Congrats to Najib for chalking up 65% popularity rating from his first month of 45% as Prime Minister but…

Congrats to Datuk Seri Najib Razak for chalking up 65% popularity rating from his first month of 45% as Prime Minister but he must be fully conscious that he has the lowest popularity rating of all six Malaysian  Prime Ministers –  including his predecessors Tunku Abdul Rahman, Tun Razak, Tun Hussein, Tun Mahathir and Tun Abdullah – in the “First 100 Days”.

In the latest poll conducted among 1,060 registered voters by the Merdeka Centre for Opinion Research between June 19 and July 1, his approval rating has risen to 65 per cent as compared to 45 per cent in mid-May (a month after he became Prime Minister) and 42 per cent just before taking over the premiership from Tun Abdullah on April 3, 2009.

In the latest opinion poll, 22 per cent were dissatisfied with his performance while 13 per cent were undecided.

Seventy-four per cent of Malays polled were satisfied with his performance. The level of support among Chinese and Indians was 48 per cent and 74 per cent respectively.

Although Najib has cause to celebrate for his improved popularity ratings and attribute it to a growing number of Malaysians who like some of his policy initiatives and pronouncements, he will be making a grave error to ignore the fact that he has the lowest popularity rating of all Malaysian Prime Ministers on the “First 100 Days” which falls on Saturday, 11th July 2009 for him.

In his first year as Prime Minister, Abdullah’s popularity rating was at the high-water mark  of 91% in November 2004, and if a poll had been conducted in Abdullah “First 100 Days” in  February 2004, it would have been an stratospheric high of 97 or even 98%.

However, the grim lesson for Najib is that Abdullah’s dizzlingly-high popularity rating, which enabled the latter to sweep the 2004 general elections with an unprecedented victory in 91 per cent of the parliamentary seats, was drastically slashed and  more than halved to 42% in July 2008, explaining the reason for the political tsunami of the March 8, 2008 general elections sweeping Barisan Nasional out of power in five states and depriving BN of its hitherto unbroken two-thirds parliamentary majority.

Two critical questions for Najib popularity ratings from from future  opinion polls are:

How high could Najib’s popularity rating reach and could it ever peak to Abdullah’s levels; and

When Najib’s popularity rating will begin a new descent.

If a popularity poll had been conducted on Najib’s full Hundred Days as Prime Minister, it would have to take into account two major events:

Najib’s announcement on June 30 on measures for the liberalisation of the economy which fall far short of moving the country towards an internationally competitive economy to face the challenges of globalisation; and

Scandal of the RM24 million Istana Khir Toyo, though the former Selangor Mentri Besar claimed it was only RM3.5 million.

Najib said the previous week that the Chinese in Malaysia are most concerned about education, economy, religion and crime and he believes that if these four issues can be resolved, the Chinese will continue to support the Barisan Nasional government.

It is not just the Chinese, but all Malaysians regardless of race, who are also concerned about these four issues of education, economy, religion and crime. What must be added are corruption and Malaysian citizenship rights.

Najib said yesterday that his 1Malaysia concept with the “People First, Performance Now” tagline is all about “every single Malaysian having the right place under the Malaysian sun”.  He invited the people to give their views and ideas towards “achieving one dream, one people and one nation”.

For the past 43 years, I have been talking about a united Malaysia where every Malaysian, regardless of race, religion or territory, has a equal place under the Malaysian sun.

This is the first time I  have heard a Prime Minister talking about ensuring the rightful place of  every Malaysian under the Malaysian sun.

But it is not enough for such talk to emanate from Putrajaya as for more than four decades, advocacy of a united Malaysia where all Malaysians have an  equal and rightful place under the Malaysian sun had been distorted, vilified and even demonised.

Can Najib inspire and convince Malaysians that his 1Malaysia can unite Malaysians and be translated into government policy and concrete action on the ground, making all Malaysians regardless of race or religion feel that they are one united people?

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 8 July 2009, 2:54 pm and is filed under
Najib Razak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Hishamuddin should stop acting as Super-IGP to shield IGP Musa Hassan from public flak for police abuses of power in allowing galloping crime while channelling scarce police resources to side with BN in political cases

The new Home Minister, Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Hussein is lately behaving like a Super-IGP instead of being a responsible Home Minister to create an efficient, incorruptible,  professional world-class police service to end the galloping crime in the past five years to restore to Malaysians, visitors and investors their two fundamental rights to be free from crime and the fear of crime.

Yesterday, he warned the PKR Youth “not to create chaos” at the Jalan Duta court complex when Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim’s second sodomy trial begins while three days ago he warned the Johore State Assembly Opposition Leader, DAP Johore Chairman and State Assemblyman for Skudai, Dr. Boo Cheng Hau that he would be investigated for the offence of “sedition” – just as the police had lodged a report against me during the Penanti by-election for the offence of sedition during the Penanti by-election in May.

In the past several months, the police have been dragooned from its  first and primary duties to reduce crime and make the country safe for citizens, visitors and investors to serve the political agenda of the Barisan Nasional government, whether at the federal or state level, and one consequence is the worsening of an already very endemic crime situation in the country.

The adverse consequences of such diversion of the police from their proper anti-crime duties to become agents to serve the political agenda of the Barisan Nasional is best illustrated by the rising crime rate in Perak in the first half of the year.

Crimes involving robbery, car theft and snatching in Perak has leapt up in the first six months of this year compared to the same period last year.

Cases involving robbery increased by 197 cases from 541 cases in the first six months of last year to 739 cases this year which was a 36.35% hike.

Car theft from January to June this year went up from 55 for all of last year to 138 cases in the first six month period this year that is a jump of 150.91%.

Cases of motorcycle theft also rose from 2,287 in the first six month period last year to 2,398 in the same period this year (a 4.85% rise).

Snatch thefts rose from 195 cases to 268 cases in the first half of the year, that is by 37.44%.

The  districts of Ipoh, Manjung, Taiping and Hilir Perak were where most of the crimes happened.

These statistics were given by the  Perak chief police officer, Datuk Zulkefli Abdullah, himself although  he attributed the causes to economic slump along with unemployment.

But there can be no doubt that a major cause was the inability of the over-stretched police personnel to focus on their primary duty to fight crime as they were dragooned in their hundreds to arrest Malaysians wearing black, lighting candles, holding fasts or gathering peacefully to protest against the unethical, undemocratic, illegal and unconstitutional  power grab in Perak by the Barisan Nasional – which the police should have no business to get involved to prop up the unethical and illegal Perak state government!

Of course, the most unforgettable public memory of the gross misuse of police powers and resources was the physical dragging out of the legitimate Perak Speaker, V. Sivakumar in Speaker’s robes in Speaker’s Chair from the Perak State Assembly on May 7 Day of Infamy in Perak by plainclothes police personnel!

Hishamuddin duty as Home Minister is to  arrest and reverse the tide of crime in the past five years and fulfil the objectives of the Police Royal Commission to create an efficient, incorruptible, professional world-class police service with three core functions to keep  crime low, eradicate corruption and uphold human rights.

He had started on the right footing when he announced in the middle of last month that he will revisit  together with the Inspector-General of Police the 125 recommendations in 2005 put out by the Royal Commission to Enhance the Operation and Management of the Royal Malaysian Police.

He pledged: “If there are proposals that have not taken off yet, we want to expedite them.”

The biggest failure of the police is its failure to reduce crime. The Police Royal Commission had found the annual incidence of crime of over 150,000 cases in 2004 as intolerable, unable to protect the safety of the people and likely to frighten off investors.

The Commission recommended as an immediate target the reduction of the incidence of crime by 20 per cent in 12 months after publication of the Report.

Instead of reducing crime, the crime index shot through the 200,000 cases in 2007 and 2008!

Another big failure is in not implementing the key recommendation of the Police Royal Commission to establish the Independent Police Complaints and Misconduct Commission (IPCMC).

Hopes that Hishammuddin will be able to conduct a meaningful second look at the 125 recommendations of the Police Royal Commission were very short-lived, as he backed off when he found opposition from the police headed by the Inspector-General of Police.

How can there be any second look, let alone meaningful second look, unless Tan Sri Musa Hassan, the person responsible for the failures to implement, both the spirit and letter of the 125 recommendations of the Police Royal Commission, is replaced with a new IGP?

