Ibrahim said the BN’s obsession with “grandeur” will presage its fall.

He said: “This rush for symbolic mega-projects, supposedly to portray pride for the country, is being repeated now under the present prime minister. Here I would like to question the wisdom of Permodalan Nasional Bhd’s order from the government to involve itself in mega projects.”

One of these is the 100-storey Warisan Merdeka skyscraper which is expected to cost over RM5 billion. When completed, it will be the tallest building in Malaysia.

Risky strategy

PM Najib Abdul Razak’s plans for mega-projects to stimulate the economy is risky as it fails to consider the country’s current economic standing and the need to lower the budget deficit and improve competitiveness.

Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Idris Jala has said that Malaysia’s debt would rise to 100 percent of GDP by 2019 from the current 54% if the government does not cut subsidies.

He said: “We do not want to be another Greece. We do not want to end up like Greece with a total debt of EUR300 billion. Our deficit rose to record high of RM47 billion last year.”

Malaysia’s foreign direct investment (FDI), he said, dropped 81 per cent from RM23.47 billion in 2008 to RM4.43 billion in 2009, in comparison with Thailand which recorded an FDI of RM19.01 billion and Indonesia with RM19.08 billion.

Pakatan has warned of an economic crisis due to crony capitalism and corruption; a social crisis due to narrow racial policies; and a political crisis due to democratic fatigue arising from the BN’s abuses of power.

Corrupt practices only bring benefits to cronies and hefty losses to the people. Malaysia’s failure to attract foreign investment shows a desperate need for change in the management of the economy. Both good governance and a need to improve its competitive edge are vital.

Pakatan has decided to uphold a joint policy and welfare programme to defend the people based on four basic principles:

•	A transparent and real democracy

•	A high and stable economic performance

•	Social justice and human development

•	A close relationship between state-federal and international policies

Armed with these principles, Pakatan is determined to make Malaysia a better place. The three parties may have their roots in different ideologies – PAS (Islamic credentials), DAP (social ideology) and PKR (liberal ideals).

Perhaps you would prefer to have a government which relies on the Internal Security Act to stifle criticism, one in which corruption goes unchecked and where the judiciary and police are mere stooges of the state.

In order to make the necessary changes to this country, Anwar and his coalition must have a clear mandate to govern.

The best choice for Malaysia is in your hands. Vote wisely! May all your wishes come true – Happy Christmas!

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

                This entry was posted on Monday, 20 December 2010, 3:18 pm and is filed under
Election
,
Pakatan Rakyat
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Chapter Six:   Malaysia:  Assets and Liabilities

by
Bakri Musa

(Malaysia in the Era of Globalization #45)

Our Plurality An Asset

Malaysians, especially the leaders, have always regarded their plural society as a liability.  If only the nation were racially and culturally homogenous, these leaders would lament, many of our problems would be gone.  Such wishful thinking!  I argue the contrary.  That is, Malaysia’s racial plurality, far from being a liability, is actually an asset.  And a significant one at that!

            Malaysian policies and strategies are constantly being looked at and analyzed in racial terms.  Often the implicit assumption is that what is good for Malays must necessarily be bad for non-Malays, and the reverse, what is good for non-Malays is bad for Malays.  This mentality is ingrained at all levels.  As noted earlier, Malaysia’s racial plurality is another legacy of the British colonial rule.

            The country’s multiracial society has indeed been a source of problems, both past and present.  In part this Malaysian dilemma results from socioeconomic divisions paralleling racial lines.  This is not a uniquely Malaysian problem.  With the massive migrations and arbitrary drawings of political boundaries in the last century, many countries have ethnically and culturally diverse populations.  Today’s headlines are filled with tragedies consequent to those diversities:  the ethnic cleansing in the Balkans; the genocide of Rwanda; the continuing sectarian strife in Northern Ireland; and ethnic hostilities in Sri Lanka.

            Malaysia too has had its share.  Fortunately its race relations have improved considerably but occasionally there are flare-ups that rudely remind everyone that race can still be an incendiary issue.  The most recent was the 2001 riot in Kampong Medan, a squalid suburb of Kuala Lumpur.

            The frightening aspect of that outbreak of hostility was that it was triggered by a trivial neighborly dispute over a wedding that was held on the same day as a funeral.  It just so happened that the principals were of different races.  Perhaps that should not surprise anyone.  However, it was disappointing to see the response of the authorities.  For a long while they completely denied what was apparent to all: that the whole affair was racial.  Belatedly the prime minister and his deputy admitted the obvious, but not until they had exhausted their credibility.

            Handled creatively, Malaysia’s plural society could be turned into a considerable asset.  Malaysians are exposed daily to all the great traditions of Asia.  Walk down any street in any town and you will see a mosque, Chinese temple, Hindu shrine, and even a church.  In any one city block one can savor Asia’s many culinary delights.  Roadside stalls peddle Malay sate, Chinese noodles, and Indian curry.  (And also lately, hot dog and hamburger stands!)  There is also a remarkable degree of racial integration in all spheres of social and economic life.  When seeking medical care, buying stocks, or hiring a taxi, one is likely to encounter Malaysians of different races.

            What is truly remarkable about this is, unlike the integration in America where each minority group tries hard to blend into the mainstream, Malaysians proudly maintain their own racial and cultural identity.  Unlike minorities elsewhere, the Chinese and Indians in Malaysia do not feel obligated or forced to assume a Malay identity or to change their names or manner of dressing.

            In America by contrast, within a generation the children of immigrants would lose their identification with their parent’s culture.  German-Americans would anglicize their names and prefer roast beef to sauerkraut.  My American-Chinese colleagues hardly celebrate Chinese New Year.  In Thailand and Indonesia, the Chinese have to assume local names.  Outward expressions of their cultural traditions are prohibited.  By comparison, Chinese New Year and Deepavali are nowhere more exuberantly celebrated than in Malaysia.  What is even more remarkable is that such ethnic displays do not evoke hostility among Malays.  On the contrary, Malaysians join in to celebrate each other’s festivities and enjoy the public holidays!

            Left to their own devices the various races in Malaysia would by the nature of human dynamics continue to forge closer.  It is only when their leaders start to “champion” for their rights that they begin to view each other in terms of “us” versus “them.”

            In this regard I am extremely concerned over recent tendencies among young Malaysians to segregate themselves racially.  This does not bode well for the future of Malaysia.  The authorities would do well to study the phenomenon and quickly ameliorate it.

            Malaysians are already steeped in the ways of multiculturalism.  Most are multilingual, especially non-Malays.  Many Malays unfortunately are still trapped by inappropriate nationalistic instincts and remain handicapped by their monolingual capabilities.

            Malaysians are thus better prepared for the global world, having learned to live in, and tolerate or even celebrate the different cultures and lifestyles.  When Malaysians travel abroad and encounter different customs and ways of doing things, they are not shocked or surprised.  They are already used to these differences back home.  In contrast Americans, used to the single cultural ways at home, react with horror when they see Vietnamese eating dog meat or Arab women segregating themselves.

            For Malays, the country’s racial and religious plurality presents yet another advantage.  The mere presence of a large number of non-Muslims is a check on the reach of the political ambitions of extremist Malay Muslim politicians.  If not for the buffering presence (and voting bloc) of these politically significant non-Muslims, Malays would by now be deeply split along religious lines in the pattern of Algeria and Iran.  Fundamentalist Muslims cannot enforce their strict uncompromising code on the rest of the country because of the presence of large numbers of non-Muslims.  Thus progressive and liberal Muslims are protected from the coercion of extremist Muslims.  For this reason I have little fear of Malaysia ever turning into another Algeria or Iran.  Sadly, moderate Muslims have yet to appreciate this very significant contribution of non-Muslims.  Even PAS is fully aware of this new political reality of countervailing forces.  PAS is now attempting to soften its message in order to appeal to non-Muslims.

            Contrary to prevailing opinions, I posit that the greatest threat to Malaysia’s stability is not interracial but intra-communal, specifically intra-Malay strife.  Today’s Malays are becoming dangerously polarized with a shrinking moderate center to serve as a conciliatory buffer.  Absent this, the sizable non-Malay population serves this vital function.

