BERSIH 3.0 Broke Many Glasses (Including A Few Glass Ceilings)

by Bakri Musa

First of Two Parts: Seeing The Bright Side

(Next Week: Part Two: Lessons To Be Learned)

In the aftermath of the largest public demonstrations against the Barisan government, the officials’ obsession now turns to the exercise of apportioning blame and the associated inflicting of vengeance. Both are raw human reactions, but hardly enlightening, sophisticated, or even fruitful. Besides, there is plenty of blame to go around. I prefer to look at the bright side and on the lessons that can be learned.

            BERSIH 3.0 clearly demonstrates that Malaysians no longer fear the state. In that regard we are a quantum leap ahead of the Egyptians under Mubarak, the Iraqis under Saddam, or the Chinese under Mao (or even today). When citizens are no longer afraid of the state, many wonderful things would follow. BERSIH is also the first successful multiracial mass movement in Malaysia. In a nation obsessed with and where every facet is defined by race, that is an achievement worthy of note. Another significant milestone, again not widely acknowledged, is that the movement is led by a woman who is neither Malay nor a Muslim. Ambiga Sreenevasan broke not one but three Malaysian glass ceilings!

            On a sour note, BERSIH 3.0 revealed that Barisan leaders (and a few from the opposition) have yet to learn and accept the fundamental premise that dissent is an integral part of the democratic process, and expressing it through peaceful assembly a basic human right. At a more mundane level though no less important, the authorities’ performance in BERSIH 3.0 also exposed their woeful incompetence and negligence in basic crowd control.

            In any mass rally you expect a minority to get carried away or be willfully indulging in criminal acts. It is the duty of the authorities to prevent and apprehend them, but not to use that as justification to treat as criminals the vast majority who are otherwise peaceful, or for the police to behave like criminals in responding.

            To keep things in perspective, and with no intent to insult those injured, whose properties were damaged, and those otherwise inconvenienced, the mayhem last Saturday was no worse than that following an American college championship game. More to the point, considering the vastly much larger crowd and the much more pivotal issues at stake, no lives were lost.

Discerning The Winners and Losers

As with a college championship game, there were definite winners – and champions – from last Saturday’s contest. As for the losers, there were plenty of them too. If you were to appear late on the scene or just a distant observer like me, it would not be terribly difficult to figure out who were the new champions and who were the sore losers just by watching their reactions.

            It was a tribute to BERSIH’s leaders that they did not gloat – the hallmark of genuine champions. They remained cool and confidently went on to target their next trophy, the removal of the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Elections Commission for the pair’s blatant political partisanship by being, among others, UMNO members.

            Although BERSIH was a coalition of NGOs, it nonetheless welcomed participation from all, including members of political parties. Thus there were generous representations from the opposition as they too shared BERSIH’s objective of clean and fair elections. Again it was a tribute to BERSIH’s enlightened and sophisticated leadership that it welcomed their participation and did not try to control or otherwise censor their speeches and actions. BERSIH leaders respected individual freedom, again reflecting their maturity and sophistication.

            As for the political players on either side of the issue, we too could also easily discern the winners and losers among them. KEADILAN’s leader Anwar Ibrahim described the event as a “celebration of unity, an awakening for liberation. [It] … shall go down in the nation’s history as Merdeka Rakyat when 300,000 spoke in one voice to demand a free and fair election. …. [Those who] came down in full force were encouraged by a sense of justice to demand liberation from usurpers. Their message cannot be mistaken – a free country cannot be enslaved anymore.”

            He continued, “BERSIH 3.0 represents the hopes and dreams of all Malaysians that the political legitimacy of any government in the future can only be attained through a genuine democratic process.” That is the confident voice of a winner.

            Contrast that to the reactions of the Prime Minister, his Deputy Muhyyiddin, and Home Minister Hishammuddin. Muhyyiddin was first to the draw, threatening to make BERSIH pay for the damages, presumably including those caused by those ubiquitous razor fences, tear gas explosions, and blasting water cannons. For his part, Hishammuddin contemptuously dismissed the smashing of journalists’ cameras as “standard operating procedure,” only to be contradicted later by his Chief of Police. As many later found out, the police smashed more than just cameras.

            Najib’s hospital visit to the injured journalist Radzi Razak was a gracious personal touch. However, the heavily-covered media event backfired as it revealed too much. Radzi’s facial expression during Najib’s nearly quarter-of-an-hour monologue where he (Najib) apparently apologized to the injured reporter showed that he (Radzi) was anything but comforted by the Prime Minister’s presence or words. Later Najib blasted the demonstrators for not respecting a court order banning entry into Dataran Merdeka, conveniently forgetting his administration’s contempt for citizens’ right to peaceful assembly. The irony of the venue; Dataran Merdeka – Freedom Square!

            In short, the political trio of Najib, Muhyyiddin and Hishammuddin behaved like typical losers, consumed with blaming others and seeking vengeance. They were not unlike the three blind mice running around as if BERSIH had cut off their tails. The trio may not be blind but they certainly behaved like three myopic mice, unable to see beyond their whiskers.

Futility of the “Blame Game”

Trying to apportion blame at this stage of the game, even when attempted by well-meaning and neutral observers, is a futile exercise. When done by political hacks, as most surely it would, the exercise would serve only to aggravate old wounds.

            When you have dry rubbish strewn all over, cans of gasoline purposely left open, and match boxes recklessly tossed around, the question of who lit the first matchstick becomes irrelevant. There will always be someone who saw somebody else who struck a match earlier. Then the analyses and debates would quickly degenerate into the minutiae of determining the exact seconds or minutes, or interpreting what certain gestures and phrases may or may not mean in the heat of the occasion. Indeed such a puerile exercise is already well underway, and worse, it is being taken seriously by the authorities!

            A more useful endeavor would be to learn ways of, metaphorically speaking, getting rid of the dry tinder, the thick brush of mutual suspicions, the open cans of inflammatory slimes, and the readily available matches. Such an exercise would require of Najib, Muhyyiddin and Hishammuddin to be other than the three blind mice. Mice, blind and otherwise, thrive in rubbish.

            Najib et al. need to look far beyond their whiskers and ponder whether the laying of razor fences at Dataran Merdeka and turning the center of modern peaceful Kuala Lumpur into an Israeli-occupied West Bank, Korea’s Demilitarized Zone, or Stalin’s Gulag is the equivalent of removing open cans of gasoline or merely spewing more fuel. This point was forcefully made by a poster on one razor fence, “Welcome to Tel Aviv!”

            There are hundreds if not thousands of such pictures as well as personal accounts of BERSEH 3.0. One touched me immensely. “Up ‘til Friday afternoon I was still unsure about going,” she wrote. “… Then I saw the photos of the police rolling out the barbed wire and I saw red. Since when did our police, or whoever is their boss, roll out barbed wire – barbed wire!! – against their own people?? Are we thugs? Terrorists? Thieves?”

            The observer who wrote that is no raging anti-establishment anarchist. On the contrary, Marina Mahathir is a thoughtful commentator, very much mainstream. She saw only the pictures of police laying down those razor fences, and she was incensed. Imagine if she had been strolling down the street and been rudely confronted by that hideous sight? What if she was a foreign tourist?

            Ponder the mindset of those who proposed the idea in the first place, or the personnel who laid down those razor fences. Did they think that Malaysians are such unruly hooligans that could only be kept away by those menacing barriers? Or were the authorities gleefully imagining and salivating in anticipation of some innocent citizens being ripped apart by those sharp blades? We judge others through our own image. To our leaders we must be a nation of thieves, thugs, and terrorists because they themselves are.

            Najib and others readily referred to the damages done by the demonstrators while conveniently overlooking those incurred by the police, as with the unnecessary road closures long before the event. I wonder how many ambulances and doctors were delayed on their way to the hospital to attend to emergencies before the rally because of the massive road closures. Violence was perpetrated upon the city long before the first demonstrators arrived.

            Do not expect much introspection from our leaders; sore losers are incapable of that. They could not for example, fathom that the laying of razor fences, widespread closing of streets, and heavy police presence contributed to the violence. Such an insight escapes them.

Next: Second of Two Parts: Lessons To be Learned

                This entry was posted on Monday, 7 May 2012, 3:48 am and is filed under
Bakri Musa
,
Bersih
,
Elections
,
Hishammuddin
,
Muhyiddin Yassin
,
Najib Razak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Bersih 3.0 chaos: PM Najib’s negligence

by Mat Zain bin Ibrahim

Former Kuala Lumpur CID chief

07.05.2012

Nothing can stop the PM from forming  another so called independent panel to investigate the causes of Bersih 3.0. chaos.