A question I had asked in the recent Parliament, and suitably modified, is whether the IGP is answerable to the Home Minister or is the Home Minister answerable to the IGP!

Hishammuddin stop playing as Super-IGP. His role is to be an effective and responsible Home Minister exercising proper direction and charge of the police portfolio to Parliament and the Malaysian people.

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 8 July 2009, 2:41 pm and is filed under
Crime
,
Police
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Streamyx: What is going on?

This is from Goh my blog sysadmin:

to     < [deleted]@occ.vads.com>,

help

cc     limkitsiang

date  Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 8:53 AM

subject what is going on?

mailed-by dapmalaysia.org

Follow up message

ping to limkitsiang.com whopping 56% packet loss. if that is not

enough ping to www.adobe.com is 69% packet loss.

If you think packet loss have nothing to do with Internet, you may as

well go and DELETE the wikipedia entry here :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Packet_loss

ping -c 100 limkitsiang.com

PING limkitsiang.com (67.207.142.122) 56(84) bytes of data.

[deleted]

— limkitsiang.com ping statistics —

100 packets transmitted, 44 received, 56% packet loss, time 100301ms

rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 292.039/304.333/361.149/15.790 ms

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 8 July 2009, 9:31 am and is filed under
IT
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Affirmative Action Spurs Asian Debate

By
JAMES HOOKWAY | The Wall Street Journal

KUALA LUMPUR, Malaysia — Tony Fernandes, the chief executive of Malaysia’s upstart AirAsia airline, seldom shies away from a fight.

A former executive at Time Warner Inc.’s music division, Mr. Fernandes bought the debt-laden carrier in 2001 for 27 cents and turned it into Asia’s biggest budget airline with $754 million in annual revenues. It hasn’t been easy. To expand AirAsia Bhd., he’s battled reluctant governments for landing rights and routes and has endured price wars with regional competitors.

Now, as Mr. Fernandes pushes to build a new low-cost global hub and expand into Europe, Australia and the U.S., he is running into a tenet of modern Malaysia: affirmative action. Malaysia’s political leaders prefer to see big business such as airports in the hands of the ethnic-Malay majority, and often that means government control.

“A lot of Malaysians are proud of what AirAsia has achieved,” says Mr. Fernandes, a 45-year-old Malaysian of Indian descent. But successes such as his, he believes, are outnumbered by the economic problems created by the affirmative action system. “It’s a very Jekyll-and-Hyde situation here.”

This fertile, tropical nation in the heart of Southeast Asia prides itself on showing that Islam and business are compatible. The country is a significant supplier of palm oil and computer components to the world economy, and it harbors substantial oil and gas reserves. The iconic twin towers which dominate downtown Kuala Lumpur were once the world’s tallest buildings and today are the headquarters of state-owned oil company Petroliam Nasional Bhd.

The gleam and glitter are partly built on a race-based system of quotas and government ownership of key businesses, however, which many economists say now risks retarding the country’s growth. In 1969, race riots between Malays and ethnic-Chinese Malaysians prompted the country’s predominantly Malay leaders to introduce affirmative-action-style policies to give a leg up to the Malay population.

The original goal was to help Malays catch up economically with ethnic-Chinese Malaysians, who comprise around a fourth of the country’s 27 million people but who control a disproportionately large share of businesses and trade. To do so, the government created a series of state investment vehicles to buy into key parts of the Malaysian economy. Officials hoped that private Malay entrepreneurs would eventually emerge to take control.

Forty years on, the policy continues to have an impact in that much of the Malaysian economy remains under government direction. The state investment funds still own controlling stakes in large corporations such as Telekom Malaysia Bhd. and power generator Tenaga Nasional Bhd., as well as aviation companies Malaysia Airports Holdings Bhd. and Malaysian Airline System Bhd. Some of the state-backed companies have proved successful, others less so. Malaysian Airline System is losing money while national car producer Proton Holdings Bhd. is largely kept going by special tax rules, equity analysts say. The two companies didn’t return requests seeking comment.

Thus far, however, relatively few Malay entrepreneurs have capitalized on the race-based initiatives. In the meantime, some economists here say those same programs now threaten to undermine Malaysia’s fortunes by making it tough for some non-Malay entrepreneurs — like Mr. Fernandes — to go up against competitors in countries such as China, Vietnam and Singapore.

The predicament of AirAsia, and whether it should be allowed to develop its own low-cost terminal, is a case in point. Obstacles to the carrier’s growth could jeopardize Malaysia’s status as an international travel hub — and damage the country’s best-known global brand in the process.

All this is distressing to many Malaysians who believe their country, like many other developing nations, needs to do far more to encourage home-grown entrepreneurs.

Since taking office in April, Prime Minister Najib Razak, a Malay, has rolled back some aspects of the race-based program — known here as the New Economic Policy — to lure more foreign investors. He recently issued new rules allowing foreign investors to enter selected service, financial and legal businesses without having to give up equity to local ethnic-Malay partners. Companies listing on the local stock market, meanwhile, will be required to allocate 12.5% of their shares to Malay investors, compared with 30% before. Mr. Najib also urged a level playing field between state-owned business and privately-owned competitors.

“The world is changing quickly and we must be ready to change with it or risk being left behind,” Mr. Najib told an investment conference June 30. But he stressed in an interview that “we mustn’t lose sight of the overall objective of a more equitable and just society.”

Some Malay hard-liners warn that the government has gone too far. Ma’amor Osman, leader of a local activist group of Muslim Malays, describes Mr. Najib as “a dangerous liberal” who could destabilize Malaysia’s fragile ethnic balance, while some protesters have recently marched in support of Malay rights. The country’s Malays comprise just over half its population, and many can’t remember a time when they weren’t entitled to any special privileges.

[Affirmative Action Spurs Asian Debate]

Affirmative action programs provoke controversy wherever they appear. In the U.S., President Barack Obama’s election victory has injected some fresh life into a debate over whether race-based preferences for university places or government jobs are still needed or desirable. India’s efforts to improve the lot of people born on the lower rungs of that country’s caste system were a major factor in elections there this year.

Proponents of the NEP say the measures helped create a stable country attractive to foreign investors who built electronics factories, chip plants and other businesses here. This foreign investment, along with the discovery of oil in Malaysian waters, helped drive the country’s economic growth from the 1970s to the 1990s.

“The idea was to grow the pie so everybody could have a larger share,” says Razaleigh Hamzah, an aristocrat picked by the government in the 1960s and 1970s to set up banks and run other state-controlled businesses.

Nonetheless, some non-Malay businesses had to hand over 30% of their equity to ethnic-Malay partners. The government also introduced quotas reserving 55% of the places at Malaysia’s state universities to Malay students, forcing others to educate their children at expensive private colleges or overseas.

Last year, AirAsia’s Mr. Fernandes issued a challenge to this status quo. Instead of paying landing fees, passenger-service charges and other dues set by Malaysia’s state-owned airport company, he proposed that AirAsia build its own airport facilities, including the construction of a Disneyland-style resort, and set its own, lower rates.

Behind the expansion plans are several other practical concerns. AirAsia’s current terminal at the main Kuala Lumpur International Airport complex is little more than a glorified cargo hanger. Passengers await boarding calls huddled in groups, like at a bus or railway station, and walk across the tarmac to their planes. Other international airlines, by contrast, operate from an ultramodern terminal nearby where passengers are whisked to their departure gates on a sleek monorail train.

When the global economic crunch hit, Mr. Fernandes expanded through the slump, launching several new routes and increasing AirAsia’s capacity by nearly a fifth in a bid to lure customers from traditional airlines. Net profit in the first quarter hit 203.2 million ringgit, or $57 million, up 26% from the same period last year. Still, AirAsia is $2 billion in debt — partly the result of its rapid expansion. To keep the business aloft and healthy, Mr. Fernandes argues that AirAsia needs cheap, but effective airport facilities.

AirAsia also plans to use its base in Kuala Lumpur as a hub for a new long-haul service called AirAsia X, which counts Sir Richard Branson’s Virgin Group among its major shareholders. AirAsia X currently flies to Australia and Britain, but Mr. Fernandes hopes the airline will soon serve the U.S., too.