            There are three potential fault lines along which Malays could fracture:  religious, ideological, and socioeconomic.  It is unlikely that any one factor could precipitate a severe crisis, but a confluence of any two or all three could trigger violent eruptions.  The protracted animosity between poor rural Kelantan (controlled by Islamic PAS) and the central government (led by secular UMNO) is a reflection of this dangerous confluence of factors.

            In my earlier book The Malay Dilemma Revisited, I explored in greater details these various fault lines that could potentially threaten Malay society:  the religious disputes from early in the 20th century between young progressives (Kaum Muda) and their more conservative elders (Kaum Tua) to the more recent all consuming, totally unproductive, and highly divisive kafir-megafirkan (the righteous versus presumed infidels) debates of the 1980’s; the ideological disputes between pro- and anti-royal elements of the 1980’s that pitted the sultans against the executive branch; and the political conflicts between socialists and conservatives.

            Malays are also increasingly strained along socioeconomic lines.  Income disparity is widest among Malays.  Vision 2020 reiterates much about an economically just society, and the nation has been remarkably successful in reducing the gross disparities between the races.  There is, however, no comparable commitment to ameliorating inequities within Malay society.  Unchecked this inequity will continue to fester.

            These squabbles among Malays – “fundamentalist” versus “moderate,” urban versus rural, rich versus poor – cannot be lightly dismissed.  Should they escalate, non-Malays would be forced by the sheer dynamics of the conflict to take sides.  And should they (non-Malays) choose the wrong, that is, the losing side, the subsequent retributions then would be doubly vicious.

            The nation’s multiracial society can be harnessed to bring out the best of each community.  Malays, seeing the industry of Chinese, cannot help but absorb some of that positive trait.  Malays are indeed spurred by the competition from non-Malays to do better.  Malays in Malaysia are much more competitive than those in Indonesia as a result of their exposure to significant non-Malay cultures.

            Living abroad I meet many new Chinese from Taiwan, China, and elsewhere.  Of these our Malaysian Chinese seem to meld readily in their new environment because they are used to living with non-Chinese in Malaysia.  Prior to Hong Kong reverting to China, a number of its residents migrated to Canada, just for “insurance.”  It did not take long for them to run afoul of Canada’s zoning laws when they started building huge mansions with gaudy color schemes on their tiny city lots.  They were used to that in Hong Kong and could not understand why their new Canadian neighbors would object.

            This intersection of the different cultures can also result in the opposite, that is, it would bring out the worst prejudices on each side.  During British rule when the various communities were effectively compartmentalized, whenever the various communities interacted, there would always be suspicion and deep distrust.  Today with all Malaysians committed to the nation, there is a greater willingness to learn from and understand each other.  Given such a milieu it tends to bring out the best in everyone.  This is precisely the atmosphere in America.  Arabs and Jews may kill each other back in their homeland, but in America they are in business together.  The Catholic and Protestants may be at each other’s throat in Northern Ireland, but in America they are husband and wife.  One of my colleagues is a Tamil happily married to a Singhalese.  Back in Sri Lanka they would be slaughtering each other.

            Americans are now recognizing the contributions of the various immigrant groups.  Average Americans, especially those living in California and other states with sizable minorities, have a definite advantage over the British and Germans in this regard as they have been exposed to and are familiar with cultures other than their own.  Viewed in this light, Malaysia’s multiracial society is a definite asset.

Next:   Bless Our Geography!

                This entry was posted on Monday, 20 December 2010, 9:29 am and is filed under
Bakri Musa
,
globalisation
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


How can Najib expect his pitch for moderation to have any credibility when UMNO organ Utusan Malaysia is allowed to preach extremism with lies and falsehoods everyday?

The Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak has again promoted the cause of  moderation when he spoke in Penang when opening the 43rd International Convention of the World Chinese Language Press Institute this morning.

Najib urged the media to play the role as a promoter of moderation, “to take back the centre” and reclaim the agenda for peace and pragmatism.

He said the movement of the moderates could marginalise the extremists, and that the media had a significant role to play in this quest.

“With collective determination, we can build a more rational, secure and equitable world. As media messages about the majority who seek peace and moderation spread around the globe, this new world is indeed within our reach.”

Well said, but Najib is not walking the talk.

Najib should ask how he could expect his promotion of  moderation “to take back the centre” to have any traction or credibility when the Umno organ Utusan Malaysia is allowed to preach extremism of the worst kind with lies and falsehoods everyday?

Only today for instance, in another front-page attack on Penang Chief Minister and DAP Secretary-General Lim Guan Eng, was attacked for his speech at the second Pakatan Rakyat national convention yesterday with calls for the banning of the DAP on the ground that Guan Eng had questioned the citizenship and loyalty of Utusan Malaysia supporters.

Guan Eng had not questioned the citizenship or loyalty of anyone when he spoke about the “Real Malaysians”.

Najib has promoted the concept of 1Malaysia where every Malaysian should regard himself or herself as Malaysian first and race, religion, geography and socio-economic status second.

Is anyone challenging the citizenship or loyalty of anyone when criticised for not subscribing to this 1Malaysia concept, such as Deputy Prime Minister Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin who declared he is Malay first and Malaysian second?

Utusan Malaysia has been plumbing the depths to disseminate lies and falsehoods not to promote moderation but extremism.

For instance, Utusan had accused the DAP of wanting to establish a republic in Malaysia and abolish the system of Malay rulers.

This is a downright lie.  Down through the decades, DAP had made it abundantly clear whether through its own political declarations or through Pakatan Rakyat common policy programmes that DAP upholds the fundamental features of the Malaysian Constitution including the system of constitutional monarchy.

Yet the Utusan Malaysia has no compunction in resorting to lies and falsehoods in its campaign of extremism.

Unless and until Najib and UMNO leaders are prepared to check the irresponsible exploitation of race and extremist journalism and politicking appearing in the Utusan Malaysia every day, the Prime Minister’s call for moderation whether at the world Chinese media convention in Penang today  or at the United Nations General Assembly recently would have no traction or credibility whatsoever – even  throwing into doubt his 1Malaysia concept which is  his signature nation-building programme.

Will Najib do anything to check the unprecedented degradation of political discourse in Malaysia by halting Utusan Malaysia’s irresponsible, extremist and racist journalism and politicking?

                This entry was posted on Monday, 20 December 2010, 5:07 pm and is filed under
Media
,
Najib Razak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Pakatan Rakyat ready to rule?

– by Azly Rahman

Dec 20, 10

Just do it.” – Nike slogan.

As a disinterested and apolitical analyst of Malaysian politics I believe that for the good of all Malaysians, democracy needs renewal, either through evolution or revolution all through its inevitable march towards its final solution. It is not political philosophy that is at issue here but the people that translates it into practice.

Except for the allegedly orchestrated bloody racial riots of May 13 1969, Malaysia is fortunate to have seen peaceful stages of evolution although her prime ministers hailed from the bourgeoisie-class of hybridised Malays helming the race-based party that has no clear ideology; a party that is losing its effect in rallying the Malay electorate due to its own poor understanding of the meaning of nationalism and cosmopolitanism in an age of cybernetics and globalisation.

Is the death of Malaysia’s National Front or the Barisan Nasional near? Can Malaysian politics be “gentlemanly” or borrowing Kung Fu Tze’s word for gentleman, “Chuan tze” enough for the 50-year race-based coalition regime to give way for a coalition of multiculturalists such as Pakatan Rakyat to rule for the next 50 years? Are Malaysians ready enough for this gentlemanly act that will give meaning to the evolutionary democracy Malaysian-styled?

Perhaps the nation is ready. An era awaits no nation. It only needs to be cemented by political will.

A historical juncture

We have come to a historical juncture in which the debate between the hegemonising nationalism of one race is giving way for an emerging amalgamated cosmopolitanism of many races. America of the 100-years-ago Teddy Roosevelt era gave way to the America of Barack Obama; the idea of a WASP (white anglo-saxon protestant) America has succumbed to the global hip-hop Obama’s America in which the hyphenated, hybridised, and heteroglossic form of Americanism is prevailing.