Knowing the manner an Independent Panel ,(that scrutinized the MACC’s findings on the AG,a former IGP, a Consultant Pathologist and me included, alleged to have fabricated evidence in the black-eye investigation) conducted it’s business,I am pessimistic of the outcome of this one.

However it would be premature to make any comments at this juncture, since we have not seen this Panel’s composition and their terms of reference.

It would be most welcome if the Panel members are allowed to query the Prime Minister as well,to ascertain the measures taken by himself if any, to prevent the chaos from happening.

The Panel must be mindful of the fact that,several days before the event, Ambiga the Bersih chief,did suggest to the PM that they are prepared to call off the rally if, the PM guarantees electoral reforms before the next Federal polls.

Then a few days before the rally,it was also revealed that the EC Chairman and his Deputy were found to be members of UMNO which rendered their respective tenure untenable.At the same time bringing the status of the electoral roll into question.

The PM being the UMNO President himself,could have made an immediate clarification if they were not members of his party.That would have put the matter to rest.PM’s intervention would have eased off the tension  or might  have even reduced the participant numbers substantially.

In a nutshell, the Prime Minister should have prevented the chaos at all costs from happening knowing a protest of that size would turn ugly, based on past experiences since 1998 had he exercises due care, which is expected of him being the PM.

By refusing to compromise with the rally organizers and allowing it to proceed with such knowledge that the rally will turn chaotic, PM Najib have effectively exposed the safety of ten of thousands of innocent civilians comprising of women, children and the handicapped and including police personnel at risks of being injured or even killed.

It would appear from the PM’s subsequent conduct, that he actually wanted a confrontation between the rally participants and the police to leverage on the havoc caused.

The PM stands accountable and liable to be cited for negligence for his failure to discharge his duties responsibly. He has all the means,the time and opportunity and most importantly the authority to prevent the chaos and avoided the injuries sustained by members of the public, media personnel and policemen,and damages to properties and other loses.

Whether the Independent Panel is prepared or assigned to look into this aspect or otherwise, is left to be seen.The public,especially the injured however,reserve the rights to raise this issue with the PM.

Electoral roll:Unfair advantage to PM

Many are unaware that the Prime Minister  may  have some problems with his own name in the electoral roll (ER).

Briefly, the PM is registered as Mohd.Najib bin Tun Abdul Razak .When he affirmed his affidavits  September last,he stated his name as Najib, dropping the name “Mohd”.(Muhammad).This is confirmed by his wife, Rosmah Mansor in her affidavit of 21st Sept. Meaning that the PM’s name is simply “Najib” and not “Mohd.Najib”. These affidavits are valid in both civil and criminal proceedings.

The PM has already announced that he would be seeking re election in Pekan this coming GE.It may appear trivial,but his name may provide the basis of contention by the opposing candidates.

I believe in order to circumvent any untoward protests or objections on nomination day,the EC made a pre-emptive move by abolishing the one hour objection period on nomination day, without Bersih having to ask for it nor in their list of demands.In fact it came as a surprise to all.

This unsolicited move by the EC was done after the issue of PM’s affidavits surfaced and brought to the attention of the IGP and the Home Minister since November last. I opine that this is a case of shifting the goal posts by EC to facilitate unfair advantage in favour of the PM.

Nonetheless, it is imperative for PM Najib to make corrections to either one. Both cannot be right at the same time.Either he corrects his name in the ER to be in consistence with his affidavits, or his affidavits to be in consistence with his name in the ER.Most of all,it should also be consistent with his name he swore  before the Yang Di-Pertuan Agong during his swearing-in ceremony.

Irrespective of the repercussions, the PM has to make the corrections. Otherwise the EC is  obligated to reject PM Najib’s nomination and disqualify him from contesting.

EC Chairman and Deputy, UMNO members?

About 3 days before the Bersih rally,it was revealed that both the EC Chairman Tan Sri Aziz and his Deputy Dato Wan Ahmad, were found to be or was members of UMNO.

Whilst it’s not wrong to be a member of UMNO,it is a crime to conceal the fact at the material time when their appointments as Deputy Chairman and Chairman of the EC was being considered in that order, by the Conference of Rulers and the Yang Di-Pertuan Agong.Quite simply it means cheating.

Even if Dato Wan Ahmad can prove that he was never an UMNO member,he can still be hauled up for being in abetment with the Chairman, when the latter’s appointment was being considered in December 2008, at which time Wan Ahmad was already the Deputy Chairman.

Should Tan Sri Aziz now turns around like Wan Ahmad did and declare he was never a member of UMNO in his whole life,still both can be brought before the Tribunal, for exhibiting conducts unbecoming of an EC member for being dishonest in their dealings and for deceiving and/or alarming the public, when they admitted to being UMNO members when the issue was first raised.

From my reading of the Constitution,the only authority that can adjudicate their conducts is a Tribunal appointed by the Agong, based on the representation made by the Prime Minister.The courts have no jurisdiction over the removal of both the Chairman and Deputy Chairman of the EC .In this regard the Judge and the EC members are of the same status.

Against this backdrop the PM cannot ignore his obligations ,firstly, to clean up the ER. Personally the PM has to put his own registration in order on one hand and to deal with the untenable tenure of both the Chairman and Deputy Chairman of the EC on the other.

Invariably the PM may find himself in a conflict of interest situation yet again.That’s for him to sort out.

If the PM has shown courage to appoint the so called Independent Panel to investigate police brutality during Bersih 3.0 rally,then he must show the same vigour in getting a Tribunal to be established to adjudicate the conducts of the EC Chairman and his Deputy.

Not forgetting of course the earlier demand for a separate Tribunal on the Attorney General which has long been overdue.

The PM must be mindful of the fact that when we talk about a Tribunal,we are also referring to loyalty to the King and country and supremacy of the Constitution.

The PM should also take cognizance that if the powerful UMNO can be declared illegal,so can the electoral roll.

                This entry was posted on Monday, 7 May 2012, 12:44 pm and is filed under
Bersih
,
Najib Razak
,
Police
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Dataran Merdeka is not Tahrir Square: Malaysia is not Eygpt

— Tommy Thomas

The Malaysian Insider

May 07, 2012

MAY 7 — The Prime Minister’s recent statement that Bersih supporters intended to occupy Dataran Merdeka and stay there for days with the objective of overthrowing his government must be answered.

Two broad groups made up Bersih’s massive crowd in Kuala Lumpur on

April 28, 2012. First, genuine Bersih supporters who were calling for clean elections. The second group comprised those who support the Pakatan Coalition. No doubt, thousands of marchers did not belong to either faction (while some straddled both), but this broad division is not inaccurate.

The Bersih supporters just cannot understand how any political party would oppose clean elections. For them, Barisan Nasional’s vigorous opposition, coupled with police brutality that day, indicates that Barisan Nasional has a vested interest with the “status quo”, that it will benefit from the present set-up, with substantial help from the Election Commission.

For this group, Barisan Nasional’s conduct will be punished at the ballot box.

For Pakatan supporters, the decision was already made. They are partisan, just as UMNO supporters are partisan. Nothing that could have occurred on April 28 would change their vote.

But in each case, change was only going to come at the ballot box, when general elections are held.
 The only way of changing governments in Malaysia is by the vote. No other method will be countenanced by the people; no other mode has been advocated by any political party. In fact, the surest way for any party or politician to lose support is to propose extra-legal methods of changing the government. Change must be constitutional and lawful.

Accordingly, no one went for the Bersih “sit-in” or “walk-in” in Kuala Lumpur on April 28 with the intention of staying overnight, whether on the Dataran or anywhere else in the city. In the course of walking miles through numerous streets for five hours observing thousands of fellow marchers, I did not see a single person equipped for a long stay, like bringing tents, sleeping bags, blankets, towels, etc. Indeed, the Malaysian obsession with food and drinks was such that restaurants enjoyed roaring business that evening. That was the primary objective of those who marched!! Having regard to this food-mania of our people, how would they have coped for days and nights in an “Occupy Dataran” campaign?

It is an open secret that the hawks and hardliners advising the Prime Minister always frighten him with the spectre of Tahrir Square. But there is no parallel with Egypt, or for that matter Tunisia, Libya, Bahrain and Syria where the Arab Spring flowered. But even in these countries, it never advanced to the Arab Summer! Reform has halted, and the old power structures are very much in place.

By comparison, Malaysia is far more advanced politically and economically.

Ours is a more mature society. The average Malaysian enjoys far more democratic rights and space than citizens in these nations. In some of these countries, unemployment is as high as 25 per cent. In Malaysia, not only do we have full employment, we also provide work for some 3-4 million immigrants. Malaysia is a blessed land.