The Malaysian government initially agreed with AirAsia’s plans and consented to the $460 million airport project. Then, in January of this year, local bureaucrats began pushing back. State investment fund Khazanah Nasional Bhd. objected to Mr. Fernandes’s plans. It insisted that if a new facility was to be built, it should be erected and managed by one of its closely held assets, Malaysia Airports, at the existing airport complex.

Another of Khazanah’s assets, Malaysia Airlines, also stood to lose from AirAsia’s expansion. That spurred concerns in the industry that Khazanah was attempting to protect its own investments rather than help fuel the growth of AirAsia, which last year accounted for 40% of all passengers coming through Kuala Lumpur International Airport.

Khazanah officials didn’t respond to requests for comment. A representative of the state investment fund said it objected to the AirAsia plan because there was an existing airport complex and building another one was an unnecessary expense.

Still, Malaysia’s government quickly reversed course after Khazanah flagged its objections. Mr. Najib, deputy prime minister and finance minister at the time, instructed state-run Malaysia Airports Holdings and AirAsia to work out a possible compromise: Malaysia Airports could build and run the new terminal, but to AirAsia’s specifications. It seemed like a win-win solution at the time, AirAsia officials said.

But after five months of talks, Mr. Fernandes and other AirAsia executives say they still have no idea kind of fees they’ll have to pay. They’ve suggested passenger service charges of 10 ringgit ($2.82) for international flights and six ringgit ($1.69) for domestic flights, a discount from the 25 ringgit AirAsia and other airlines usually pay because of the limited budget services AirAsia offers. Malaysia Airports officials didn’t respond to requests for comment.

[Affirmative Action Spurs Asian Debate]

In a May 26 letter to the chairman of Malaysia Airports, AirAsia Chairman Aziz Bakar warned that high airport charges would “delay the launch of new routes,” discourage tourists and “place in jeopardy this economic boon for the nation.” AirAsia may also slow down its fleet expansion, at least for its shorter-haul sector, said the letter, which was reviewed by The Wall Street Journal.

Some airline analysts say AirAsia may be able to adopt a hard-line stance in its negotiations because of the sheer quantity of passengers it channels through the Kuala Lumpur International complex. “The airport had been languishing somewhat before AirAsia came along,” says Peter Harbison, director of the Centre for Asia Pacific Aviation, a Sydney, Australia, consulting firm.

Already, the carrier is bringing people through Malaysia who might not have otherwise come. One such tourist, Domingo Buenaseda, from the Philippines, recently strolled a Kuala Lumpur mall. “A friend was getting married in Bali, Indonesia, and flying on AirAsia was the cheapest way of getting there,” he said. “Stopping off in Kuala Lumpur for a few days for the connection seemed like a good idea.”

No one knows when, if ever, AirAsia and Malaysia Airports will be able to thrash out a deal. Singapore this year allowed AirAsia to fly from the city-state to other countries for the first time, after rebuffing Mr. Fernandes’s overtures for seven years. That means AirAsia could potentially use Singapore as a hub instead of Kuala Lumpur.

A spokeswoman for the Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore says the city’s airport is offering incentives to all airlines to fly from Singapore — AirAsia included.

—Shai Oster in Beijing contributed to this article.

Write to James Hookway at
[email protected]

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 9 July 2009, 11:57 am and is filed under
Economics
,
NEP
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Cabinet decision on PPSMI – not a New Deal but a Raw Deal leaving Malaysia stranded in the march towards global educational quality, excellence and competitiveness

The Cabinet decision on the PPSMI (Pengajaran dan Pembelajaran Sains dan Matematik – teaching and learning of Science and Mathematics in English) yesterday was not a New Deal, as proclaimed by some newspaper headlines, but a Raw Deal leaving Malaysia stranded in the march towards global educational quality, excellence and competitiveness and doing a great disservice to millions of students currently in both the primary and secondary schools.

The Raw Deal of the PPSMI decision of the Cabinet is powerfully highlighted by the Sin Chew report of a national secondary school Form One student in Ipoh who burst into tears at the news of the Cabinet decision, feeling totally lost, worried what would be his future when he had to switch to Bahasa Malaysia for mathematics and science when entering Form 4 in 2012, after mastering both subjects being taught in English from Form 1 to 3 from this year to 2011  – and Form 4 and 5 are the most important years in a person’s education in preparing for Form 6,
university and the world beyond
.

Did the Cabinet Ministers discuss  and envision the disastrous effect of their PPSMI decision yesterday on the half a million of students who would have been taught  maths and science in the English medium from Form 1 to 3 from this year to 2011 in having suddenly to switch to Bahasa Malaysia as medium of instruction for these two subjects in 2012 in Form 4 – after six years of being guinea pigs of PPSMI in the primary schools?

If the Cabinet had not anticipated the cruelty and the sheer injustice of such a switch for Form 4 students in 2012, clearly the Cabinet Ministers had not thought through the whole issue thoroughly and they have failed the nation, the people and in particular the 5.5 million school-going generation under their charge!

This is not the only Raw Deal of the Cabinet’s PPSMI decision yesterday. The Cabinet decision yesterday cannot be the last word on the controversial subject and the whole issue must be re-opened for a broader, more liberal and flexible solution which would have far-reaching consequences not only to nation-building, nature of  a society we want to build in Malaysia but also whether Malaysia can compete and stand tall with the rest of  the world.

I am not surprised that the father of the PPSMI, Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad, is quite upset about the Cabinet decision yesterday.

I had right from the beginning in 2002 opposed Mahathir’s PPSMI, as it is educationally unsound because educational experience on bilingual education worldwide in the past three decades have shown that using a second language as a medium of instruction from too early stages can impede the development of thinking skills of children resulting in low achievement in mathematics, science and languages – powerful educational arguments against the use of English to teach maths and science from Std. One.

This argument does not apply for children whose home language is the English language or a total immersion education system is adopted with English as medium of instruction.

This is why I suggested a flexible approach to the PPSMI problem which does not allow a “One Size Fits All” solution, by giving parents the choice to decide on the type of education they want for their children – including having classes or schools using English as medium of instruction for mathematics and science.

Six years ago, Mahathir broached the idea of the possibility of the re-introduction of government English-medium school system to arrest the decline of the standard of English. Is Mahathir prepared to revisit and take up this proposal?

While I disagree with Mahathir’s “One Size Fits All” formula  in forcing through the PPSMI for national, Chinese and Tamil primary schools from 2003, I share his dismay at the Cabinet decision to abandon the use of English to teach mathematics and science for Forms 1 and 4 from 2012.

As Mahathir said, he was only briefed of the Cabinet decision on the PPMSI but he was not consulted at all.

Mahathir said:

“I was only briefed about it, so after the briefing I gave my suggestions, I said even if it could not be implemented at primary level, at least at secondary level it should be maintained, so it was not a consultation only briefing.

“I am saddened because the future of our children will be affected. They will be the victims.”

It is  even sadder to see Deputy Prime Minister and Education Minister, Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin, trying to argue the unarguable – the dismal failure of the PPSMI after six years and some RM4 billion of public expenditures an all-round decline!

The purpose of the ill-conceived PPSMI was to raise the standards of English, mathematics and science for Malaysian students which are imperative if Malaysia is not to continue its descent  into a backwater, with one country after another overtaking the country in national development and progress.

The reasons prompting the PPSMI six years ago to transform Malaysia into a global powerhouse in English, maths and science were right, proper and should be supported  but the approach in conceiving and implementing the PPSMI from Std. One was wrong.

The Cabinet’s PPSMI decision yesterday sought to address the fallacies of PPSMI – but it has failed to come up with a formula which commands public confidence  that English, maths and science proficiency of Malaysian students would be upgraded for Malaysia to become a global powerhouse in these three subjects.

There must be a new round of national consultation and debate to give a genuine new deal to the millions of Malaysian students in schools which will redound to greater national economic prowess and international competitiveness, instead of a Raw Deal which negates the faults of PPSMI without any compensating or redeeming virtue.

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 9 July 2009, 1:46 pm and is filed under
Education
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Malaysian unity, not ketuanan Melayu please

By
Dr Chen Man Hin
, DAP Life Advisor

WORLDWIDE SUPPORT BY A BILLION PEOPLE AT MICHAEL JACKSONS’S MEMORIAL SERVICES SHOWS THAT RACIALISM HAS NO PLACE IN THE NEW GLOBAL WORLD.