While the current regime of the National Front continues to insist on its Machiavellian hypocrisy in its push for a Malay-centric Malaysia amidst trumpeting its 1Malayisa slogan, the voices of the subaltern of a generation of hyphenated and hybridised Malaysians fed up by cliché, slogans, and double-speak are coming out in the open voicing their support for a Malaysian Malaysia that demands for all the rights accorded them in the constitution.

While the intensity of the hypocrisy of the ultra-nationalist sentimentality intensifies, in the form of ideologically-ridiculous village/kampong-Malay type of organisations such Perkasa and Pekida continue to make headline news in ultra-Malay nationalistic-tabloidic publications, voices of multicultural reason calling for political change becomes louder.

The younger generation are Malaysia’s global hip-hop Obama generation of the salad bowl/rojak bowl Malaysia, wanting to make changes so that their generation will not become victim to race-based discrimination left as a truncated historical legacy and so that they will not have to become a victim of the sins of their grandfathers.

Enter the Pakatan Rakyat as an emerging powerful force not only as a check and balance to Malaysia’s outdatedly-ideologised and romanticised race-based coalition party, with the waning of the effects of Mahathirism and Samy-Velluism or Ling Liong Sik-ism – a tripartite of truncated political-tribalism.

Enter Pakatan Rakyat as a viable force for the most exciting general election Malaysia will ever see; a coalition of the willing in the Malaysian political scene that will willing to be scrutinised for its transparency, efficiency, and accountability by the public fed-up of 50 years of governmental secrecy and massive corruption.

Un-allowables to be allowed?

As the general election approaches, Malaysians must choose wisely.

Do they want a government that will continue to build useless world’s tallest towers, allow fascistic NGOs spewing hatred to be left unreprimanded, allow corruption left un-chemotherapied, allow university students with enquiring minds to be stupefied, allow prices of basic necessities to rise uncontrollably, allow every by-election to be a fiesta of gift-giving and a beggar’s banquet of the already-corrupted voters, and a host of other un-allowables in a democratic society to be allowed?

Or do they want a fresh mandate and be able to keep the new-ly elected regime on its toes and free to boot it out when it fails to deliver or fails to be truthful in its act?

Philologically and semantically the word “National Front” contains both a falsehood and a truth. It is false as a claim of a “national” derived from “nation” derived from the French “nation” since Malaysia is not a nation. It is a salad bowl of diverse cultures and peoples who have surrendered their natural rights to the general will called the state; so that they may enjoy the rights as a citizens.

The truth of the “National Front” lies in the word “front” of which the 1955-born Alliance Party has been putting a “front” or a “façade” of democracy whilst abusing the ideological state apparatuses in pursuit of a corporate-capitalist-cronyistic developmentalist agenda. The slogans employed since its inception as that coalition have become bricks in the “fronting” wall of the National Front.

Are Malaysians ready to start a brand new day? Will they give Pakatan Rakyat a mandate? This is a question of survival – of a gentlemanly nature.

                This entry was posted on Monday, 20 December 2010, 2:58 pm and is filed under
Articles
,
Azly Rahman
,
Election
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Funeral fit for a king

By
Dr Chen Man Hin, DAP life advisor

On December 16th, about 10 DAP members attended Fan Yew Teng’s funeral, which was held at the Church of the Redeemer in Bangkok.  Sdr  Lim Kit Siang, Sdr Fong Kui Lun, Sdr Lee Kow and Dr Chen represented the DAP.  Five other, members from Selangor drove all the way from KL to Bangkok for the funeral.

There was also a second service, this time in a Buddhist Wat.  Fan Yew Teng found the chants, prayers and psalms very soothing when situations were stressful. He requested for buddhist rites, according to his wife, this service was well attended.

At both services, there were crowds of people. Among those present were Thais and members of the diplomatic corps representing countries of the world. You could say that  Sdr Fan Yew Teng had a funeral fit for a king.

And rightly so, as Fan was a champion of the poor and oppressed not only of Malaysia but also the countries of the world through his participation and links with international socialist organisations.

It is also well known that his wife, Noeleen Heyzer  shared his enthusiasm to save the world. Her work as a United Nations Under Secretary General all these years had helped many countries to take the road to peace and prosperity.

Sdr Fan must have been a very happy man to have a lifetime companion who share his ideals and hopes. They would have mutually encouraged and inspired each other in the task to achieve a better world.

True to character, Fan does not abandon his ideals or unfinished business. Although he has gone, he has left us a legacy which will ensure that his lifetime work is left to posterity. His work will live on through the FAN-HEYZER FAMILY — his wife Noeleen and daughters Lilian and Pauline.

Noeleen was a champion of human rights and justice in her own right. While  quietly pushing for peace, security and progress in the poorer and less developed countries. She has achieved international recognition for her work.  she won a Fulbright scholarship in her youth. To day she holds the post of the Chief Executive of United Nations ESCAP (Economic Social Commission Asia Pacific), headquartered in Bangkok.

He also left a legacy of two very bright daughters, Oxford scholars Lilian and Pauline who think and speak in the fashion of their late father. Maybe they might become the future Fan Yew Tengs also?

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 21 December 2010, 4:02 pm and is filed under
DAP
,
Dr. Chen Man Hin
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Guan Eng defends ‘real Malaysians’ remark

By
Yow Hong Chieh

December 21, 2010

The Malaysian Insider

KUALA LUMPUR, Dec 21 — Penang Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng has denied questioning the citizenship of any Malaysians in his speech at the Pakatan Rakyat (PR) convention, as claimed by Umno politicians and its newspaper Utusan Malaysia.

Lim implied that his remarks were taken out of context, adding he had merely stressed that real Malaysians were ordinary, peace-loving people who upheld the principles of justice, truth and freedom, and placed importance on economic rights and a brighter future.

“It is clear that Utusan Malaysia and Penang Umno leaders like Dr Novandri Hasan Bari are once again… spreading lies by claiming that the Chief Minister wants to question the citizenship of Malaysians,” Lim’s office said in a short press statement.

Penang Umno leader Dr Novandri Hasan Bari today claimed the DAP secretary-general was “expanding his scope of hatred” beyond Barisan Nasional (BN) and Umno to the general populace for saying Utusan Malaysia readers were not “real Malaysians”.

“Of course, we cannot avoid thinking that Guan Eng’s hates the Malays because Malays are the ones that read Utusan Malaysia!” he said today.

In his speech over the weekend, Lim had said, “Who are not the real Malaysians? I wish to start with those who only know how to hate through extremism, whether from a racial, gender or religious aspect.

“This group that only knows how to discriminate, oppress and put down others and even celebrate the bloody May 13 incident are not real Malaysians. Most of them are supporters and fans of Utusan Malaysia and BN, which exploit 3R (race, religion, raja) issues.

“These are not real Malaysians. They are pseudo-Malaysians,” the DAP secretary-general said.

However, Novandri said it was not fair for a “chauvinist” like Lim to question the citizenship of Malaysians just for buying Utusan Malaysia.

He claimed this was proof that the “arrogant” Lim was unfit to be Penang Chief Minister, and further accused the DAP man of being an ineffective state leader.

Lim’s assertion that BN and Umno had exploited 3R issues for political gain clearly showed that he did not appreciate the success and prosperity that Malaysia has achieved so far, Novandri added.

“Is Guan Eng blind to the economic and educational achievements of his own race in this country,” he said.

“If it were true Umno only looked after Malays, it would not have been possible for other races to lead the country’s economy.”

Penang Umno politicians have raised political temperature in the state which BN lost in Election 2008.

Umno president and prime minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak said yesterday his administration is committed to develop Penang “in the national interest” despite political differences with the PR government.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 21 December 2010, 5:36 pm and is filed under
DAP
,
Lim Guan Eng
,
Media
,
UMNO
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Selamatkan Impian Bapa Kemerdekaan

By
Zairil Khir Johari

Ubah sekarang, selamatkan Malaysia!

Empat patah perkataan yang secara ringkasnya mengungkapkan segala belenggu sosial, kepincangan ekonomi dan kemelut politik yang sedang melanda negara kita pada hari ini.