At the other end of the spectrum, Malaysia is also different from the United

States. The conditions are not ripe for an “Occupy Wall Street” movement. Malaysians are generally conservative, cautious, resistant to change, and absolutely peaceful, abhorring violence. We are too spoilt to endure the inconvenience and hardship associated with any “occupy” movement.

Accordingly, we who marched were exercising our democratic rights of expression and assembly. For that purpose, we did not have to sleep overnight in the city.

There is absolutely no intention to overthrow the Barisan Nasional government by crude methods. Rather, if a clear majority of Malaysians vote against them (and, that is, translated into seats) at the forthcoming general elections, Barisan Nasional will be dispatched to the opposition benches. But not by any other means.

                This entry was posted on Monday, 7 May 2012, 8:44 pm and is filed under
Bersih
,
Elections
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Dr Lim Teck Ghee’s reply to Dr Chandra Muzaffar’s invitation

by Dr Lim Teck Ghee

CPI
Sunday, 06 May 2012

Commentary

I thank Chandra for responding to my commentary on his lambasting of Bersih 3.0.

Although the Center for Policy Initiatives (CPI) is reproducing his response in full, there is really very little new in the engagement.

Basically Chandra has rehashed his arguments on the far-reaching changes to human rights and political and civil liberties that he sees taking place in the country.

In his initial article he was very emphatic on these changes maintaining that

“[I]t is an irrefutable fact that through these legislative reforms [Peaceful Assembly Act, ISA repeal, etc] the space and scope for the expression and articulation of human rights has been expanded and enhanced as never before.”

Disappearance of “Irrefutable Fact”

I had challenged this argument and pointed out that these reforms need implementation and confirmation from the ground to ascertain what has been gained and whether they are substantive in the context of a regime which has an extraordinary capacity for employing dirty tricks in order to remain in power, including manipulating the electoral process.

I had proposed that should Chandra, after conducting rigorous social science research – publish the results confirming this “irrefutable fact”, it may perhaps help convince sceptics that there have been “far-reaching changes to political and civil liberties”.

Although he has not yet conducted the necessary research, it is good to note that the term “irrefutable fact” has now disappeared in his latest opinion piece. Perhaps Chandra now realizes that his initial depiction was not only inappropriate but also indefensible.

Meaningful political change

Chandra now terms the political changes as “meaningful” and has invited me to debate with him on the subject “Are the political changes that are taking place in Malaysia today significant?”

His new suggestion touches on an important topic and I welcome it.  My own position is that it is premature to read too much in the changes to date. There are many examples from history of authoritarian regimes taking one step forward and two backwards, and engaging in foot dragging, sabotage and even more extreme forms of resistance in response to democratization pressures.

Our own history has taught us to be cautious in being over-optimistic with the current reforms.  The Prime Minister (see my article:
Peaceful transition of power: Open letter to all political parties
), senior Umno leaders, and other extremist nationalists have served notice – sometimes subtly; on other occasions more openly – that all means may be used to prevent the peaceful transition of power. The possibility of these political reforms being tactical and a ruse aimed at buying time is entirely plausible.

Many other political analysts and ordinary citizens have also been sceptical that these changes that Chandra has written about are sufficiently deep and game-changing.  Questions have been asked if they have fundamentally altered the authoritarian system imposed by the Barisan Nasional and if they reflect changes in the anti-democratic character of some of the BN’s leadership. It is here that Chandra and I differ profoundly but unlike him, I do not think it is an issue that can be resolved over the debating table.

I must also put it on record that even if the opposition were to come to power during the next elections, pressure would have to continue to be exercised on the new government to build a more robust parliamentary democracy.

In the
Spirit of Merdeka declaration of 2007
 which was endorsed by a large number of civil society organizations, there was a call for the establishment of a strong democracy in which the separation of power of the executive, legislative and judiciary is maintained, and checks and balances preventing the monopoly or abuse of power by the executive branch are in place.

The declaration also called for the enhancement of human rights and basic freedoms that are based upon values of participation, accountability, transparency, equality and diversity. Six major areas of reform were identified.

If we compare the reforms undertaken recently with the full list identified in the declaration, it can be seen that we have a long journey ahead in the struggle for human rights and democracy. In particular, areas such as the establishment of political and administrative neutrality in key institutions such as the judiciary, the civil service, police, Election Commission, the Attorney General’s office; and ensuring independence in a host of other institutions and processes in the society, and not just the electoral process, are still lagging.

How useful would an open public debate be?

Chandra has noted that “on both the electoral process and political changes, Teck Ghee and I, it is obvious, have different approaches. Instead of continuing to air our views through the cyber media, I invite him to debate with me in public on what I think is the most fundamental question facing Malaysians today. Are the political changes that are taking place in Malaysia today significant?”

Frankly there would be very little value added in a one-off public debate. In my view, an open debate as a one-time event is too fleeting to permit substantive discourse – witness the Lim Guan Eng and Chua Soi Lek exchange.  Also there may not be much interest in just the two of us flogging our views to an audience. What differences we have towards political change is clear from our commentaries. Our opinions have already reached Malaysians through the cyber media. In fact Dr. Chandra, through his favoured status with the mainstream media, has had much greater print and electronic coverage for his views than I can ever hope to achieve.

This is not to say that I am averse to scholarly discussion and analysis on the breadth and significance of the political reforms undertaken. I have never run away from a good scholarly discussion. If Chandra is insistent on having this exchange take place, I would like to propose a more intensive discourse over the CPI website (www.cpiasia.net) as well as over his JUST and Yayasan 1Malaysia websites, or even over the Universiti Sains Malaysia website. That way the academic and concerned public interested in the subject of political change in Malaysia can participate in the cyber forum.

A cyber forum will not only broaden the audience but can also bring about a sustained and higher quality of discourse. Chandra and I can agree on the terms of reference for the public discourse and provide the opening cases. We can use his initial suggestion of subject as a starting point and if we work quickly, I am hopeful we can implement this ahead of the coming elections.

Should my counter proposal receive the go-ahead, I expect Chandra to use his influence as the chairman of the board of trustees of Yayasan 1Malaysia to have this debate disseminated – in as unedited a form as possible – in the mainstream media as well as all over the 1Malaysia network. I will similarly use my (more limited) influence to see if the discourse can be further disseminated more widely.

Chandra has suggested too that our public debate be conducted in the national language. I agree that it is important to reach the Malay audience. I would like to propose that Chandra, for a start, arranges for the translation of our exchange into Bahasa Malaysia by his Yayasan 1Malaysia staff, and to disseminate this exchange in the Malay print media as a prelude to an enlarged forum.

Malaysia as a Police State

In his note too, Chandra has referred to our encounter as to whether he had ever made a statement with regard to Malaysia being a police state. I had raised this point during a public forum organised by PCORE (an NGO) in November 2010, and he had asked me to provide proof during that meeting. I recall that in my reply, I had stated that I had obtained this information from an article by a local scholar. I may have said that I apologised if this information was untrue.

Subsequently, we had an exchange over the e-mail initiated by Chandra in which he asked me to “e-mail [him] the essay which cites me describing Malaysia as a Police State.” I responded by providing him with the full reference to the author of the academic paper written in 1991 as well as the following footnote from that paper:

“Widely quoted social critic Chandra Muzaffar (1986) was to complain even before Operation Lallang of ‘a highly controlled, severely limited, democracy in Malaysia.’ After the events of 1987 and 1988, he, as well as YM Tunku Abdul Rahman Malaysia’s first Prime Minister, and Malaysia’s leading elder statesman, were moved to use the term ‘police state‘ to describe the situation in Malaysia.” (p.23)

I subsequently pointed out to Chandra in our e-mail exchange that while there is a difference between “a highly controlled, severely limited, democracy”, a “police state” and a “fettered democracy”, it is not simply semantics, and “it is important for you to explain this.”

I also suggested that “an explanatory article on the above topic in the NST will – I am sure – be enlightening to the public, as well as to me; and will generate much food for thought for all of us.” That turned out to the last occasion when Chandra communicated with me on the topic of the “highly controlled, severely limited, democracy” we live in. It was followed by a deafening silence on his part.

Final words

Chandra has been at pains to show that he has been consistent over the past decades in his stance on the major issues facing the country.

Chandra, my friend, there are many, including your Barisan Nasional allies, who are bemused by your intellectual gymnastics to justify your recent political transformation.

* Dr Chandra Muzaffar’s invitation to Dr Lim Teck Ghee to debate with him can be
read here
.

                This entry was posted on Monday, 7 May 2012, 3:34 am and is filed under
Bersih
,
Elections
,
Lim Teck Ghee
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Menyelenggara kereta tua terlalu mahal. Beli kereta baru!