Michael Jackson was the ‘king of pop’ and his music and artistry won him accolades from the peoples of the world, old and young and of all races. He was a black American but to the people race was never a consideration, because of his creative art. This is a healthy development, and the lesson is that in a modern world there is no room for racialism or racial politics. The world recognises and praise the man because of the achievements and merits of the man, and not by the colour of his skin. This is a world trend.

THE WORLD TREND IS TO RECOGNISE THAT ALL RACES IN THE WORLD ARE EQUAL AND THERE SHOULD BE FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION AND ASSEMBLY, RULE OF LAW, SECURITY AND PEACE, FREEDOM OF RELIGION AND DEMOCRACY

The correct way for Malaysia to progress and prosper is for Malaysians to unite and strive to be competitive through merit, transparency and discipline.

In recent days, there has been a revival of fears among the Malay community, that with globalisation and the victories of March 8th, 2008 for the opposition, their future is under threat. This provoked Umno to propose the concept of ketuanan Melayu, and they called for malays to unite as their political and economic future was under threat.

The fears also inspired the call for unity talks between Umno and Pas leaders to find solutions for the perceived predicament of the Malays.

It is fair for Malay Malaysians to strive for a rightful place in the country, and this goes for Chinese and Indian Malaysians as well. But calling for Malay unity and unity talks will not solve the problem of securing prosperity and progress.

History if full of examples where racial supremacy or ketuanan Melayu have fallen into disrepute and rejected by the people.

THE ARYAN RACE OF HITLER DURING THE SECOND WORLD WAR.

Hitler wanted a greater Germany and propounded the doctrine of the Aryan race meaning the Germans. He considered the Jews to be outcasts and killed many of them – genocide. Hitler was proved wrong because Germany lost the war, and the Aryan race supremacy died with him.

In America, white supremacy was practised and blacks were imported to work as slaves in the plantations. But slavery was condemned by President Lincoln. He won the civil war and slavery was abolished. However, the blacks continued to be ostracised and mistreated especially by white supremists. The blacks persisted and continued their struggle to be equal with the whites. In the course of time, many blacks went into college and many have outshone themselves as research scientists, congressmen, artists, businesmen and world class athletes.

Tiger Woods is the greatest golf champion in the world. Michael Jackson died recently and memorial services were held around the world. CNN estimated that there were 1 billion mourners attended the memorial services.

But the event which marked the end of white supremacy in America was the election of Obama as the first black President of The United States of America .

Umno and all those who support the idea of ketuanan Melayu or Malay supremacy should learn from history. Follow the world trend towards equlity of races and freedom of expression and assembly.

The way to go is to the nation to follow a policy of Malaysians unite and work together as one people for progress and prosperity.

PM Najib Razak. This is one reform you should recommend as soon as possible. No more Malay supremacy. Just give us Malaysian unity.

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 9 July 2009, 6:08 pm and is filed under
Dr. Chen Man Hin
,
Najib Razak
,
nation building
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


The Talent, the Tragedy & the Triumph

By
Martin Jalleh

You brought back magic into music, leaving an indelible imprint. You gave dance an indescribable grace and showed impeccable mastery of movement.

You merged music and video and brought about a MTV generation. You magnificently and incredibly blended and bridged arena rock, soul and pop.

You moved the world’s conscience with your humanitarian spirit and inspired us with your clarion call to care for the hungry, homeless, HIV/AIDS victims and those without hope.

You mesmerized peoples of all races, languages and cultures, in every country, instilling in them the message that what mattered most was love and mutual respect.

You were matchless – you were an original, creative, unique and magnetizing musician and artist.

You were a true troubadour who ruled and “thrilled” the world” and you were also a tortured soul and a troubled life with a tumultuous childhood.

You were the very “Man in the Mirror” who chased after a “Childhood” you never had. You craved to be Peter Pan, and clamored to be a child forever on Neverland.

You were extraordinary. You were enchanting, exciting, entertaining and enamoring and you were also notoriously eccentric and erratic.

You were the world’s greatest pop icon, and an inspiration to countless – and sadly you were also accused of ignoble deeds such as being a child predator and “dangerous” to the young.

You dared us to look at the “Man in the Mirror” – and you would also literally deface and deform what you saw in the mirror, with three decades of plastic surgeries.

You sang “We are the World”. You moonwalked all over the earth. But often you waked alone – like a lonely lost comet spinning out of control, a sullen solitary sorry sight.

You wanted to “heal the world” – you, a “wounded orphan”, a masked man with a “washed-out dream” and a weary worn-out soul of make-believe marriages, a King of pop finding peace in painkillers.

You were so free and yet so “addicted” to the adulation and adoration of your fans which in the end annihilated you. You were alienated from a normal life, a man of undisputed fame made to look like a freak.

You were a “beautiful boy” who tried so hard to bounce back and to “beat it” when you realized you were near-barren of creativity and bankruptcy. You were a blessed soul who died of a broken heart.

You were a superstar scarred. You were a very human hero – frail and flawed – and yet, the finest and “simply the greatest entertainer that ever lived”.

You were tainted talent with transcendent creativity – musical magnificence of immeasurable magnitude. Goodbye Michael Joseph Jackson. May God grant you peace.

We will remember you — a man who made HIStory.

(15 June 2009)

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 9 July 2009, 9:17 pm and is filed under
Martin Jalleh
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Unlike BN, PR is not based on “fear of the master” but partnership based on equality, mutual respect and commitment on agreed principles

In recent weeks, Barisan Nasional component parties, particularly Umno, MCA and Gerakan had tried to fan discord and engender distrust among Pakatan Rakyat component parties but so far to no avail.

One favourite gambit of Barisan Nasional component parties is to accuse the Pakatan Rakyat component of being subservient to the other parties – betraying a mindset ingrained for over three decades of the real relationship in the Barisan Nasional between Umno and the rest in BN as well as reflective of a modus operandi in the BN which could not conceive of a coalition of political parties based on equality, mutual respect and commitment on agreed principles.

In recent weeks, different language media will carry statements like Umno accusing PAS of being afraid of PKR or DAP, of DAP being afraid of PAS or PKR, as well as of PKR being afraid of DAP or PAS.

This is course the only relationship the BN component parties could understand in the Barisan Nasional – the political hegemony of Umno over the other BN component parties with Umno undergirded by the factors of “the fear of the master”  and greed.

DAP is not afraid of PAS and PKR, PAS not afraid of DAP and PKR and PKR not afraid of DAP and PAS. This is not the basis of our co-operation and understanding in Pakatan Rakyat formed after the political tsunami of the March 8, 2008 general election to end Umno political hegemony and BN misrule.

Clearly, UMNO and BN component parties particularly MCA, Gerakan and MIC are very upset that Pakatan Rakyat component parties have been able to address teething problems in the new coalition, particularly in Penang and Kedah..

Pakatan Rakyat must demonstrate that it is different from Barisan Nasional and that problems in PR  among component parties, national or state, and  concerns and aspirations of the people are promptly addressed in a  frank and forthright manner by PR leaders.

With the spirit shown by Pakatan Rakyat component parties to address the problems in Penang and Kedah, Pakatan Rakyat is sending a clear message that it is  in the Malaysian arena to stay until the great political mission and the political yearnings of Malaysians for change are  accomplished.

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 9 July 2009, 3:18 pm and is filed under
Pakatan Rakyat
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Cabinet next week should undo its unprofessional, political and disastrous PPSMI decision with four-point remedy in line with national aspirations to be internationally competitive to become high-income nation

Six years ago, the Cabinet under Tun Mahathir took a hasty and ill-considered decision to rush headlong to implement the PPSMI (Pengajaran dan Pembelajaran Sains dan Matematik – teaching and learning of Science and Mathematics in English) from Std One for all primary schools, totally without proper or adequate preparation making five million Malaysian school children in the primary schools guinea pigs of BN politicians in the past six years.

Today, the Cabinet under Datuk Seri Najib Razak in trying to undo the failures and disasters of the ill-considered Cabinet decision six years ago after wasting RM4 billion of public funds, is again committing the folly of another  ill-considered decision that will victimize  millions of Malaysian students by making them “guinea pigs” of BN politicians for a second time in their 11-year primary and secondary education.