Apakah yang telah terjadi? Bagaimanakah kita boleh sampai ke tahap yang parah ini? Tanah air kita sudah tenat, dan kini terpaksa diselamatkan. Kemanakah perginya impian tokoh-tokoh pengasas negara kita, seperti Al-Marhum Tunku Abdul Rahman Putra, yang telah bermimpikan sebuah negara yang maju ekonominya, demokratik institusinya dan bersatu padu masyarakatnya. Tetapi alangkah malangnya pada hari ini, setelah 53 tahun pemerintahan Barisan Nasional, segala impian dan harapan Bapa Kemerdekaan bukan sekadar tidak tercapai malah sudah hancur terkecai.

Inilah hasil satu pemerintahan yang berlandaskan formula ‘pecah dan perintah’, di mana rakyat marhaen dipecah-belahkan dan kemudian diperintah secara berasingan oleh golongan elit daripada UMNO (untuk orang Melayu), MCA (untuk orang Cina), MIC (untuk orang India) dan sebagainya. Tiada bezanya dengan sistem yang dipraktikkan oleh penjajah British.

Yang paling malang, dasar yang berasaskan perkauman ini sudahpun meresap ke dalam akar umbi negara kita, bukan sahaja dalam polisi-polisi kerajaan tetapi juga dalam sanubari masyarakat kita. Segala wacana, mahupun tentang ekonomi, politik atau pendidikan, semuanya dimaklumkan oleh pemikiran parokial yang sekian lama ini telah dipupuk oleh puak pemerintah.

Tidak perlu pergi jauh. Setiap kali orang yang baru dikenali mendengar nama saya, seringkali saya akan ditanya: Eh, awak ni Melayu ke Cina? Nama macam Melayu, muka macam Cina.

Inilah jawapan saya: Saya anak Melayu. Saya juga anak Cina. Saya anak Bangsa Malaysia!

Kita semua anak Bangsa Malaysia. Inilah yang sepatutnya. Sebuah negara yang walaupun terdiri daripada berbilang kaum tetapi bersatu dan bersepakat dalam menghadapi cabaran-cabaran seperti kemiskinan, penyelewengan harta rakyat, penyalahgunaan kuasa, korupsi dan lain-lain lagi. Masalah-masalah yang melanda ini buta warna, ianya tidak mengenali kaum. Akan tetapi, jalan penyelesaian yang disarankan kerajaan BN adalah berdasarkan perkauman.

Contohnya, ekuiti Bumiputra sejumlah 30% – apakah maksudnya? Adakah ia bermaksud bahawa 30% daripada kekayaan negara akan diagihkan secara adil kepada masyarakat Bumiputra? Setelah berdekad-dekad langsungnya Dasar Ekonomi Baru, kita sudah melihat bahawa maksud sebenarnya adalah segala ekuiti, saham dan kontrak yang diperuntukkan untuk golongan Bumiputra akan disapu oleh pemimpin-pemimpin UMNO-BN serta kroni-kroni mereka. Yang diperkayakan adalah mereka sendiri. Cara ini tidak akan berjaya dan jelas telah gagal.

Yang dilaung-laungkan ketuanan Melayu, tetapi yang dipertikaikan adalah orang Melayu juga. Cuma bezanya orang Melayu ahli UMNO dengan orang Melayu biasa. Yang mendapat habuan hanya ahli-ahli dan pemimpin UMNO. Melayu yang biasa dibiarkan di pinggir. Ini fakta: 40% daripada isi rumah di Malaysia mempunyai pendapatan RM1,500 ke bawah. Tiga suku daripada jumlah ini merupakan isi rumah Melayu dan Bumiputra. Jadi ini sebenarnya bukan ketuanan Melayu, tetapi ketuanan UMNO!

Walaupun negara kita sudah merdeka sejak tahun 1957, rakyat Malaysia dan orang Melayu terutamanya masih lagi dijajah dan dikongkong minda oleh pemimpin-pemimpin UMNO-BN. Dasar yang mengongkong orang Melayu ini sudah mengakibatkan satu budaya kebergantungan kepada kerajaan. Orang Melayu diberitahu dan ditakut-takutkan bahawa tanpa pertolongan kerajaan masyarakat Melayu tidak mungkin akan berjaya.

Kita menolak sama sekali hujah dan alasan sebegitu! Ia adalah satu penghinaan besar kepada kaum Melayu. Di Pulau Pinang umpamanya, apabila Kerajaan Negeri memulakan sistem tender terbuka dalam segala kelulusan kontrak Kerajaan Negeri dan agensi-agensinya, langkah ini telah dikecam hebat oleh UMNO. Mereka mendakwa bahawa tanpa pertolongan ‘parti pembela bangsa’ itu, kontraktor Melayu tidak mungkin dapat bersaing dalam keadaan yang bebas dan kompetitif, seolah-olah rezeki itu berada di tangan UMNO. Tetapi, setelah berlangsungnya sistem tender terbuka, kita sudah melihat bahawa kebanyakan daripada kontrak-kontrak kerajaan telah dianugerahkan kepada kontraktor Melayu atas kemampuan mereka sendiri!

Jadi adakah orang Melayu tidak mampu berdaya saing? Jawapannya tidak. Kita harus menolak sama sekali dasar perkauman yang bukan sahaja merendahkan martabat bangsa, tetapi memecah-belahkan rakyat dan hanya menguntungkan segelintir golongan elit UMNO-BN. Jika dibiarkan begitu sahaja, hubungan antara kaum akan semakin tegang dan sikap syak wasangka akan tersebar luas. Akibatnya, negara kita akan kekal dalam kemelut.

Ubah sekarang, selamatkan Malaysia!

Jadi perjuangan kita, sebagai Pakatan Rakyat, sebuah pakatan politik yang secara asasnya tidak berunsurkan kaum, adalah untuk menzahirkan satu ideologi politik baru, yang berlandaskan persaudaraan dan muafakat. Kita seharusnya menjanakan iltizam untuk memulakan budaya baru dalam wacana dan pemikiran negara kita.

Sudah terlalu lama rakyat ditipu. Sudah terlalau lama dalam belenggu. Kini tiba masanya kita berbangkit dan bersama untuk menuntut perubahan yang tuntas dan mutlak. Adalah tanggungjawab kita, sebagai pendukung harapan rakyat, untuk merealisasikan aspirasi ini melalui agenda perubahan kita. Saya yakin, jika kita bersatu dan bekerjasama, impian Bapa Kemerdekaan akan akhirnya tercapai.

Saya ingin mengakhiri ucapan dengan memetik kata-kata Al-Marhum Tunku Abdul Rahman Putra, Perdana Menteri pertama negara kita, sewaktu beliau berangkat tiba dari London setelah selesai rundingan Merdeka:

    “History has shown that no nation can survive if it does nothing. It has only two choices – to progress or to decline. It depends on the capacity and consciousness of that nation to face changes and developments. When the people are contented … they are always suspicious of anything that might bring about change. But since the history of mankind is a history of changes and development for the better, the contented nation would be stagnate and finally become extinct and only be brought to life again by future historians…”

Ini adalah amaran pengasas negara kita. Jika kita tidak berubah, sejarah kita, negara kita, bangsa kita, semuanya akan luput dan pupus. Jadi pada hari ini, saya menyeru kepada saudara-saudari yang hadir dan rakan-rakan seperjuangan yang lain, supaya bersama-sama kita bersatu menjadi pemangkin perubahan demi menyelamatkan tanah air tercinta.

Ubah sekarang, selamatkan Malaysia!

[
This speech was delivered at the 2nd Pakatan Rakyat National Convention on 19 December 2010. Abridged reproduction.
]

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 21 December 2010, 2:26 pm and is filed under
DAP
,
nation building
,
Pakatan Rakyat
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Why is Malaysia experiencing a brain drain?

 by
Evelyn Wong
, Guest Contributor

New Mandala

 December 20th, 2010

In the past six months, there’s been a surge of local interest in the trend of brain drain in Malaysia. Out of a population of 27 million, there are an estimated 1.5 million Malaysians living abroad. Many of these Malaysians are skilled workers who emigrated to Singapore and OECD countries such as Australia, UK, and US. In response to this, the government has set up the Talent Corporation under the 10th Malaysia Plan to attract and retain highly-skilled human capital. Operating under the Prime Minister’s Department, Talent Corp will commence operations in January 2011.