— Aspan Alias

The Malaysian Insider

May 06, 2012

6 MEI — Memandu kereta tua sangat mahal harganya. Kereta tua walau bagaimana hebat pun jenamanya, ia tetap memakan perbelanjaan penyaraannya yang tinggi jika dibandingkan kos penyelenggaraan semasa kereta itu masih baru.

Sesebuah kereta lama akan mengeluarkan asap hitam dan akan tidak lagi “environmentally friendly” kerana asap hitam itu akan menjadikan alam sekeliling kita menjadi kotor dan “toxic”.

Itulah sebabnya kita menukar kereta baru setelah kereta yang kita pandu itu sudah berumur banyak tahun. Jika kita tukar kereta baru setidak-tidaknya setakat empat atau lima tahun ia tidak akan memberikan banyak masalah kepada tuan punya kereta itu.

Lagi pula apabila kita masih mengekalkan kereta lama itu “petrol consumption”nya akan menjadi tinggi dan terpaksa berbelanja lebih untuk minyak kereta tersebut. Penghawa dingin kereta itu pun akan memakan belanja besar kerana terpaksa di “service” dan ditukar banyak alat ganti kepada penghawa dingin dan kereta itu keseluruhannya. Yang membuat untung hanyalah mekanik-mekanik yang mengambil kesempatan diatas segala masalah yang dihadapi oleh kereta itu.

Yang selalu kita lihat kereta yang sudah terlalu lama itu akan dibeli oleh syarikat pemotong kereta untuk menggunakan bahagian-bahagian kereta itu sebagai “spare parts” terpakai. Kereta-kereta lama ini selalunya tidak dibuang kesemuanya kerana masih ada sedikit sebanyak bahagian bahagian yang boleh digunakan untuk alat ganti terpakai oleh mekanik-mekanik untuk kegunaan mereka memperbaiki kereta-kereta pelanggan mereka.

Umno pun nampaknya begitu juga. Dengarnya minggu hadapan Umno akan merayakan ulang tahun ke 66. Bagaimana mereka mengira pun kita tidak tahu kerana pada perkiraan saya,  Umno baru berusia 24 tahun sahaja. Tetapi tidak mengapa.

Katalah benar umurnya 66 tahun ia merupakan satu jangkamasa yang sudah terlalu lama untuk diselenggara dengan mudah. Seperti kereta tua tadi, dalam Umno terlalu banyak alat-alat yang perlu diganti, malahan lebih banyak yang perlu diganti dari yang  dikekalkan.

Bagaimana tidak mahal belanja untuk menyelenggara Umno ini? Bayangkan untuk Najib Razak berkempen beliau telah membelanjakan hampir RM700 juta dalam tahun ini sahaja. Belum lagi untuk membayar BR1M dan yang lain lain. Walaupun telah banyak dibelanjakan untuk menyelenggara parti itu, macam kereta tua tadi asap hitam masih berkepul-kepul keluar.  Perjalanannya masih tidak lancar.

Dalam pilihanraya nanti parti itu akan menurunkan calon atau drebar kereta yang canggih yang bersedia untuk memacu dengan tangkas dan laju. Tetapi bagaimana dengan kondisi Umno itu sendiri? Kalau calon sahaja yang “winnable” tetapi partinya tidak “winnable”, bagaimana hendak mencapai kejayaan?

Keadaan sudah begitu teruk dan buruk sehinggakan Umno itu sudah tidak diyakini lagi oleh ramai rakyat khususnya orang Melayu.  Sudah 66 tahun umur BN ini, maka ramai di antara yang mendokong Umno sudah mengambil keputusan untuk menukar kepada kereta baru. Kereta baru setidak-tidaknya boleh berfungsi dengan penyelenggaraan yang murah selama empar tahun dan tidak memberikan banyak masalah. Kereta baru tidak akan memakan banyak petrol dan akan memberikan kelebihan kepada kereta tua yang sentiasa memakan minyak hitam dan terpaksa melakukan “top-up” kepada minyak enjin tersebut. Mahal sangat untuk menyelenggara kereta tua (BN) ini maka tidak hairan rakyat sudah mula berfikir-fikir untuk menukarnya dengan kereta baru.

Sementara kereta tua masuk bengkel untuk dilakukan “overhaul” maka sementara ini kita pakai kereta baru yang lain. Apabila kereta tua ini sudah di “overhaul” barulah boleh bersaing  dijalan raya dengan kereta baru yang kita pandu itu.

Mengekalkan kereta tua sekarang ini memberikan kita banyak masalah kerana setiap pagi kita tengok lantai “porch” kita menjadi kotor kerana kebocoran kepada enjinnya dan menitiskan minyak-minyak hitam ke atas lantai “porch” kita itu.

Lagi pun elok kita mempunyai kereta kedua supaya kita tidak memandu kereta tua ini dengan terlalu lasak seperti yang dilakukan oleh kita selama ini. Kalau ada kereta baru yang lain setidak-tidaknya boleh kita berikan kerehatan kepada kereta tua itu buat sementara waktu ini. — aspanaliasnet.blogspot.com

                This entry was posted on Monday, 7 May 2012, 12:22 pm and is filed under
Elections
,
UMNO
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Najib should produce proof or  retract and apologise for his wild and irresponsible allegation that Bersih 3.0 “sit-in” was a coup attempt by the Opposition to topple the government

The Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak has belatedly realized that he is losing out in the public relations war over the government’s mishandling of the Bersih 3.0 “sit-in” at Dataran Merdeka on April 28, 2012, as evidenced by the following recent developments:

Najib upping the ante in the public relations battle with his  wild and irresponsible allegation in Gua Musang on Friday that the Bersih 3.0 rally was a coup attempt by the Opposition to topple the government;

the desperate roping in of three former Inspector-Generals of Police , Tun Haniff Omar, Tan Sri Rahim Noor and Tan Sri Musa Hassan to lend credence to Najib’s wild claim although there is not one iota of evidence that  Bersih 3.0 was a coup attempt by the Opposition to topple the government (in fact, all evidence point to the contrary, with hundreds of thousands of Malaysians regardless of race, religion, class, region, age or gender gathering peacefully in the best manifestation of “1Malaysia” for a common cause for clean elections and armed at most with salt and water bottles to protect themselves from tear-gas attacks);

The recycling of the Economist commentary
“It’s that time of year”
 in the local media almost a week after its first appearance on the Economist website on May 1.

One lesson Najib’s “image” handlers have learnt from the government’s disastrous mishandling of the Bersih 2.0 rally of July 9, 2011 was to better manage the foreign media – and as a result, the Najib administration had a better foreign media perception and coverage on the night of Bersih 3.0 as compared to the night of Bersih 2.0, as illustrated by the Economist commentary of 1ST May.

But with every passing day, this better foreign media perception of Najib’s handling of Bersih 3.0 as compared to Bersih 2.0 is coming apart.

I had predicted a week after “428” that  Bersih 3.0 is even  greater public relations disaster for Najib than Bersih 2.0,  with damage growing in magnitude and impact when all the horror stories of police rampage of violence and brutality are told – and I am proven right.

Najib should realize that the public relations war, whether inside the country or internationally, over Berish 3.0 cannot be won by more wild and scurrilous attacks on Bersih organisers and Pakatan Rakyat leaders.

Who gave Najib the “information” that Bersih 3.0 was a coup attempt by the Opposition to topple the government? Such information can only come from the police.

But what has the Inspector-General of Police Tan Sri Ismail Omar got to say about the Prime Minister’s allegation?  Ismail was reported by Bernama  in Kulim yesterday as saying that the police are investigating Najib’s claims that Bersih 3.0 was a purported coup d’etat attempt.

Here we have come full circle – the Prime Minister alleging that Bersih 3.0 was an attempted  coup d’etat against the government (which information could  have only come from the police) with the police responding by announcing that the Prime Minister’s allegation is being investigated.

Can there be another episode to illustrate how  reckless and irresponsible the Prime Minister could descend to – making the most baseless allegation as well as  the blind chorus of support given by current and former IGPs,  greatly dishonouring  the reputation and  professionalism of police officers, both currently in service as well as those who have retired?

Najib must not be so irresponsible as Prime Minister of Malaysia. He should either produce proof or  retract and apologise for his wild allegation that Bersih 3.0 “sit-in” was a coup attempt by the Opposition to topple the government.

                This entry was posted on Monday, 7 May 2012, 3:01 pm and is filed under
Bersih
,
Elections
,
Media
,
Najib Razak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Post-Bersih 3.0: A time for healing

— Azlina Aziz

The Malaysian Insider

May 07, 2012

MAY 7 — On the eve of Bersih 3.0, my husband Nazir and I visited the surroundings of Dataran Merdeka to see for ourselves preparations for the rally. Although it was only 10.30pm on Friday night, a large crowd of protestors was rapidly building up, with police officers lining up around Dataran. We were shocked, to say the least, by the expanse of barbed wire encircling the square. The vision of protestors on one side and the police on the other, separated by barricades and sharp steel, seems to symbolise division, confrontation, aggression. We both went home that evening with a deep sense of foreboding and unease.