It is shocking beyond belief that Cabinet Ministers and Education Ministry officials could be so irresponsible and unprofessional as to turn million of students into “guinea pigs” for their half-baked educational experiments twice in a decade.

Students in Form 1 this year will continue to be taught  maths and science in English until Form 3 in 2011, having spent the past six years in primary school with English as the medium of instruction for these two subjects under PPSMI.

However, when they come to Form 4 in 2012, they will become “guinea pigs” a second time, when medium of instruction for these two subjects are switched back to Bahasa Malaysia in line with  the Cabinet decision on Wednesday – continuing into Form 5.

In 2013, when they sit for SPM, they will have to cope with mathematics and science in Bahasa Malaysia although they were taught the two subjects in English medium  for the first  nine of the 11 years of their primary and secondary education.

It is not only this batch of students who will be victimized and made second-time guinea pigs by the BN Ministers and politicians, but an entire generation of school-going children from 2003 to 2013 and beyond!

To say the least, such thoughtless and careless attitude  is a most irresponsible and crazy way to run the education system of a country.

MCA President and Transport Minister, Datuk Seri Ong Tee Keat said MCA is of the view that the use of English as medium of instruction for Forms 4 or 5 should be maintained  even after 2012 – but the question is why the four MCA Ministers and the Gerakan and MIC  Ministers failed to ensure that this is part of the Cabinet decision last Wednesday?

This is another example of the failure of MCA, Gerakan and MIC Ministers to speak  up loud and clear and ensure that the Cabinet does only  what is right and good for the people and nation and not just to serve certain political objectives.

Former Prime Minister, Tun Abdullah and the Deputy Education Minister Dr. Mohd  Puad Zarkashi have openly admitted that the RM4 billion PPMSI experiment in the past six years had been “a failure”.

If the RM4 billion PPMSI in the past six years had been a failure, what is the rationale and justification for the Cabinet decision to defer its abolition until three years later in 2012 instead of immediate implementation next year?

The Cabinet decision on PPSMI on Wednesday is  unprofessional and more politically motivated than based on the educational interests of the students and the national needs to create the conditions for an internationally competitive Malaysia which is capable of  fully exploiting the human and natural resources of the country to become a high-income nation.

The Cabinet next week should urgently revisit its unprofessional, political and disastrous  decision last Wednesday to undo its  disastrous PPSMI decision with a four-point remedy in  line with national aspirations to be internationally competitive to become a high-income nation, viz:

As the Education Ministry has admitted that the PPSMI from Std. One is a RM4 billion six-year failure, confirming the DAP stand since 2002 that PPSMI should not be introduced at Std. One as a “One Size Fits All” solution for all schools, but only at higher standards, the abolition of the PPSMI from Std. One for all schools should take immediate effect from next year and not be deferred until 2012.  Why should a policy admitted as a “failure” be continued for another three years?

Flexibility in dealing with the problems of the different-medium primary schools with the objectives of raising the standards of proficiency in English, mathematics and science while maintaining Bahasa Malaysia as a compulsory subject.

National, Chinese and Tamil primary schools should be given room to strengthen the proficiency of their students in the three subjects or all of them where they are weak  – for instance allowing Chinese primary school students who are  all along strong in maths and science to focus on English proficiency while national and Tamil primary school students have special programmes to uplift their proficiency in all these three subjects.

In keeping with a flexible approach which is not tied down to a “One Size Fits All”, there should be choice for parents to pick the type of education they want for their children – including having classes or schools using English as medium for instruction for mathematics and science. Six years ago, Mahathir broached the idea of the possibility of the government re-introduction of the English-medium school system to arrest the decline of the standard of English. This proposal should be seriously revisited by the Cabinet, Parliament and the Malaysian public.

The Cabinet decision to fully revert back to Bahasa Malaysia as medium of instruction for maths and science for Forms 1 and 4 in 2012 should be modified so as not to make Malaysian schoolchildren guinea-pigs not once but twice in half-baked educational experiments – allowing the PPSMI in secondary forms or giving choice to parents and schools to teach these subjects in the English medium.

Set up a mechanism, whether Cabinet or parliamentary committee to make proposals as to how the educational system could become more flexible, liberal and innovative to allow parents the choice to decide on the medium of instruction for their children in maths and science, both primary and secondary, in line with the national aspirations to be internationally competitive to become a high-income nation.

                This entry was posted on Friday, 10 July 2009, 10:53 am and is filed under
Education
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Can Najib’s upsurge in popularity on his 100th Day be sustained with a BN victory in Manek Urai by-election and is he confident enough to seek a motion of confidence when Parliament reconvenes on Oct 19?

Tomorrow is Datuk Seri Najib Razak’s 100th Day as Malaysia’s sixth Prime Minister.

Najib’s baggage as Prime Minister is vividly illustrated by the pathetic episode where Najib’s spinmeister could work up  a “song and a dance” over the fact that Najib’s  popularity rating in a recent poll had spiralled to 65% as compared to 45% a month after he became Prime Minister and 42 per cent just before taking over the premiership from Tun Abdullah on April 3, 2009.

Yes, it was quite a remarkable 44% recovery from 45% popularity rating  in six weeks for Najib to claw back 20 percentage points in the latest Merdeka Centre opinion poll, but his spinmeisters feigned ignorance that it was really a very dismal rating when compared to the five previous Prime Ministers,  Tunku Abdul Rahman, Tun Razak, Tun Hussein, Tun Mahathir and Tun Abdullah who would have no difficulty in securing popularity rating of 95% and over for any opinion poll  in their “First 100 Days”.

Can Najib’s upsurge in popularity on his  100th day be sustained with a Barisan Nasional  victory in Manek Urai by-election in Kelantan next Tuesday and is he confident enough of his national popularity to seek a motion of confidence when Parliament reconvenes on Oct 19, something he had not dared to do in the recent three-week meeting of Parliament?

As I had pointedly asked Barisan Nasional MPs in the recent Parliament, wasn’t it true that the real reason why Najib dared not seek a motion of confidence in Parliament was not that he could not be certain of the votes of 83 Pakatan Rakyat MPs, Najib was also unsure that all the Barisan Nasional MPs would cast their votes for him to express their confidence!  Talk about ”musuh dalam selimut”!

Let Najib answer on his 100th  Day – is he  confident enough that his popularity is on the rise and public support for  his policies and pledges, particularly his slogan of “1Malaysia. People First. Performance Now” and his  slew of economic and educational reforms as to seek a motion of confidence from Parliament on the sixth month of his premiership in October?

Najib should know that his political, economic and educational reforms have feet of clay.

For instance, what credibility could his 1Malaysia slogan command when Deputy Prime Minister Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin is only prepared to say that “Umno will fight to the last drop of blood to protect Malay rights”, but not prepared to say that Umno will similarly fight to the last drop of blood to protect the rights of all Malaysians, regardless of race?

Is there any Cabinet Minister who is prepared to publicly say that he or she is prepared to fight to the last drop of blood to protect the rights of his or her race, whether Malays, Chinese, Indians, Kadazans or Ibans, and add in the same breath that he or she is equally prepared to right to the last drop of blood to protect the rights of all  Malaysians regardless of race?

Until and unless the leaders of  Umno and all the Barisan Nasional component parties are prepared to make this commitment, to fight to the last drop of blood to protect the rights of his or her  race, as well as to fight to the last drop of blood to protect the rights of all Malaysians regardless of race, Najib’s 1Malaysia cannot have much meaning!

Najib said recently  that the Chinese in Malaysia are most concerned about education, economy, religion and crime and he believes that if these four issues can be resolved, the Chinese will continue to support the Barisan Nasional government.

It is not just the Chinese, but all Malaysians regardless of race, who are also concerned about these four issues of education, economy, religion and crime. What must be added are corruption and Malaysian citizenship rights.

Just on crime and corruption. Is Najib prepared, on the occasion of his 100th Day, take bold measures to send unmistakable messages that he hears and endorses the cries of Malaysian for change, viz:

Ensure that the country has a new Inspector-General of Police to provide new police leadership to focus on the core functions of police, particularly to keep crime low and make Malaysians feel safe again in their own country; and

An all-out battle against corruption and malpractices by establishing two  Royal Commissions of Inquiry,

into the RM12.5 billion Port Klang Free Zone scandal and

into the  RM24 million Istana Khir Toyo scandal of former Umno Selangor Mentri Besar Datuk Seri Khir Toyo?