While this is a promising step towards ameliorating the problem, the causes of brain drain are complex and deeply-entrenched in other aspects of Malaysian society.
 My personal research deals with the personal side of brain drain: in other words, what drives Malaysians’ decisions to leave the country, or to return home? I focused on Malaysians who are studying and working abroad, or have done so in the past. Over two weeks in June 2010, I surveyed 841 Malaysians on their opinions of various aspects of Malaysia; such as its political situation, its economic situation, safety, education and human rights. For statistical analysis purposes, respondents were asked to rate these abstract factors on a scale of one to ten, with one being not important at all and ten being most important. The survey also asked respondents to rate how important job prospects, religion, family ties, and a sense of moral duty to the country were to their decision whether to return or not. Finally, I asked how much the respondent believed young people coming home would make a difference to the country, and left a space for her to express her feelings about Malaysia in their own words.

A full report can be found at
pluggingthebraindrain.wordpress.com
. One illuminating find was that across the board, only three factors were statistically significant in whether a Malaysian decided to return: perception of whether returnees can make a difference, job prospects, and moral duty – a mix of the pragmatic and the philosophical. The more importance job prospect were to a Malaysian overseas, the lower the desire to come home. On the other hand, a higher rating on moral duty and making a difference corresponded to an increased desire to return to the home country.

In addition, I found that both experiences based on personal attributes (gender, ethnicity, family ties) as well as general perceptions of how the nation is progressing (economy, politics, education) play into one’s decision whether to return home. For example, men and Malaysians of Chinese descent were more pessimistic about Malaysia’s future. In general, younger respondents were more idealistic – a hopeful sign for the future generation, perhaps?

Personally, I found the comments section where people could express themselves freely the most interesting part of my research. For many émigrés, there is a deep sense of being wronged and not feeling welcome in Malaysia that propels them to make a living and a home elsewhere. In my opinion, it’s not too late to stem the brain drain – there are many young and young-at-heart Malaysians who still call Malaysia home. It’s going to take more than lip service or even financial incentives to draw most back, though. In an increasingly globalized world with porous international borders, Malaysia is at a turning point: to clean up her act and enter the developed world, or to continue stagnating and fall behind. The decisions of many, many Malaysians will depend on which way they believe she will go.

Evelyn Wong is a sophomore at Scripps College, California, pursuing a dual major in Politics and International Relations, and Economics. She hails from Ipoh, Malaysia.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 21 December 2010, 9:05 am and is filed under
Brain drain
,
nation building
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


The future!! Happy people!? Beautiful country!?

By
Ahmad Mustapha Hassan

The Malaysian Insider

December 22, 2010

In the 50s and the early 60s, when I was actively involved in the struggle for independence, I was more than convinced that with independence the country would experience a future full of promise, stability, prosperity, with a happy  and united nation.

During the colonial period, economic activities had been segregated by race. The British were only interested in making as much as possible from the country. The arrangement that they had created had served them well.

Independence would mean the integration of all these activities, and as such, there would be interactive relationships among all. The breaking down of these segregated economic walls, however, did not materialise in a systematic and speedy way. Thus conflicts occurred.

Remedial measures were carried out but it was hijacked by greedy and self- centred politicians. Instead of moving forward, the country went backwards and more acute problems arose. The vision and goals of independence had been thrown into the gutter. We thus moved towards a failed state status.

This is the problem faced by all former colonies. Leaders after tasting power, instead of taking care of the welfare of their people, took care of themselves first and forever. The people remained poor and neglected. Just see the conditions in the African states. See what is happening in Myanmar. Malaysia is no better. See the palaces built by politicians in power.

In Malaysia, to remain in power and continuously rape the wealth of the country, race is used to frighten the followers, that if they abandoned this (greedy) leadership, their future will be in jeopardy.

In fighting for independence, the people were cajoled to support the cause but after the achievement of independence, the people are again coerced into fear of their future if they abandoned the current leadership.

Race is the menacing factor that is being used to their personal advantage, that it will threaten the stability of the country. Not only that, it will also bring about intense communal feelings.

For failure to improve the lot of the Malays, the powers that be encouraged the phrase emphasising the supremacy of the Malays — “Ketuanan Melayu”. This never cropped up during the struggle for independence, nor was it ever used after independence. Only now suddenly it rears its ugly and venomous head, to frighten the non- Malays.

Naturally, a much wider chasm is created and the authorities simply have turned a blind eye to what it has unleashed. The agenda is to create divisions as done by the British colonial powers for self enrichment. But it must be remembered, this is the 21st century and not the late 19th or the early 20th centuries.

The environment and the scenario have changed and the situation is now wrought with all kinds of happenings that can become examples for fear and suspicion. Killings and ethnic cleansing in the name of race have become common occurrences.

The world too has become a smaller place and with that people are no longer incapable of sizing things up. People turn to emigration to escape what they feel may be an impending catastrophe. Even the Malays have no hesitation leaving the country as they feel things have gone too far in this mania of seeking wealth without regards to the welfare of others. The country is suffering from brain drain and only the corrupt are happy with this.

The situation cannot go on like this indefinitely. It is bound to proceed towards disaster. Children in schools have already been made familiar with racial profiling. Teachers are no longer dedicated in their professions. Instead of showing good examples to the students, they have become the source of creating tensions among the students with their brainless comments about the races in the country. But the authorities have shown reluctance in meting out stern action against these recalcitrant so-called teachers.

As long as they are Malays, they can commit these hideous acts and the government will try to provide excuses for their unpardonable acts.

The non-Malays will fall into a different category. Any slight excuse, they will be hauled up as what had happened to the young man Namewee. The young man will be persecuted for all kinds of reasons. This is done to satisfy and pacify the Malay communal extremists.

That racism has been on the increase in the country cannot be denied. Evidence is everywhere, be it in the social sphere, economy or even education.

The activities of the Malay ultra group have only pushed the other racial groups to emphasise more on their own well being and not that of the country. This is the direct result of not stopping the actions and utterances of those advocating the supremacy of the Malays.

The government only talks of racial unity but very little positive action has taken place. Even the governing political party has not moved towards integrating all the parties into one single political entity.

Of greater danger, however, is not the racial element but the religious aspects. This is a much more vicious and serious threat to the country. Unless the country maintains its secular nature and eliminates the dominating character of the religious authorities, the future does not augur well.

Although Islam is the official religion of the country, it does not mean that Islam overrides the interest of other religions in the country. The unwarranted religious conversions have to stop and the episodes of body snatching will have to be put to an end.

These incidents have caused a lot of family sufferings and the government must not condone such acts. The government will have to be bold if it wants to safeguard the future of this country. The Syariah courts now seem to be having the upper hand in every family dispute. The courts will naturally support the Muslim member of the family at the expense of the other members. The civil courts have been reluctant to play its role in all these conflicts.

This only brings about a sense of injustice to the aggrieved parties. They have no recourse to correct the injustice that they suffer. The government has not acted on these conflicts for fear of antagonising the religious zealots.

A church that was erected by the Orang Asli who professed the Christian faith was demolished on reasons that could easily had been overcome and the word “Allah” has been banned from use by Christians although in East Malaysia, the word had been in use for a very long time.

The Fatwa Council has become very powerful. Their approach is always negative in nature. Instead of trying to bring about the understanding of Islam to a wider circle, it functions as if everything about Islam is its prerogative to interpret and nobody else’s.

It also takes on the role of seeing that the unfortunate Muslims, who it believes being ignorant and stupid, are not led astray by the non Muslims. Thus non Muslims cannot quote from the Quran as this will confuse the Muslims. There are other major issues which have passed the scrutiny of this wise and able council.

All these are trends that will create greater suspicion among the people in the country. There is no attempt to make each understand the others’ religion and beliefs. The Muslim authority has kept away from associating itself in the interfaith group as this will affect Islam’s standing in the country. This is arrogance of the highest order.

The two most critical factors that will determine what the future of this country will be are race and religion. The government must act fast to counter the ruinous nature and the possible catastrophe that can be brought about by the uncontrolled and emotional makeup of these two elements.

The ugly writings are on the wall.

*
Ahmad Mustapha Hassan is the author of “The Unmaking of Malaysia” and a former general manager of state news agency Bernama. He was also the press secretary to prime minister Tun Abdul Razak Hussein and the then deputy prime minister, Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad.