The events that unfolded the next day are too familiar now to recount. But whether you attended the rally or observed from the sidelines; whether you supported the cause or condemned it; whether you countenanced public assemblies or disapproved of them altogether; I think it’s fair to say that most of us have been deeply disturbed by the events that played out in our capital that Saturday. The scenes of mayhem — attacks on police motor vehicles, protestors facing tear gas, a pistol allegedly being drawn in a crowded area, physical assaults on members of the public, police force and press — are not ones familiar nor palatable to us Malaysians who value security and order.

It is a sad state of affairs when the actions of a few who resort to violence and aggression result in suffering and trauma for scores of people, and the aftershocks of the event continue to roll on. In coffeeshops, offices, newspapers, web forums and blogs are heated debates on the “rights” and “wrongs” and repercussions of what happened that day. Many are angry. Some are fearful, and anger often goes hand in hand with fear. Others are eager to find someone to blame for the turn of events. The violence and confrontation that played out that day have intensified the gulf and fissures in our society. A vision of unity for Malaysia seems further away than ever. Sadly, recent public statements by social and political leaders have only accentuated division and dissent.

In the blame game and recriminations that have followed, I cling to the belief that maintaining unity must be foremost on our minds, as the most effective counter to disruptive elements of violence and chaos. To do this, we must start by healing the gaping wound that opened up that day and it is my hope that two major concerns will be addressed. Firstly, violence cannot and will not be tolerated in a civilised society. All those who resorted to violence on that day must be brought to justice whoever they are, and whichever side of the divide they stand on. The chairman of Bersih has condemned the actions of violent protestors as “wholly unacceptable”. The IGP has made a rare appeal for help from members of the public in identifying rogue police officers.

For the sake of unity and promoting the healing process, is it too much to ask for the authorities, public and organisers of the rally to set aside their differences and work together in identifying and acting against the few who resorted to violence?

Secondly, I fervently hope that the authorities will engage with the many thousands who turned out en masse that fateful Saturday, a fair number of whom were ordinary Malaysians who felt compelled to give physical presence to their concerns on a variety of issues, of which electoral reform is just one. Grievances and resentments should not be allowed to fester. Those that are more perception than reality require better engagement and explanation. Those that are substantive require attention and action.

Healing the wounds of Bersih 3.0 is imperative before we embark on what will possibly be the country’s defining political event in decades to come: the GE 13. Public confidence in the electoral process is essential if we are to avoid an aftermath of anger, dissent and disorder that the unfolding of Bersih 3.0 seems to suggest.

As it stands, the stage is set for the results of GE 13 to be contested even before a single vote is cast. It is a slippery slope thereafter, one that we have witnessed in other countries, with hugely detrimental effects on the social fabric and economy. Much has been said about the progress of the Parliamentary Select Committee and the officials of the EC, and I will not touch upon this here. But surely a quick and effective step to improve public confidence would be the appointment of a few upstanding Malaysians, who command the respect of all parties, to be entrusted with overseeing the general election.

Bersih 3.0 was a traumatic event for Malaysia. I hope we can overcome the trauma and learn from our mistakes. I hope we can come together in unity and say “No” to violence in whatever shape or form. It is time for engagement, for listening, for cutting the invisible barbed wires that separate “them” and “us” and extending a hand over the divide to those who may disagree with your views but have as much of a stake and future in the country as you do.

It is time for healing the wounds of our increasingly polarised and fractured society. Only then can the forces of chaos and disruption be defeated. Only then can we take comfort in the knowledge that the GE 13 will not only be free and fair, but free of turmoil and dispute.

* Datuk Azlina Aziz was formerly employed as associate director of Barings Securities Research responsible for industry analysis and political commentary. She holds a master’s degree in women’s studies from Oxford University. She lives in Kuala Lumpur with her two children and husband Datuk Seri Nazir Razak.

                This entry was posted on Monday, 7 May 2012, 12:43 pm and is filed under
Bersih
,
Elections
,
nation building
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Reforming Education: Futility of the Exercise

by Bakri Musa

Last of Six Parts

Earlier I reviewed the challenges faced by three groups of students who happen to be mostly if not exclusively Malays: kampong students, those in residential schools, and those in academic limbo following their Form Five.

            There is another group, this time also exclusively Malays, being poorly served by our system of education: students in Islamic schools. These schools see their mission as primarily producing ulamas and religious functionaries; they are more seminaries, with indoctrination masquerading as education. They are more like Pakistan’s madrasahs and Indonesia’s pesantrens.

            I would prefer that they be more like America’s faith-based schools which regularly outperform public ones. They are also cheaper and produce their share of America’s future scientists, engineers and executives. Religion is only one subject in these schools, not the all-consuming curriculum. Thus they attract many non-Christians. Contrast that to Islamic schools in Malaysia.

            If Malaysia were to serve the aforementioned four groups of students well, that would go a long way in ameliorating the “Malay problem.”
 It would certainly be much more effective than squandering billions on GLCs, greedily hogging our constitutionally-guaranteed special privileges, or incessantly spouting Ketuanan Melayu (Malay hegemony). The converse is even truer. If we ignore these students, then it would not matter how much resources we devote to GLCs, how jealously we guard our quotas of public goodies, or how loudly we proclaim our superiority, those would all be for naught. Worse, if we do not serve these students well, that would be bad not only for them but also for Malays and Malaysia. What is also self evident is that we do not need yet another commission or a blue ribbon committee to start immediately addressing the pressing problems.

            It is a uniquely Malaysian obsession to reform our education policies with every political season. Every new Minister of Education feels compelled to do it, perhaps to show off his political manhood or display his take-charge talent.

            I wish the old wisdom – the more things change the more they remain the same – were true. At least then we could be comforted that the system would maintain its old quality and standards. Instead, each reform brings with it a new low. For Malaysian education, the more things change, the more they change … for the worse!

            We need a stable predictable education policy. Changes brought on today would not begin to produce their results until decades or even generations later. We are only now bearing the follies of the “reforms” instituted in the 1970s. Predictability and stability of policies would encourage investments in the system. Textbook writers and publishers for example, are more likely to invest their intellectual and financial resources if they are assured that the medium of instruction of our schools would not be changed on a whim. Likewise, investors would be encouraged to set up private schools and colleges if they were assured that the government would not change polices regarding enrollment, curriculum, or language of instruction with every election season.

            We have far too many of these reforms, reviews, blueprints, White Papers, and royal commissions. Yet now in our 65th year of merdeka, only Education Minister Muhyyiddin is smugly satisfied with the results, declaring at the recent National Higher Education Carnival that our young are receiving better education than those in America, Britain and Germany. Wow!

            There was not even a hint of embarrassment on his part when he asserted that. Then with unconcealed smugness he added, “For those who have come to me complaining about our education system, it seems the [World Economic Forum Global Competitiveness] Report contradicts their claims.”

            “Carnival” accurately describes the event where he spoke, for that is exactly what Malaysian education is, with Muhyyiddin the carnival barker. He obviously missed the part of the Report that read, “… Malaysia will need to improve its performance in … higher education and training (38th), improving access … in light of low enrollment rates of 69 percent (101st) and 36 percent (66th) for secondary and tertiary education, respectively.” Those figures are national averages. If you were to dissect further, specifically with respect to Malay vis a vis non-Malay performance, the statistics would be even uglier.

            Muhyyiddin is beginning to believe his own propaganda. However, who or what he believes is not my concern except that our young (especially Malays) are bearing the heavy burden of his folly. He promised, or more accurately threatened, Malaysians with yet another “comprehensive” reform aimed at “transforming” our schools. Do not expect much; after all we are already the best. Such hubris!

            This “comprehensive” review will once again consume the attention of the minister and his officers, distracting them from their day-to-day responsibilities. Resources will again be diverted to the hiring of expensive foreign consultants. Routine matters will now be ignored and pressing problems deferred until the “comprehensive” review. Meaning, they will once again be left to fester.

            I do not expect much with this planned review for another reason. The education establishment, like the civil service generally, is highly insular and in-bred. There is little, in fact no infusion of fresh talent at the upper levels, apart from recycled ones from quasi private and other governmental entities. Those currently at the top, having been brought up under the present system, would find it difficult to fault it. That would be tantamount to criticizing themselves. I do not expect them to raise fundamental questions or challenge basic assumptions; they are more prone to “group think.”