                This entry was posted on Friday, 10 July 2009, 3:30 pm and is filed under
Najib Razak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Part 2 – Gobbledegook and regurgitation in the written judgments of the Court of Appeal in Zambry v Nizar: Postscript – Zainun Ali JCA’s judgment

By
NH Chan

Postscript

On Tuesday,
July 7 2009 I posted an article under the above title
 on the web with various news portals. At that time I only have the written judgments of two of the judges Raus Sharif and Ahmad Maarop JJCA. I have just received the third judgment that of Zainun Ali JCA from Mr. Edmund Bon of
loyarburok.com
 through Mr. Ngan Siong Hing of Ipoh for which I am most grateful. Below is my critique of the written judgment of Zainun Ali JCA.

The points that really matter

As I have said it before in the first part of this article, there are only two points that really matter in the appeal of the case in question. They involve the reading of two clauses in Article 16 of the Perak Constitution and an understanding of what the clauses mean. A very experienced judge, the late Lord Justice Salmon in a talk which he gave to young members of the English Bar (
Some Thoughts on the Traditions of the English Bar
) said:

…..remember this, in few cases, however complex, is there usually more than one point that matters. Very seldom are there more than two and never, well hardly ever, more than three. Discover the points that really matter. Stick to them and discard the rest.

Actually, Salmon U was revealing to budding advocates the mind of a judge. The young advocates are informed, before they embark on their career, that a judge makes his decision by discovering the point that really matters or, exceptionally, the points that really matter. This revelation should place aspiring advocates on the right direction to becoming good advocates.

If a judge misses the point or points altogether, the whole decision becomes nothing but gobbledygook if it is unintelligible or a regurgitation of a lot of information on the facts and the law without understanding them. A decision which does not decide on any point that really matters is not a judgment at all. A decision which misses the point altogether is merely the extraneous ranting of an incompetent judge. At best, the legal principles described in the decision may be described as nothing more than obiter dictum or dicta; but if it is just to repeat known law (which is unconnected to any point in issue) as was done here in most of the judgment of Zainun Ali JCA, it is not even dicta. In truth, such a decision is useless because it cannot be cited as an authority as it is only regurgitating what is already known. But a decision that misses the point or points altogether is no authority on the issue or issues before the court. Because the decision did not decide on the issues or points that matter, such a decision is at best merely obiter dicta (the Latin phrase means “incidental”). Professor Andrew Harding in his essay
Crisis of Confidence and Perak’s Constitutional Impasse
 gave an illustration of such a situation in Amir Kahar (Sabah, 1995) which the High Court judge in the present case had distinguished. This is what Professor Harding wrote:

Amir Kahar, [the High Court judge said, was correct on its facts but did not raise the issue in question as the Chief Minister of Sabah in that case had in fact resigned and the only issue was as to the effect of his resignation with regard to the rest of the Cabinet; accordingly the court’s views in that case on the issue of confidence were merely obiter dicta (incidental).

If a judgment decides on the points that really matter, the judgment which decides on those points is described as the ratio decidendi of the decision (this Latin phrase means “the reason for a decision”).

The incidental part of a judgment which does not form the reason for the decision (the ratio of the judgment) is an “obiter dictum” (plural “obiter dicta”). This Latin phrase means “incidental”. An obiter dictum is never cited as an authority for the proposition it states, although an intellectually dishonest judge would treat it as such, in the hope that the reader would take his word for it and not read the whole judgment that he has referred to in support of his proposition. Sometimes an obiter dictum has much persuasive value depending on the standing of the judge. Such obiter dictum may sometimes be adopted by a judge as his judgment in an appropriate case. Only the ratio decidendi of a judgment can be used as authority for the proposition that it states. But the remarks which are incidental to the decision are obiter.

Let us now expose the fallacy of the judgment of Zainun Ali JCA

The judgment is 115 pages long – it is like using a blunderbuss to shoot at a target, scattering shots in all directions, and not hitting it. It is the longest of the three. Most of it has nothing to do with the two points that really matter in this appeal which we know are Clause (2)(a) and Clause (6) of Article 16 of the Laws of the Constitution of Perak. And when she does come to the two points that are the real issues in the appeal she misses the points altogether by giving a wrong reason for them.

Here at page 12 is an example of irrelevant writing. This is what she wrote, p 12:

Inclined as is the Federal Constitution towards the Westminster structure, it has its own peculiarities. The Westminster model is not to be found in one document, but could be seen in bits and pieces in the Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights, the Act of Settlement and a series of Parliament Acts. Conversely, the Federal Constitution however is embodied in one document and gathers unto itself various sources of law some of which are implicit. The unique presence of the written law, shot through with informal and unwritten sources in the form of conventions, prerogatives, discretionary and residual powers as such, help ensure the continuation of constitutionalism and the rule of law. Thus the sources of law in our Constitution are several. Article 160(1) of the Federal Constitution says it all. “
Law includes written law, the common law, insofar as it is in operation in the Federation or any part thereof and any custom or usage having the force of law in the Federation or any part thereof
”

I think I should stop here. Enough is enough. I don’t think we, neither the reading public nor myself, can stomach any more balderdash. You can pretend to be erudite by regurgitating unconnected material of facts and jumble them up. You can even misread the history of England like not knowing the different period in history between the feudalism of the barons and a despotic king in Magna Carta and the Act of Settlement which came about after King James II fled the realm and the ascension of William and Mary to the throne of England. Unless you can connect the leap from thirteenth century England to the Act of Settlement in 1701 some four hundred years later, then everything that is said is nothing more than pretended erudition.

What is Magna Carta?

I shall start with Magna Carta since she mentions it first. In order to understand the significance of Magna Carta in English history, it is necessary to know the difference between feudalism and despotism. The Charter marked the first step in the resistance by the barons to the despotism of King John in the thirteenth century. As Trevelyan wrote in his
History of England, illustrated edition
, p 199: “For feudalism is the opposite of despotism…. … The barons and knights were protected from the king by feudal law and custom. When [the king] claimed service, aids or reliefs on a scale larger than the custom allowed, they resisted him on point of feudal law.” Trevelyan tells us, “The resistance to royal despotism in the thirteenth century was successful because the feudal class, unlike the squires of later times, was still to some extent a warrior class. . . they all had chain- armour and war-horses, some had gone on the Crusades, and many lived in a state of chronic skirmishing with their Welsh and Scottish neighbours. That is why the barons of Magna Carta … were able to put up a fight against the King.”

I shall now let Lord Denning take up the story in The Family Story, Butterworth, 1981, p. 229:

On May 5, 1215, many of the Barons openly rebelled against the King. They renounced their fealty [loyalty in feudal times] to him. . . . On May 12 he [King John] ordered their estates to be seized. But the Barons marched towards London which, on May 17, opened its gates to them. This was decisive. The Barons, with the support of London, had the whip-hand. John had to sue for peace. . . .At length a truce was arranged from June 10 to June 15.

The first meeting at Runnymeade was on June 10, 1215. There were present King John, the Archbishop Stephen Langton, and some baronial envoys. At this meeting the Barons presented their demands and the King submitted to them.

At p 230:

On June 15 the truce was due to expire. On that day the parties assembled in great numbers at Runnymede and agreement was reached on all points. The King and those present all solemnly swore to abide by the agreement. This day was regarded as so important that, when the Charter was afterwards drawn up, it was given the date, June 15.

At the bottom of page 230 and at p231:

The peace did not last long. In a couple of months the parties were again at war. The King looked for aid to Rome. . . .August 24, 1215, Pope Innocent Ill purported to annul the Charter. . . .he excommunicated the English Barons… But John’s death on October 12, 1216, at Newark Castle, altered everything. Early in the reign of the young King Henry III the Great Charter was confirmed by his regents. In the yeas 1225 it was re-issued by the King himself under the Great Seal. Magna Carter then took its final form, word for word, as it stands today as the earliest enactment on the Statute Rolls of England.

The Great Charter dealt with grievances of the time in a practical way. It gave legal redress for the wrongs of a feudal age. But it was expressed in language which has had its impact on future generations. It put into words the spirit of individual liberty which has influenced our people ever since.