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 22 December 2010, 5:41 pm and is filed under
nation building
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Utusan’s got 14 days to apologise to Guan Eng

The Malaysian Insider

December 22, 2010

GEORGE TOWN, Dec 22 – Penang Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng has given Utusan Malaysia two weeks to apologise before he takes the daily to court.

Lim’s lawyer, Jagdeep Singh Deo, told reporters today he had sent a letter of demand to the national Malay newspaper yesterday asking it to withdraw certain words said to be slanderous in its December 20 article titled “Kebiadaban Guan Eng (The Rudeness of Guan Eng)”.

Utusan had said to have called Lim a racist and an “anti-Malay” in the article that ran a day after the Pakatan Rakyat (PR) rally.

Lim who is the party’s secretary-general also wants the paper to publish an apology and pay compensation for defaming him.

Jagdeep said Lim had denied the allegations in his notice of demand.

“He has also not gone against the Malays or oppressed them, did not cancel the Maulidur Rasul procession or stop the Malays from trading in Komtar during Ramadan month and has not demolished any villages,” said the lawyer who is also the state DAP vice-chairman,.

“Neither has the chief minister used funds from the Penang Turf Club for the senior citizens’ appreciation programme,” Jagdeep added.

Lim had vowed personal court action against the Umno-owned daily for allegedly calling him a foreign stooge and urging the DAP be banned.

“These are lies printed by Utusan,” the first-term Penang chief minister told The Malaysian Insider two days’ ago.

“I have no choice but to take a civil suit for defamation against Utusan,” Lim said, adding his party would also file a separate defamation suit against the paper.

Jagdeep said Lim had sent Utusan Malaysia five letters of demand since 2008.

One defamation suit has already been filed in court, he added.

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 22 December 2010, 8:11 pm and is filed under
Court
,
DAP
,
Lim Guan Eng
,
Media
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Utusan Malaysia has lost the plot

by
Tony Pua

Umno-owned Utusan Malaysia has completely lost the plot with its daily extensive attacks against DAP and is the single largest hindrance to national unity

Never before in history has the DAP, a party Utusan Malaysia has previously regarded as irrelevant, become the object of obsession to the Umno-owned newspaper.  In the last 3 of 4 days, the DAP made the front page of Utusan Malaysia with headlines like “Muslihat DAP”, “Guan Eng dikecam” and “Umat Islam perlu tolak DAP” on the 18, 20 and 21 December respectively.

Not only did the DAP and its leaders consistently make the frontpage, Utusan dedicated dozens of columns to DAP with titles such as “DAP perkudakan Anwar”, “DAP alat politik negara asing”, “DAP salur matlumat kepada Kuan Yew?”, “DAP gentar dengan 1Malaysia”, “DAP tiru strategi PAP”, “DAP yang sebenarnya memperalatkan 3R”, “DAP amal politik ala aparteid”,  “Kebiadapan Guan Eng”, “Guan Eng semakin bersikap perkauman”, “Guan Eng perlu cermin diri” and more.

The above hasn’t taken into account the fact that for the past year, Utusan has often granted DAP leaders exclusive frontpage coverage to Karpal Singh, Teo Nie Ching and even myself, for daring to suggest that the housing discount for the wealthy bumiputeras be channelled towards helping the bumiputera poor.

In fact, if one were to conduct a search of “DAP” in Utusan on Google based on the year of publication, 2007 will return  291 results, 2008 – 876 results, 2009 – 12,400 results and 2010 will give a record 29,800 results to date.

It is most laughable when Utusan had to plead to its readers not to boycott the paper due to “political sentiments” (“Pembaca akhbar tidak boleh terikut-ikut tindakan memboikot Utusan Malaysia kerana sentimen politik…”) and blame Pakatan Rakyat for its affected business.  Circulation for Utusan has plummeted drastically in recent years from 256,247 in 2004 to 213,445 in 2006 and 169,548 in 2009 or a 33.8% drop in 5 years.  Profit before tax for the newspaper group has also plunged from RM21 million to RM7 million over the past 4 years.

It appears that Utusan is attempting to rationalise its loss of readership due to external factors instead of looking inwards at their incessant racial posturing, outright lies and inflammatory headlines such as “Bangkitlah Melayu” as being the main causes.  In fact, based on the statistics above, there is a correlation between the rapidly increasing attacks against the DAP and the rapidly declining circulation of the newspaper.

National Union of Journalists (NUJ) president Hata Wahari, who himself is a Utusan journalist had demanded that Utusan Malaysia abolish editorial policies which go against “journalistic ethics” in order to tackle a severe drop in its readership circulation.  He claimed that the Malay daily’s reporting was “biased” in nature, saying that positive coverage revolved around Barisan Nasional (BN) while negative reports were specifically reserved for Pakatan Rakyat (PR).  He added that Utusan also does not give an opportunity for an accused to answer certain allegations by choosing not to publish it.

Even the Minister in the Prime Minister’s department, Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz had accused Utusan of becoming “racist” in its reporting in September this year.

In fact, Utusan is a proven liar with leading opposition figures, MP for Pokok Sena, Mahfuz Omar and Tenaganita Director, Irene Fernandez, awarded RM120,000 and RM200,000 in damages respectively in defamation suits against the paper.  Dozens of other defamation suits are still waiting to be disposed in the courts.

The relentless attacks on the DAP only serves to prove that DAP and Pakatan Rakyat are making major inroads in proving to the people that we are not only competent in governance, we have proven that despite having a DAP chief minister in Penang, Malays and Muslims enjoy greater rights and benefits than under a BN administration.  This is due to a more caring government, which is able to fund its welfare policies through more effective and efficient administration, as well as reducing wastage and corruption through open tenders for all government projects.

I had on 1 November 2010 challenged Utusan Malaysia to an open debate on its many allegations against the “racist” DAP.  Unfortunately, the editors chose not to defend their allegations with facts and figures in the open but continued to throw baseless, wild and wicked accusations against the DAP.  This proves that Utusan’s cowardly agenda is to flood its readers with lies and half-truths against the DAP and Pakatan Rakyat for it has no ability or courage to withstand impartial public scrutiny.

The Prime Minister, despite his call for “moderation” in reporting, has failed to reign in his party’s newspaper and his 1Malaysia policy will only fail as a result of Utusan’s extremist and racist reporting.

[
Media Statement by Tony Pua, DAP National Publicity Secretary and Member of Parliament for Petaling Jaya Utara in Kuala Lumpur on Wednesday, 22 Dec 2010
]

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 22 December 2010, 1:55 pm and is filed under
DAP
,
Media
,
UMNO
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


100-day reforms: BN has lost and Pakatan deserves a chance

by
Mariam Mokhtar

Malaysia Chronicle

Thursday, 23 December 2010

Deputy Prime Minister Muhyiddin Yassin scoffed at Pakatan’s 100-day reforms in the event that they formed the federal government and reminded the public ‘why BN has been in power for more than half a century and counting’.

His shameless attempt to discredit Pakatan is an insult to the electorate. He said, “Pakatan can promise the sun, moon, stars and mountains… But that is not the way of the BN government. We cannot squander our nation’s wealth.”

Muhyiddin is far removed from reality. People are disillusioned. After 53 years, the nation is more divided than ever, and our economy is in tatters. Our standards in education are falling, our defence budget is spiraling out of control and the civil service is bloated. The Prime minister’s residence and the King’s palace are undergoing a multi-million magical transformation whilst some people live without piped water and electricity.

Does Muhyiddin still think the electorate deserves to give BN another chance? Is 53 years of failure not long enough?

Muhyiddin said, “For BN, the prime minister has already a long road map for a high-income nation. But Pakatan only has plans for their first 100 days. They have absolutely no plans to reform the economy or anything.”

Only a megalomaniac will equate ‘high-spending’ with ‘high-income’? The mega-projects that the Prime minister announced are mere monuments to vanity, to satisfy BN’s perverse ego that bigger is always better.

The Pakatan led states of Penang and Selangor are examples of good governance and they have introduced younger voices to have a greater say in shaping policy On the other hand, BN’s talk sounds outdated and wearisome.