            I wish there would be a moratorium on these highly distracting and resource-exhausting reviews. There are already stacks of reports gathering dust in the ministry’s archives. Their authors are merely recipe writers; they consider their job done with the writing. They are not interested in finding out the fate of their recommendations or whether those ministry officials have even read them!

            A vast universe separates a fancy recipe from a delicious morsel. Whether our students remain starved, flabby, or well nourished depends less on the glossy pages of the recipe book, more on the ingenuity and skills of the chefs. They will determine if or when our students get fed, and whether with junk food or nutritious meals.

            I would prefer that our educational chefs – the minister, his officers and policymakers – focus on a few recipes at a time instead of trying to remodel the entire kitchen. Study the issues thoroughly, learn from the experience of others, and then try them on small portions. Monitor the details of the ingredients and the cooking, carefully sample the results, and then once successful with the kinks straightened out, adopt the recipe for national use.

            A good recipe begins with fresh crisp ingredients; thus I would begin with getting solid reliable data. I have difficulty getting such simple statistics as how many students at MCKK could bear the costs, how many would be the first to enter university, or how many come from families where no one could speak English. Those are important details if we are contemplating the changes I am recommending here. Similarly, there is no solid data on what Malay students do in the six-month hiatus following their Form Five. That problem cries for attention.

            Consider the abysmal level of English among Malay students. I have yet to come across a study on the challenges and obstacles they face in learning the language. There is no survey for example, assessing the English fluency of their teachers. If you do not know the problem, you are not likely to solve it. Worse, you would then think that you have already solved your problem, tempting you to brag and thus bring embarrassment to yourself.

            With Malaysia in desperate need of English teachers, there is not a single all-English teachers’ college, and few of our universities have dedicated Departments of English. The government for its part awards far too few scholarships to pursue a degree in English. That is our “diligence” in “solving” the problem of English fluency among our students. Again, our policymakers do not see any problem there!

            It is precisely this paucity of good data, rigorous analyses and plain rational thinking that prompts our officials to make ad hoc decisions and carry out their usual seat-of-the-pants solutions. It is also this mindset that leads our minister to make such outrageous claims as our schools being the best. The worse part is that they believe it!

            Even if that minister’s preposterous claim were true, there would be very little pride if our students in the kampongs, residential as well as religious schools, and those left in limbo after their Form Five – all essentially Malays – were to remain trapped as they are now.

            The purpose of my exercise is not to pontificate on the issues or belittle those charged with solving them. It is also not my intention to imperiously diagnose the malady and then dogmatically impose my prescription. My intent is to ignite a much-needed debate. Only then could we appreciate the issues in all their varying facets and full complexities. That is the only basis upon which to craft a sensible and workable solution.

            To that extent I am appreciative of those who have engaged me. They have highlighted facets that I am not fully aware of and brought forth aspects that I have not considered. For example, an American scholar suggests that I am underestimating the fear of Malay language nationalists (and Malays generally) to any prominence given to English. That the fear is irrational makes it all the more real and formidable.

            To a suggestion in my earlier book that Chinese schools should be identified less with race and more with its medium of instruction, meaning, a school using Mandarin instead of one appealing to a particular race, an activist with the Chinese school movement responded that it would be too much of an emotional burden, bordering on being irrational, for them to do that.

            Significantly, there is one group that surprised me for its lack of engagement, those in the public sector of education. I do get the occasional response, invariably from those who have retired! Recently someone very important in the government kindly forwarded my essays to senior officials in the Ministry of Education. They responded by duly thanking me for my “interesting” ideas. Nothing beyond!

            In the 1980s the Ministry of Education sent many of its senior officers on a culup (quickie) summer management course at Stanford. I managed to interest a few of them to visit the area’s best private and public schools. A few hours before the appointed time however, they called to cancel as they were going shopping instead! Then apparently mistaking my reason for the meeting, one of them assured me should I have a nephew or niece applying for a residential school back home, to let him know as he could “facilitate” it!

            Trying to engage our public officials is like dropping smooth pebbles into a lake; there is hardly any ripple.

            Today with the digital revolution, Malaysians are better informed; hence the derision that greeted the minister’ pronouncement on the supposed superiority of our schools. Malaysia has a long way to go, Muhyyiddin! In trying to delude us, you succeed only in deluding yourself.

                This entry was posted on Monday, 7 May 2012, 3:15 am and is filed under
Bakri Musa
,
Education
,
English
,
Muhyiddin Yassin
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Bersih: Putrajaya urging foreign governments to crack down on Bersih protesters

By Clara Chooi

The Malaysian Insider

May 08, 2012

KUALA LUMPUR, May 8 — Bersih alleged today that the Najib administration has requested that the governments of other countries crack down on Malaysians who participated in Bersih 3.0 rallies overseas.

In a statement here, the election watchdog said such action should be “deplored” and urged Malaysians across the globe to support the safety of their fellow citizens living outside the country.

“We express concern that the Malaysian government appears to be requesting governments not disposed to democratic reforms to launch a crackdown on Malaysians living in their countries who participated in the global Bersih 3.0 event on April 2012.

“If these reports are true, it is a negative development that must be deplored, and we urge all Malaysians to unite in support of the safety of our fellow citizens,” the group said in the statement.

Bersih 3.0 was said to have been attended by tens of thousands of Malaysians not merely within the country but across the globe, where similar rallies for free and fair elections were held in 85 cities across 35 countries.

Within Malaysia, Bersih 3.0’s main event in Kuala Lumpur was held simultaneously in 11 other cities in both the peninsula and east Malaysia.

But the protest on the streets of the capital, held on April 28, turned violent after 3pm when participants breached the barriers of Dataran Merdeka, which had been cordoned off following a court order.

In the ensuing melee, scores were injured as police clashed with protesters amid a bombardment of tear gas and chemical-laced water, resulting in the ongoing blame-game between organisers and the authorities over who was responsible for the violence.

To date, police have only put out feelers for allegedly unruly protesters and have yet to indicate if any of its personnel would be investigated for attacking the rally participants.

Bersih today also urged the government to accept an offer made by the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of the Right to Freedom of Opinion and Expression Frank LaRue to investigate the events surrounding Bersih 3.0.

LaRue, a lawyer by profession, had made the offer following numerous allegations of police brutality against protesters who had gathered on April 28 for what was meant to be a peaceful demonstration.

But according to procedure, LaRue can only do so on invitation by the Malaysian government.

“Such an investigation ought to examine the role of Bersih 2.0 as the organiser and the responsibility of the Royal Malaysia Police (PDRM) and the Dewan Bandaraya Kuala Lumpur (DBKL) in facilitating such an assembly.

“We are ready to give every cooperation in such an investigation,” Bersih said today.

The group continues to allege that excessive force was used to disperse protesters on April 28, pointing out that even members of the media were not spared in the melee.

It acknowledged that the government had agreed to form an independent panel to investigate the allegations of violence but expressed a deeper confidence in LaRue’s ability to be more thorough in his probe.

“If indeed the government has nothing to hide and is keen for the truth to be established, in the interests of the rakyat, then this would be an ideal occasion and opportunity to do so,” Bersih said.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 8 May 2012, 6:40 pm and is filed under
Bersih
,
Elections
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Dibawah lindungan hipokrasi

Oleh
Sakmongkol AK47
 | May 08, 2012

The Malaysian Insider

8 MEI — Ini artikel yang di tujukan khas kepada majoriti orang Melayu supaya kekal tidak menyokong parti fasis yang bernama Umno. Ya, pembaca dengar tidak bersalahan. Saya menggelarkan Umno parti fasis yang menghamba-abdikan orang Melayu dan memperbudakkan dan membodohkan bangsa Melayu. Setelah 50 tahun ketika Umno lemah, barulah pemimpin Umno berkejaran memberi RM500 seorang. Berapa ribu orang terpaksa beratur mendapatkan RM500 untuk menyamai harga cincin RM74 juta? Berapa yang kena beratur mendapatkan RM500 menyamai handbag Birkin Hermes?

Amat menakjubkan orang Melayu sanggup menerima RM500 tapi melupakan kezaliman dan penganiayaan kerajaan Umno keatas orang Melayu khususnya. Bolehkah kita ganti RM500 seorang dengan penafian hak rakyat Kelantan yang majoritynya orang Melayu mendapatkan royalty minyak? Minyak di jumpai di perairan Kelantan, tapi Kelantan di nafikan peluang membangunkan industri minyak dan gas di Tok Bali. Mahathir lebih rela menyalurkan minyak ke Songkhla, Thailand dari Tok Bali. Jadi rakyat Kelantan, ambil RM500 tersebut tapi jangan lupa kezaliman dan penganiayaan keatas kamu oleh Umno dan BN.