……

We find set down in the thirty-ninth clause the guarantee of freedom under the law [all the clauses of the Magna Carta were in Latin; the translation is by Lord Denning]: (No free man shall be taken, imprisoned, disseized [deprived of feudal interest in land], outlawed, banished, or in any way destroyed, nor will we proceed against or prosecute him, except by the lawful judgment of his peers and by the law of the land).

Immediately following, in the fortieth clause, is the guarantee of the impartial administration of justice [in Latin; Lord Denning gives the translation] (To no one will we sell, to no one will we deny or delay right or justice).

At pp 231, 232:

The constitutional significance of Magna Carta is immense. It was thus measured by Bryce: ‘The Charter of 1215 was the starting point of the constitutional history of the English race, the first link in a long chain of constitutional instruments which have moulded men’s minds and held together free governments not only in England, but whenever the English race has gone and the English tongue is spoken’. When the colonists crossed the seas from England to countries the world over, they took with them the principles set down in the Charter. Those who went to Virginia took its very words. When they renounced their allegiance in 1776, they stated in their Declaration of Rights that ‘no man be deprived of his liberty, except by the law of the land or the judgment of his peers’. Thence the provisions of the Charter found their place in the Constitution of the United States. There it is revered as much as here.

The Bill of Rights 1688 and the Act of Settlement 1701

For this Lord Denning has put it succinctly in
The Family Story
, pp 192, 193:

No member of the government, no member of Parliament, and no official of any government department, has any right whatever to direct or to influence or to interfere with the decisions of any of the judges. It is the sure knowledge of this that gives the people their confidence in the judges . ..The critical test which they must pass if they are to receive the confidence of the people is that they must be independent of the executive.

Why do the English people feel so strongly about this? It is because it is born in them. We know in our bones that it will not do for us to allow the executive to have any control over the judges: and we know it because our forefathers learnt it in their struggles with the kings of England – the kings who in the old days exercised the supreme executive power in the land. Ever since the Act of Settlement in 1701 it has been part of our constitution that a judge of the High Court cannot be removed except for misconduct. Secure from any fear of removal, the judges of England do their duty fearlessly, holding the scales even, not only between man and man, but also between man and the State. Every judge on his appointment takes an oath that he ‘will do justice to all manner of people according to the laws and customs of England, without fear or favour, affection or ill will’. Never since 1701 has any judge failed to keep that oath.

………

The Houses of Parliament enjoy certain privileges. One of them is freedom of speech.
Erskine May
 says: ‘What is said or done within the walls of Parliament cannot be enquired into in a court of law’. The Bill of Rights 1688, art. 9, s 1, says:

“That the freedom of speech, and debates or proceedings in Parliament, ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament.”

Now you know why I think she does not understand what she is saying. If she does understand what she wrote then she would not have decided the instant appeal in the way she did at the conclusion of her overlong judgment.

But what has all this got to do with the two clauses in Article 16?

But the most important point of all, after 114 pages of mumbo-jumbo that she wrote, is this: What has all this got to do with the two clauses of Article 16 of the Laws of the Constitution of Perak? The United Kingdom does not have a written Constitution and in order to understand it fully one should be well acquainted with the history of England. Whereas Malaya and later Malaysia has a written Constitution which may be changed by a two-thirds majority in Parliament. But, here in this appeal the lady judge is, and should be dealing with, the two points that really matter which are the two clauses of Article 16 of the Perak Constitution.

After having said that, I shall go straight to the points at issue. How did she answer them? It took her 114 pages of circuitous writing before she finally came to the wrong conclusion that “His Royal Highness had ….. . rightly exercised his constitutional powers as provided for and under the Perak State Constitution solely for the best interests of his subjects”. I am stunned by her naively. I am at a loss for words. We all know that there is no provision in the Constitution of Perak which provides constitutional powers to the Sultan to act “solely for the best interests of his subjects”. For this judge to say that there is such a power when there is no provision in the Constitution of Perak for the Ruler to have such power is to mislead the uninformed public. A judge who misleads cannot be trusted. She has disgraced herself on the seat of justice.

Professor Andrew Harding took up 4 pages and Professor Kevin Tan 5 pages to come to the correct conclusion. Sometimes I wonder where these recalcitrant judges read law. I have a theory. One way is to memorise all the lecture notes – when I was a student in London I heard that many of our students memorized the notes supplied by Gibson and Weldon and passed their examinations. They forget that Law is a reading subject. Ever heard of the expression, we joined a university or the Inns of Court to read law? You study mathematics or science but you read law.

After meandering for 114 pages she concluded, p 114:

Thus I share the view expressed by my learned brothers Raus Sharif JCA and Ahmad Maarop JCA that in the context of this appeal, His Royal Highness had in the critical situation rightly exercised his constitutional powers as provided for under the Perak State Constitution solely for the best interests of his subjects. This decision being unanimous, the orders are as comprehensively set out in the judgment of my learned brother Raus Sharif JCA.

What I have said in my severe critique of Raus Sharif and Ahmad Maarop JJCA in the first part of this article applies, mutatis mutandis (allowing for the appropriate changes), to Zainun Ali JCA. Need I say more. I am as much disgusted as most of you are of judges of such inane quality. In the present context, “learned” is a funny word. I know some of you may say that the word is only a title applied in referring to a member of the legal profession. It has no meaning. I hope so, otherwise it will mislead the public further.

                This entry was posted on Friday, 10 July 2009, 11:19 pm and is filed under
Constitution
,
Court
,
Judiciary
,
NH Chan
,
Perak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


MCA Senators owe nation and Malaysians fulsome apologies for turning Senate into a rubbish dump for political rejects and has-beens

In the shortened four-day Senate meeting this week, the only mark MCA Senators have made is their protest and demand that I apologise to the Senate for calling the House “a rubbish dump”.

MCA Senators, Datuk Wong Siong Hwee and Datuk Yip Kim Fook, staged a duet in the Senate last Wednesday in their protest at my remarks, with the former declaring in a floursh: “Lim has insulted us and is unfair to all of us. The Senate is not a market place. He is an irresponsible leader.”

Wong and Yip have only confirmed the lowly place the Senate has sunk 52 years after Merdeka as they insulted themselves by proving that the Senate had indeed become a “political rubbish dump”.

They even tried to drag the first DAP Senator, Tunku Abdul Aziz into the picture in their duet with Wong telling Tunku Aziz: “He has not only called us rubbish, but had also called you garbage”.

What a low and cheap shot which could only emanate from the rubbish dump!

I repeated my remark of the Senate turning into “a political rubbish dump” at a press conference at the Senate on Monday after Tunku Aziz was sworn in as Senator.

I never said Tunku Aziz was “garbage” as what I said at the media conference at the Senate on Monday was reported by the
New Straits Times (9.7.09)
 thus:

Last Monday, Lim, after witnessing Tunku Abdul Aziz take his oath as senator, urged the government to ensure that the senate did not become a political rubbish dump.

“I have always said the founding fathers wanted the senate to be a place for eminent people, not a political rubbish dump,” he said.

Clearly the MCA Senators do not understand simple English, a reflection of the how bad the English standards of Malaysians have gone to the dumps in the past few decades.

I do not owe the Senate any apology as it is the MCA Senators who owe the nation and Malaysians fulsome apologies for turning Senate into a rubbish dump for political rejects and has-beens, totally against the intent of the nation’s Founding Fathers in having a Second Chamber in Parliament comprising Malaysians of distinction or with distinguished public service.

When I was in the Senate for the first time in my life on Monday to witness the historic occasion of the first DAP Senator taking his oath, I heard the announcement by the outgoing Senate President, Tan Sri Dr. Hamid Pawanteh of six Senators who taken their oath in his Chambers on 9th April 2009, as a result of the Cabinet reshuffle of Datuk Seri Najib Razak on his appointment as Prime Minister as that they could be appointed Ministers or Deputy Ministers, including four who were defeated in last year’s general elections, viz: Tan Sri Dr. Koh Tsu Koon, Datuk Dr. Awang Adek Hussin, Datin Paduka Chew Mei Fun, Datuk Sri Shahrizat Abdul Jalil.

This was surely never the intention of the nation’s Founding Fathers for political rejects in the general elections defeated in their bid to get into Dewan Rakyat to enter Parliament by the “back door” of the Senate!