Malaysia’s lack of political reforms means that our ranking in ‘The Democracy Index’ is 71 out of 167 countries. Ours is defined as a ‘flawed democracy’. The Economist Intelligence Unit which compiles this index bases its findings on electoral process and pluralism, civil liberties, functioning of government, political participation and political culture.

Muhyiddin should realise that amongst other things, there is a restriction on our freedom of expression, the Internal Security Act is used to stifle criticism and university students are barred from participation in politics.

Would the DPM care to come up with a similar package for reform because the only things most people remember from the BN convention are Najib’s four political diseases ‘inertia, delusion, amnesia and arrogance’. Besides, its 7-point charter lacked not just lustre but also substance.

Unsurprisingly, Muhyiddin belittles not just the opposition, but also the public and companies. He said, “They probably think that the general election is close, so maybe they know better than us. They are just luring voters with their empty promises, like a supermarket sale.”

Not content with insulting the electorate, our DPM must also ridicule the retailers. He believes that ‘supermarket sales’ are just a gimmick with ‘their empty promises’.

One sincerely hopes the consortium of Malaysian retailers such as Giant, Tesco and Carrefour will protest at such a damaging charge.

If Pakatan has to make good on its promises, as pledged in its 100-day reform, then it also faces a long, thankless slog repairing the damage and economic mess of 53 years of BN rule.

Pakatan has dared to announce their reforms and it is for the electorate to choose if they are attractive enough for deciding their future.

Has BN been as ambitious in its political reforms? As far as many can see, BN’s policies are more of the ‘same-old, same-old’.

At least Pakatan leaders are on the right track. It has shown preparedness, clarity and bold vision for a better government. Who dares wins!

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 23 December 2010, 7:02 pm and is filed under
Election
,
Mariam Mokhtar
,
Muhyiddin Yassin
,
Pakatan Rakyat
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Just how dangerous is pluralism really?

by
Farah Fahmy

The Malaysian Insider

December 23, 2010

DEC 23— Just when you think public pronouncements can’t possibly get any worse in Malaysia, along comes the recommendation that Jakim should provide some sort of definition of our various festivals and celebrations so that Muslims can steer clear of the virus of religious pluralism.

Intrigued, I tried to work out what “fahaman pluralisme” is, and as far as I can tell, this belief stems from the idea that Islam is no more and no less equal to other religions.

Obviously this is nonsense as far as our country is concerned.  After all, Islam is the official religion and to help us Muslims behave in exemplary fashion there is a plethora of religious bodies funded by the government which is not the case for any other religion.

So dangerous is “fahaman pluralisme” that the Mufti of Perak was reported in Utusan Malaysia as saying that it needs to be rejected by all Muslims in our country as it could destroy one’s faith, and that those who believed in it are as good as being apostate.

Phew.  I’m glad he clarified that.  You see, as a Muslim I do sincerely believe that Islam is the complete and best religion.  But equally I’m happy to accept that a Catholic or Jew would believe the same thing about their religion and it really doesn’t matter who’s right or wrong.  Does this mean I’m flirting with pluralisme, and therefore courting kafir-hood?

However, as the injunction against “fahaman pluralisme” only applies to Muslims in Malaysia then I guess I don’t have to worry! (Thank god we Malaysian Muslims have ulamas like Dr Juanda Jaya and Dr Mohd Asri to provide an alternative view.)

But let’s go back to the Jakim recommendation.  How extraordinary! Do we really want Jakim, an Islamic body, to explain to Muslims the significance of Deepavali? Would Jakim be equipped to explain why Christians celebrate Easter?

When I was younger we learnt about stuff like this at school.  I was lucky too – because I went to a mixed-race school in KL, I even got to help my non-Muslim friends celebrate their festivals.  Over the years I have done various things with non-Muslims: attended the Buddhist funeral of a classmate’s mother; attended the christening of a friend’s son; attended the (very) Catholic wedding of another friend; attended my Catholic father-in-law’s funeral.

What’s more, I have walked inside and around many, many churches and cathedrals, read parts of the Bible, visited the infamous Murtad Malaysia website and even seen parts of the Torah.  Does this mean that my aqidah is now terpesong?

So, for the record: despite venturing into churches, reading about apostates, delving into the books of other religions (and the anti-religious) and helping others celebrate various non-Muslim festivals (religious and cultural), my aqidah is fine (and please allow me to thank in advance anyone who wishes to remind me to “mengucap banyak-banyak”).  I don’t claim to be a good Muslim, but I am and remain, despite all of the above, a Muslim.

 That being the case, I don’t see why Jakim should define other people’s festivals.  Wouldn’t it be better to get Hindus to explain the significance of Deepavali and Thaipusam? And Buddhists the significance of Wesak Day, and so on? Then we can decide for ourselves what we should or shouldn’t do.  Honestly, why aren’t we Muslims credited with enough intelligence to work out for ourselves what is right and what is wrong?

Then I read a report about the arrest of about 200 Shia Muslims in Gombak.  I remind you once again that I am not a Muslim scholar and I have no wish to start a debate about the rights and wrongs of the Shia belief.

However, to arrest people for simply believing in a different branch of Islam? As Dr Mohd Asri states, we are going down the Taliban route if we start persecuting other Muslims (never mind non-Muslims!) because we don’t subscribe to their brand of Islam.  Are these people actually harming the country? If not, then we appear to be going down the road of persecuting people because of how they think rather than what they do.

It strikes me that – given the way our officialdom want us to practise Islam – the great Islamic thinkers from generations past like Imam Hanbali and Ibn Rushd (Averroes) would probably have been persecuted too had they had the misfortune to live in present-day Malaysia.  What a woeful reflection of Islam we are!

Surely there are plenty of other things for our ulamas to take issue with?

Take the case of the former Perak Syariah judge Hassan Basrie Shapiee who was found guilty of corruption.  What are IKIM’s and Jakim’s views on this matter? Here is a person sworn to uphold Islamic law who has made a complete mockery of the Syariah court.

Try as I might, I can’t find a single pronouncement from any of our religious bodies about this case.  It’s bad enough if we Muslims can’t even trust in the integrity of the Syariah courts, but what is worse is what appears to be the complete silence from our religious bodies on the matter.

Then there is the practice of videoing those caught in khalwat raids.  That’s bad enough, but what is infinitely worse is how some of these videos have made it on to the Internet.  You may think those who are caught deserve everything they get, but this is just not right.

The purpose of these videos, as far as I can see, is humiliation and to a certain degree, tittillation.  If our religious authorities can explain how making such videos public serve Islam, then explain away.  If not, then shouldn’t they be condemning the people who make these videos public?

Aren’t these sorts of cases more detrimental to Muslims and Islam in general, than worrying about Muslims who celebrate non-Muslim festivals with their non-Muslim friends or “fahaman pluralisme”?

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 23 December 2010, 11:11 am and is filed under
Articles
,
Religion
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Mid-term poll suggests Pakatan can keep Selangor

By
 Clara Chooi

The Malaysian Insider

23 December 2010

KUALA LUMPUR, Dec 23 — A Merdeka Center mid-term survey of voters showed that Pakatan Rakyat (PR) was likely to retain Selangor in an election, despite a marginal decline in Malay support.

According to the survey report released to The Malaysian Insider, 57 per cent of the 1,214 respondents polled believed that Selangor PR was heading in the right direction while 28 per cent thought otherwise.

There was a slight dip in Malay confidence, however, from 63 per cent agreeing in June 2009 that the state was on the right track to only 55 per cent in August this year.

Support from the Chinese community was maintained at 53 per cent in the same period despite a small decline to 47 per cent in January this year.

The PR government scored the highest with the Indian community, with a steady increase in support from 63 per cent to 72 per cent across the same period.

Sixty-seven per cent of respondents also said they were satisfied with the state government’s performance with 55 per cent claiming they were either very confident or quite confident in Mentri Besar Tan Sri Khalid Ibrahim’s leadership while 26 per cent said they were less confident or not confident at all.

Of the three races, however, Khalid scored the lowest among the Malay community with 38 per cent saying they were not confident in his leadership, compared to the 14 per cent and 17 per cent of the Chinese and Indian communities respectively which said the same.

The survey, commissioned by the Selangor government, polled constituents aged 21 and above through telephone interviews.