Kenapa orang Melayu mahu lagi mendengar suara cemas seorang mamak padukang yang telah pun menyatakan Umno busuk sampai ke usus? Mamak ini juga yang mengatakan bahawa pimpinan Umno semua half-past six dan pimpinan yang ada tongong dan bingung. Bolehkah negara kita di bangunkan oleh pimpinan yang tongong lagi bingung? Mana mungkin kita mahu percaya celoteh si mamak padukang ini? Bolehkah kita percaya warga emas dan makcik serta pakcik yang menyertai gerakan Bersih 3.0 mahu menggulingkan kerajaan bukan secara demokratik?

Kita hanya mahu menggulingkan kerajaan secara demokratik iaitu melalui peti undi. Dan rakyat semua berazam, mahu kick out the fascists Umno and its BN component parties.

Bila kita ambil RM500, kita jangan lupa jumlah RM1.3 trillion duit panas yang telah di salurkan ke luar negara. Apa pasal kerajaan Umno/BN berdiam diri dalam hal ini? Adakah mereka bersekongkol dengan pihak yang menyeludup wang tersebut? Ia haram kalau balun seorang, tapi halal kalau di kongsi bersama?

Ini bererti RM130 billion setahun di seludup keluar negara. Bayangkan jika RM130 billion di kembalikan kedalam ekonomi kita, di tambah kepada bajet negara sebanyak RM250 billion itu, tentu kita dapat mengagihkan kepada perbelanjaan mengurus dan pembangunan.

Bila kita terima RM500 itu jangan lupa kepada ketirisan dan kebocoran yang di lakukan keatas ekonomi kita sebanyak RM28 billion setahun. Kita semua tahu ketirisan itu sebetulnya rasuah. Ini kerajaan yang berdiri diatas rasuah.

Dan Najib meneruskan program merasuah rakyat Malaysia. Orang Cina, India dan terbaru, orang Sikh di rasuah supaya menyokong Umno dan BN. Saya mahu golongan ini berfikir, jika Umno dan BN boleh lakukan, sesiapa sahaja yang menguasai kerajaan mampu melakukan nya dengan lebih baik dari Umno. Nobody can do any worse than how Umno is doing currently dan membayar untuk menyelesaikan masaalah adalah vintage Najib.

Tapi syukur 3.7 juta pengundi Melayu sedar mengenai onar yang di lakukan oleh Umno. Sejak 1988, Umno telah gagalkan orang Melayu. Since 1988, Umno has failed the Malays. Apa jenis orang Melayu yang Umno telah lahirkan? Yang tertunduk tunduk, macam peon dan tamby menadah tangan memintak sedekah?

Umno telah memegang tampuk pemerintahan lebih dari 50 tahun. Cina sengkek yang datang ke Tanah Melayu sehelai sepinggang hari ini mendominasi ekonomi dan suka tidak suka, mempengaruhi arah perjalanan negara. Umno yang mendominasi kuasa politik tidak mampu membetulkan keadaan ini. namun, pemimpin Umno tidak malu muka memohon di berikan mandat satu tempoh lagi untuk meneruskan agenda penipuan dan penglanunan mereka.

Kali ini sahaja Umno mengubah taktiknya. Mohon di bantu dengan pengucapan lemah lembut. Najib pun sudah meminta maaf. Jika Umno kuat, bahasa mereka bahasa sombong. Kali ini sahaja setelah 50 tahun Umno memberi bantuan RM500 dan RM200 dan apa apa lagi imbuhan kewangan. Sebab apa? Sebab Umno terdesak, jadi mereka bercakap lembut gigi dari lidah dan merasuah semua orang untuk mengekalkan kuasa.

Setiap hari, kita bangun dan beritahu anak-anak kita, mereka tidak mampu bersaing dengan bangsa lain, kerana di lahirkan sebagai Melayu. Apa penyelesaian yang di cadaangkan oleh Umno?

Cara untuk mengatasi kelemahan tersebut ialah mendaulatkan Umno sebagai penolong dan pelindung. Dalam kata lain, beri Umno mandate mutlak. Kuasa mutlak erti nya, fasis.

Apa yang boleh di tunjukkan oleh Umno kepada orang Melayu? Hari ini Umno hanya mampu menyatakan bahawa kalau Umno tidak ada, maka habislah orang Melayu. Itu adalah bukti bahawa Umno gagal membentuk Melayu yang tahan lasak. Jika dasar Umno baik dan bagus, tentulah jika Umno tiada pun, orang Melayu masih terus berjaya.

Umno menanamkan jiwa hamba kedalam benak orang Melayu supaya mengaitkan jatuh bangun, maju dan jaya nya mereka dengan Umno. Ustaz Umno pun ke sana sini melafazkan taatlah kepada Allah, kepada Rasul dan wa-ulil-amri-Umno.

Realiti, orang Melayu tidak perlu bergantung kepada Umno untuk pertolongan dan perlindungan.

Saya malu mendengar pegawai kerajaan yang kiranya ada otak sedikit, berdiri depan perserta seminar mengalirkan air mata mengistiharkan habislah orang Melayu jika Umno kecundang. Orang tempat saya, Pekan Pahang akan hanya berkata, kepala bapok awak. Yang habis dan mampus ialah orang Melayu seperti kamu yang mengeksploitasi emosi dan amanah orang melayu. Adakah kamu ingat, orang Melayu lain yang mengambil alih tepat dan kedudukan kamu tidak mampu membela orang Melayu? Kita boleh lakukan yang lebih baik.

Kerajaan Pakatan Rakyat telah membuktikan bahawa mereka boleh mentadbir ekonomi dan negeri lebih baik dari yang mampu di lakukan oleh pemimpin kerajaan Umno. Masa depan orang Melayu lebih cerah di luar lingkungan Umno. Kerana itu, pegawai yang korap dan yang tidak membuat kerja ikhlas dan jujur akan menangisi nasib mereka sebab kebenaran akan mengatasi kebatilan akhirnya.

Dimana Umno berdiri? Umno berdiri di pihak bathil. Rakyat mesti menolak mereka. Terutama orang Melayu. —
sakmongkol.blogspot.com

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

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 8 May 2012, 5:38 pm and is filed under
UMNO
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


EC has not been honest in its rebuttals

By
Ong Kian Ming
 | May 7, 2012

Malaysiakini

COMMENT Bersih 3.0 may have been a success in terms of its ability to attract more than 100,000 Malaysians from all walks of life to come out in support of clean and fair elections but the hard work of ensuring that this aspiration is translated into reality needs to continue.

All the more so when the Election Commission continues to ignore the many problems highlighted by the Malaysian Electoral Roll Analysis Project (Merap) with regard to the electoral roll.

The EC has recently published a booklet with 12 points of rebuttal against allegations that the electoral roll is full of problematic registrations and that the EC has been complicit in not cleaning up the electoral roll.

In this article, I want to highlight two of the rebuttals to illustrate that the EC has not been honest in its responses which reflects its inconsistent policies in managing the electoral roll and electoral boundaries.

EC’s boundary ‘correction’ exercise

One of the EC’s rebuttals is that it has not redrawn any electoral boundaries since such an exercise would require parliamentary approval. What the EC has been doing instead, is to correct previous errors of putting voters in certain localities in the wrong parliamentary and state constituency.

This was done after the introduction of a new Electoral Geographic Information System (Egis) in 2004. The EC used the power given to the chief registrar under the Section 25(3) of the Elections (Regulation of Electors) Regulations 2002 where it is state that:

“Where an error has resulted in any person being registered as an elector of a registration area which is not a registration area in respect of which that person should have been registered, the Chief Registrar may enter that person’s name in the principal electoral roll or the supplementary electoral roll for the appropriate registration area.”

This was the reason given for why Selangor Menteri Besar Khalid Ibrahim’s voting area was shifted from Petaling Jaya Selatan (P105) to Lembah Pantai (P121) – Section 16/2 is part of Wilayah Persekutuan rather than Petaling Jaya.

The ‘correction of boundaries’ according to the EC has affected 19,342 voters in the whole country.

I have three concerns with regard to the EC’s rebuttal on this point.

Firstly, if the Egis system was introduced in 2004 after the 2003 delimitation exercise, why were these corrections not done until long after the 2008 general elections?

The following is the EC’s statement in Bahasa Malaysia with regard to the introduction of the Egis system:

“SPR menyedari kedudukan beberapa lokaliti yang tersalah letak di dalam bahagian pilihan raya hanya selepas Sistem Egis (Electoral Geographical Information System) digunapakai dalam tahun 2004.”

And again, when referring to the correction to the Section 16/2 locality and shifting it from PJ Selatan to Lembah Pantai:

“Apabila sistem Egis (Electoral Geographical Information System) dilaksanakan pada tahun 2004, SPR mula menyedari kesilapan penentuan kedudukan lokaliti berkenaan.”