In fact, Article 45(2) on the composition of the Senate had been abused by the MCA in the past five decades for it was used as a “garbage dump” for political rejects and has-beens, totally contradictory to the intent of the nation’s Founding Fathers that Senators appointed by the Yang di Pertuan Agong shall be persons who have “rendered distinguished public service or have achieved distinction in the professions, commerce, industry, agriculture, cultural activities or social service or are representative of racial minorities or are capable of representing the interests of the aborigines”.

Can anyone of the current batch of MCA Senators step forward to claim that he or she qualifies to be a Senator for being a Malaysian of distinction or has “distinguished public service” to justify appointment as Senator?

If none, hasn’t the MCA turned the Senate into a political “rubbish dump” for decades?

What did the whole lot of MCA Senators say in the four-day Senate meeting? Did anyone of them raise the burning issues of the day like the RM12.5 billion Port Klang Free Zone scandal; the RM28 million Istana Khir Toyo scandal; the half-baked Cabinet decision on PPSMI which would make millions of Malaysian students “guinea pigs” twice in their 11-year primary and secondary schooling; the need for a new Inspector-General of Police to ensure an efficient, incorruptible and professional world-class police service to turn back the tide of endemic crime to make Malaysians safe in their own country; and total public loss of confidence in the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) which is better known as Malaysian Agency for Cars and Cows?

Of course not, because the MCA Senators regard the Senate as a mere “political rubbish dump” rather than as an important second chamber of Parliament for the deepest hopes and fears, dream and nightmare of Malaysians regardless of race, religion or territory  to be articulated, thrashed out and addressed!

The appointment into the Senate of Tunku Aziz, as well as the other four Pakatan Rakyat Senators, is an opportunity for the Senate to return to the original intent of the Founding Fathers to be a respected and honoured second revising chamber of Parliament.

Can Tunku Aziz and Pakatan Rakyat Senators expect any help from the MCA Senators to turn the Senate from a “political rubbish dump” into a respected and honoured second revising chamber of Parliament?

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 11 July 2009, 1:19 pm and is filed under
MCA
,
Parliament
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


No Malaysian will be convinced that Najib is serious about fighting crime unless he appoints a new Inspector-General of Police with the primary task to roll back the tide of crime in the past five years

The Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak, today  announced a slew of goodies to mark his 100th day in office, after  his image received a tremendous boost with the recent Merdeka Centre opinion poll recording that his popularity rating had rocketted to 65% as compared to 45% a month after he became Prime Minister and 42 per cent just before taking over the premiership from Tun Abdullah on April 3, 2009.

Today’s basket of goodies, with promises of more to come, have not been able however to duplicate the national euphoria and feel good atmosphere which former Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi had been able to conjure up in his First 100 Days without any Hundred-Day gimmicks and goodies whatsoever.

In the final analysis, the test of Najib’s premiership will not be in the slew of goodies but in his performance and delivery of promises including in the six key areas he cited, namely

The prevention of crime;

The fight against corruption;

Access to quality education;

The improvement of the living standards for the lower income group;

Improvement of rural infrastructure;

Improvement of public transportation.

Conspicuously missing is the centrality of the challenge to make all Malaysians one united people 52 years after Merdeka and 46 years after the formation of Malaysia with Sabah and Sarawak.

Even in the six areas cited by Najib, what exactly has the Prime Minister got to offer which are really different from the discredited and past failed policies of the  Barisan Nasional government?

For instance, in two long-standing critical areas of crime and corruption, all that Najib has to say is: “Drastic steps to be taken to combat crime and graft of which details would be announced later”.

The message is clear and unmistakable – Najib is just not serious about the overriding importance to combat crime and corruption, which are intimately intertwined with Malaysia’s capability to restore international competitiveness to be a global player so as to become a high-income nation.

How can Najib convince Malaysians that he is serious about his duties as Prime Minister or his slogan of “1Malaysia. People First. Performance Now” when all he has to say about crime and corruption  after 100 Days as Prime Minister is as good as: “Next Change. Coming Soon”?

Najib had been a full Cabinet Minister for 23 years since 1986, serving before that for four years each as Deputy Minister and Pahang Mentri Besar – and he has nothing to announce whatsoever on the two burning issues in the country, crime and corruption after 100 days as Prime Minister?

As the proof  of the pudding is in the eating, Najib should realise that no Malaysian will be convinced that he is serious about fighting crime unless he appoints a new Inspector-General of Police with the primary  task to roll back the tide of crime in the past five years.

Najib’s credibility among Malaysians that he will stamp out corruption is dangerously wafer-thin.  Is he prepared to establish his credentials about his seriousness to combat corruption by establishing two  Royal Commissions of Inquiry into two recent  high-profile exposes – the RM12.5 billion Port Klang Free Port scandal and the RM24 million Istana Khir Toyo scandal?

Umno veteran politician Tengku Razaleigh made a very timely speech last night, stressing that the New Economic Policy was a time-limited policy which had expired for  19 years and what is needed is a New Deal for all Malaysians, based on the same universal concerns on which the NEP was originally formulated but designed for a new era to assist 100% of Malaysians who need socio-economic help.

If Najib is prepared make a stand to endorse Razaleigh’s call for a New Deal for all Malaysians and to get over the  NEP hangover, it will be more meaningful than all the goodies he could distribute like an early-Christmas Santa Claus.

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 11 July 2009, 4:10 pm and is filed under
Najib Razak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Tee Keat and Tsu Koon should publicly tender two apologies respectively for MCA and Gerakan – for support in 2002 for disastrous Cabinet decision to implement PPSMI from Std One and their support last Wednesday for another half-baked decision

MCA President and Transport Minister, Datuk Seri Ong Tee Keat and Gerakan President Tan Sri Dr. Koh Tsu Koon should publicly tender two apologies  respectively for MCA and Gerakan, firstly for their Ministers’ support in 2002 for the disastrous Cabinet decision to implement PPSMI (Pengajaran dan Pembelajaran Sains dan Matematik – teaching and learning of Science and Mathematics in English) for all national, Chinese and Tamil primary schools from Std One and secondly, for their support last Wednesday for another disastrous half-baked Cabinet decision on PPSMI to make millions of students “guinea pigs” twice over.

In response to strong opposition and criticisms for the inflexible and unprofessional  Cabinet decision on Wednesday to revert back to Bahasa Malaysia in the teaching of mathematics and science for Forms 1 and 4 from 2012, Ong immediately came out with the clarification that the MCA is for the continued use of English as a medium of instruction for mathematics and science for Forms 4 and 5 from 2012.

But Ong’s statement is only reported in the Chinese media (given front-page headline treatment) and conspicuously missing in the English and Bahasa Malaysia press, including the MCA newspaper The Star!

The MCA, Gerakan, MIC and SUPP Ministers should stop playing games with the educational future of Malaysian children and the economic prosperity of the nation.

Why didn’t Ong and the other  MCA Ministers ensure that the Cabinet’s Wednesday decision on PPSMI take into account the support of parents for the continued use of English as medium of instruction for mathematics and science in secondary schools as well as the demand of parents in urban areas with the adequate infrastructures to have the flexibility for PPSMI to be used in certain national primary schools?

It has been said that if a Minister disagrees with a new policy , the Cabinet cannot take any new  decision.

This means that if the four MCA Ministers, the one Minister each from Gerakan, MIC and SUPP had disagreed with reverting back to Bahasa Malaysia for the teaching of mathematics and science (for student who would have spent nine years being taught in these two subjects in English), the Cabinet would not have adopted this part of its PPSMI decision.

Why, then, did Ong and the other MCA, Gerakan, MIC and SUPP fail to do what is right for the people and country at the Cabinet meeting last Wednesday.?

Malaysians expect the Cabinet Ministers to speak up and act at the critical time when the Cabinet is making a decision, and not to come out to become a “latter-day Kongming” claiming as in this case that the MCA supports the continued use of English for the teaching of mathematics and science in Forms 4 and 5 from 2012 when MCA Ministers had just supported reverting back to the use of Bahasa Malaysia as medium of instruction for these two subjects from 2012!

If this is not hypocrisy, I do not know what is.

Will MCA, Gerakan, MIC and SUPP support the re-introduction of English-medium schools in the country?

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 11 July 2009, 9:45 am and is filed under
Education
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.