It was, however, conducted between July 27 and August 23 this year and did not incorporate any changes in voter perception after PKR’s fractious party polls last month.

PKR’s first-ever direct elections, held between September 17 and November 21, was mired in controversy following reports of relentless infighting, voting irregularities and alleged malpractices in the polling process.

A DAP leader admitted to The Malaysian Insider yesterday that if the survey had been conducted after PKR’s elections, the results would have likely reflect a less enthusiastic response for the PR government.

“It would have affected us significantly. But we cannot tell the extent of the effect, so for now, we are hoping that PR can recapture whatever support we lost because of the party elections,” he said.

The leader added that other national issues like the latest price hikes for fuel and sugar and the recent suspensions of PKR de facto leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim and three other PR MPs from Parliament could help dissuade voters from leaving the opposition fold.

“These issues could help cancel out what we have lost. But like I said, it is hard to gauge how much we have lost or gained after the survey was done,” the source said.

The survey also showed that the Najib administration had failed to impress Selangor voters despite its attempts to combat corruption and promises to be more inclusive.

It revealed that 49 per cent still believed that corruption in the federal government was on the rise while 15 per cent claimed that nothing had changed and 22 per cent said it had declined. A total of 14 per cent said they did not know the answer.

The Malays differed considerably in their perception of corruption in comparison with the Chinese and Indian communities.

Of the total polled, only 39 per cent of the Malays claimed that corruption had increased, while 60 per cent and 54 per cent of the Chinese and Indian communities said this was true.

Correspondingly, 28 per cent of Malays believed that corruption had declined in the federal administration while only 16 per cent and 13 per cent of the Chinese and Indians agreed.

In its summary, Merdeka Center claimed that the non-Malays were more “realistic” in their views, adding that the community was resigned to the belief that corruption was the government’s “lifeblood”.

“They also believe that the government is not serious in fighting corruption,” it said.

Another significant finding in the survey was that the federal government had suffered a severe backlash in Selangor for its first round subsidy cuts for petrol, diesel and sugar in July this year.

Fifty-five per cent of respondents saw red over the government’s decision to slash subsidies while 22 per cent said that they were not so agreeable.

Only 17 per cent said they were slightly agreeable while four per cent claimed to be in full support of the cuts.

A total of 72 per cent said they were dissatisfied with the government’s reason for cutting subsidies, while 23 per cent were satisfied.

In explaining the cuts, Putrajaya had reasoned that the move was to reduce government expenditure, pledging that the funds would be used to boost development and turn Malaysia into a high-income nation.

A majority of the Selangor constituents also claimed that the country’s national leaders were not aware of the people’s problems, with 37 per cent saying that the ruling administration “does not really understand” them and 20 per cent claiming that they “do not understand them at all”.

Thirty per cent of respondents said the government understood them “a little” while six per cent said they were completely understood.

In comparison, the Selangor PR government scored better than Barisan Nasional among respondents, with 53 per cent agreeing that they were either extremely confident or quite confident in how the state government had managed its economy.

About 36 per cent said they were either less confident or extremely not confident in the PR government.

A majority of respondents also expressed confidence in PR’s management of the Selangor economy in the year ahead, with 48 per cent saying they were confident while 31 per cent disagreed.

A total of 54 per cent of the respondents claimed that BN had not treated the PR government fairly while 26 per cent said that they had been either very unfair or less than fair. Eighteen per cent said they did not know.

From the results, the centre recommended as “immediate action” for the Selangor PR government to tackle its declining Malay support, pointing out that the community had been greatly affected by negative news reports.

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 23 December 2010, 6:33 pm and is filed under
Election
,
Pakatan Rakyat
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Nazri, Kit Siang clash over rights panel procedures

By
Shazwan Mustafa Kamal

The Malaysian Insider

KUALA LUMPUR, Dec 23 — Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz and Lim Kit Siang today differed over whether Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim had the right to defend himself at a parliamentary panel questioning his claim that government strategist APCO Worldwide had links with Israel.

Malaysia has no official ties with Israel, which is seen as an enemy by some Muslim states due to their occupation of the West Bank and Jerusalem.

Today, Nazri insisted that Parliament’s Rights and Privileges Committee was not a place for Anwar to defend himself on his APCO-One Israel claims, saying that the committee only served as a an “investigative body” to his accusations.

Nazri said the committee’s scope was only to determine a prima facie case on whether the PKR de facto leader should be suspended for misleading Parliament. He also reiterated that Anwar had denied himself the chance to put in his defence as a result of the “unruly conduct” by Pakatan Rakyat (PR) lawmakers in Parliament last week.

“The place for Anwar to defend himself is in Parliament, after the minister has tabled the motion (on Anwar’s suspension) and debated on it. If that did not happen, it was because Anwar had denied himself a chance to do so last week, resulting in Pakatan’s mass walkout,” Nazri told The Malaysian Insider.

Lim, however, claimed that Nazri was wrong is his understanding of the role of the committee, and that Anwar should have been allowed to enter his defence over connecting the government’s public relations consultancy firm to the One Israel campaign under former Israeli prime minister Ehud Barak.

The Umno minister’s arguments were then refuted by Lim, who claimed that the Rights and Privileges’ Committee was not just an investigative body but also a panel which conducted the necessary investigations and also passed a decision and findings on the matter.

The decisions and findings, according to the Ipoh Timur MP, would then be submitted to Parliament to be tabled, debated and decided on.

“The committee cannot just come to a conclusion without hearing the merits of the entire case, and this would have to include Anwar’s defence to his claims of APCO’s involvement in One Israel. The findings as well as a decision would have to have been made on the committee level, before submitting it to Parliament. I cannot understand Nazri’s understanding of the roles and functions of the committee,” Lim told The Malaysian Insider.

PR, chiefly PKR, has suggested the Najib administration had pressured APCO into denying its involvement in Barak’s One Israel campaign.

The party has also questioned the validity of Nazri’s “proof”, consisting of two documents with denials from APCO and an American political consultant over the consultancy’s involvement in the One Israel campaign.

The de facto law minister yesterday showed the evidence, which he said proved Anwar was lying when he accused APCO of being behind both the 1 Malaysia and One Israel campaigns.

The first was a letter from APCO that had formed the basis for the opposition de facto leader’s suspension from Parliament.

The second was a notarised sworn statement by Robert Shrum, the political consultant who helped create the One Israel coalition for Barak’s 1999 election campaign.

Both letters denied that APCO had anything to do with One Israel.

PKR secretary-general Saifuddin Nasution alleged yesterday that it was not “impossible” for the government to get APCO to deny its involvement with a former Israeli PM, as the Najib administration was already paying the consultancy firm RM77 million.

Saifuddin had also questioned the timing of Nazri’s proof, and demanded to know why it was not brought to light before Anwar was suspended.

“Is he (Saifuddin) stupid? Is he an idiot? I was one of those who was called as a witness by the Rights and Privileges Committee. I was not called because Anwar had used his delay tactics again, to throw a spanner into the works. If I were to be called, I would have shown proof that Anwar had lied,” said Nazri.

Nazri also told The Malaysian Insider that the contents of the APCO letter were already given to the committee, which helped form the basis for Anwar’s suspension.

“As for Robert Shrum’s letter, I received it Monday last week, before Anwar’s suspension on Thursday. I wanted to speak about the letter in Parliament on Thursday during the debate on the motion to suspend (Anwar), but because of the ruckus that happened I was not able to do so, and there was no debate,” added the minister.

Nazri said that he was not surprised by PKR’s “theories”, saying it reflected the party’s usual tact.

“The reason why PKR comes out with these theories is because that’s what they do best. Lie and then deny something. It’s a concept that they do so well,” Nazri said.

The Permatang Pauh MP was suspended from Parliament for six months on December 16 for claiming that APCO, hired by the Najib administration, had been behind both the 1 Malaysia and One Israel concepts.

Nazri has dared Anwar to refute the two documents presented and to show his (Anwar’s) evidence, which the PKR leader has been flogging on the stump since he was given the boot last Sunday.

Anwar could not be reached for comment.

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 23 December 2010, 6:18 pm and is filed under
1Malaysia
,
Anwar Ibrahim
,
Parliament
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.