The fact that the EC only choose to make these boundary ‘corrections’ more than four years (after the 2008 general election) after the introduction of Egis is very troubling and concerning.

Affected voters not informed

Secondly, what is more troubling is the fact that the EC did not notify the 19,342 voters which were affected by this exercise. They only wrote to the political areas in the areas which were affected.

Again, this raises concerns in regard to the intent of the EC to keep voters informed about their respective voting constituencies. Is it the responsibility of the politicians or is it the responsibility of the EC to keep voters informed of the changes made?

Most reasonable people would argue that the EC has the obligation to inform voters when they have been shifted from one voting constituency to another since this means that their political representative at the state (for the non-Federal Territories voters) and at the parliamentary levels have been changed.

The EC has since stated that it would send letters to each of these voters to inform them of these changes before the next general election. We hope that these letters will be sent in a timely fashion and that all of these affected voters will be duly notified.

Thirdly, the EC has not been consistent and transparent in this boundary ‘correction’ exercise.

When they informed political representatives that localities have been shifted in and/or out of their respective constituencies, they failed to provide updated maps of the newly configured constituencies showing exactly where the new localities are placed.

This lack of transparency points to the possibility that the EC has not been transparent in terms of the standards used for these boundary ‘correction’ exercises.

I shall firstly illustrate one case involving the movement of localities which does not make sense according to pre-existing electoral boundaries in the state seats of Seri Setia (Kelana Jaya parliament) and Kota Damansara (Subang).

Map 1 below highlights one of the areas affected by this boundary ‘correction’ exercise in the state seat of Seri Setia (N32).

Map 2 below highlights the localities which have been transferred from Seri Setia to Kota Damansara (N39).

The electoral boundary of Seri Setia is demarcated by the major highways highlighted in red. This is the pre-existing boundary which was used in the 2004 and 2008 general elections.

What is perplexing is that Saujana Resort, which lies on the southern side of the old Subang airport road (highlighted in red at the top of the map) has now been shifted to Kota Damansara, which lies on the northern side of the old Subang airport road.

I fail to see why Egis would show that this locality should be shifted to another constituency when it clearly falls within the boundary of the Seri Setia state seat.

What is also perplexing is that two localities that are to the east of the Jalan Monfort highway boundary (highlighted in red at the left of the map) – Pusat Bekalan Polis Shah Alam and Pangsapuri Melewar – have also been shifted to Kota Damansara.

If the EC had shifted these two localities to Kota Anggerik (N40), it could have at least been more defensible. It does not make sense for these two localities to be moved up to Kota Damansara when the Taman Glenmarie locality, which is closer to the Kota Damansara seat, remains in Seri Setia.

This is just one example of how the boundary ‘correction’ exercise done by the EC does not seem to be using consistent and transparent standards which includes using natural boundaries like rivers and other man-made boundaries such as major roads to demarcate constituencies.

Another example which shows the EC inconsistency in adopting a consistent set of standards in its boundary ‘correction’ exercise is the inclusion of a locality in Bukit Jalil, which should be under the Bandar Tun Razak parliamentary seat, not the Lembah Pantai parliamentary seat.

A new locality called POLIS (Pusat Tahanan Sementara Bukit Jalil – Kod Lokaliti: 1210017701) was created in 2011. As its name indicates, this police holding facility is located in Bukit Jalil.

But the almost 500 police postal voters in this locality were allocated to the Lembah Pantai parliamentary constituency, a marginal constituency which is likely to be contested by Federal Territories Minister Raja Nong Chik.

The EC would be hard pressed to explain why its boundary ‘correction’ exercise failed to put this locality into the Bandar Tun Razak parliamentary constituency, especially since it falls outside the current boundaries of the Lembah Paintai parliamentary seat.

To ensure that this boundary ‘correction’ exercise is not a stealth delimitation exercise, the EC should publish maps of the areas affected indicating clearly the localities which have been shifted as well as why they have been shifted.

42,051 doubtful voters in electoral roll

After initially promising to erase 42,051 voters whose information and status was not clear according to the National Registration Department (NRD) records, the EC retracted on this and said that they had no right to remove these names even though Section 25 2(g) of the Elections (Regulation of Electors) Regulations 2002 states that the chief registrar may “strik(e) out the name of any person who, in the opinion of the Chief Registrar, is not entitled, for any reason, to remain or be in the principal electoral roll or the supplementary roll”.

This figure was later revised downwards by 1,248 voters to 40,803 when these names publicly displayed and the NRD was able to update their records accordingly.

However, the EC has failed to account for why 14,577 names were deleted in the Quarter 2 2011 because their records were not active in NRD – “rekod tidak aktif di JPN (NRD)”. Not that these names were not deleted because the voters in question had died – that figure was reported in a separate category.

Hence, if in one quarter, the names of almost 15,000 voters were deleted because their NRD records were not active, why was it the case that over 42,000 voters whose status was not identifiable by the NRD in another quarter not dealt with in the same manner?

Again, this calls into question the EC’s consistency in applying the same standards for the same cases.

What is also disconcerting is the fact that a very high percentage of the voters among the 42,051 not deleted as well as the 14,577 deleted voters were very old voters. For example, 13,183 or 90.4 percent of the 14,577 deleted voters were over the age of 70. Similarly, 33,421 or 79.5 percent of the 42,051 not deleted voters were above the age of 70.

It also raises questions about the utility of publicly displaying these records when most of the voters among the 42,051 are probably not very mobile and would not be able to ‘verify’ the fact that they are still very much alive. And if they are dead and do not have family who happen upon this list, then there is no way that their names can be removed from the electoral roll.

It would be much more effective for the EC to form investigative teams, together with NRD, to try to track down as many of these voters as possible instead of just relying on public displays and relying on politicians and political parties to track down these voters.

As long as the EC is not pro-active in ‘going to the ground’, the list of ‘dubious’ voters, including those who are aged over 100 years old, will continue to populate the electoral roll. The identity of these voters can easily be used by irresponsible parties to cast a vote.

__

Dr ONG KIAN MING is project director of the Malaysian Electoral Roll Analysis Project (Merap).

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 8 May 2012, 10:42 am and is filed under
Bersih
,
Elections
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Expert: Fatwa not final

Tarani Palani | May 8, 2012

Free Malaysia Today

PETALING JAYA: Although the fatwa prohibiting Muslims from participating in illegal assemblies cannot be challenged in court, there is room for discussion to reconsider the edict, according to an expert.

An official of the Malaysian Muslim Lawyers Association said the National Fatwa Council could issue another fatwa to clarify the current one although it was unlikely to reverse its decision.

“Remember the indelible ink episode? It first said that it was haram. Later, after much consultation and deliberation with various parties, it put up a clarification that only inks with a certain percentage of chemicals is haram,” said Abdul Rahim Sinwan, the association’s deputy president.

He said parties disagreeing with the council could still approach it to present their points of view.

Since the fatwa was issued last Sunday, many Islamic scholars have argued that a person’s intention of participating in any such rally should be taken into consideration.

They argue that it would not be sinful for Muslims to join a rally calling for clean elections and good governance because Islam champions such causes.

According to Abdul Rahim, a fatwa is not legally binding until gazetted as law at the state level.

“Since religious affairs fall under state jurisdiction, the state has to first gazette the fatwa into law. Only then can one be penalised by law if one goes against the fatwa,” he said.

Asked to comment on disagreements with the fatwa expressed by officials of Pakatan-held states, Abdul Rahim noted that such matters were under the purview of the sultans.

“Religious affairs directly fall under the Sultan’s purview. Therefore it is the Sultan who decides if the state will abide by the edict,” he said.

Fatwa not a law

The speaker of the Kedah state assembly, Abdul Isa Ismail, meanwhile told FMT the announcement of the fatwa was made under“very curious circumstances”.

“So many assemblies have taken place before” the Bersih rally, he said. “Why it is that only now the council has issued a fatwa?”

The speaker added that a fatwa, to him, was merely a statement and not a law.

“There is a fatwa banning Muslims from smoking. They still do it. You don’t see them being prosecuted.”

Last month, the Kedah government issued a general fatwa stating that no religious edict could be challenged in court.

Commenting on that, Abdul Isa said: “You have to read our fatwa in full. We said that there was no need to challenge the fatwa in court. We stand by that. A fatwa is a statement, not a law. Should people decide to ignore it, nothing can be done.”

He added that people should continue to voice their opposition to the anti-rally fatwa and present the National Fatwa Council with alternative views.

“They must listen to both sides and not jump to conclusions,” he said.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 8 May 2012, 6:02 pm and is filed under
Bersih
,
Elections
,
Islam
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


‘No one was provocative during Bersih rally’

by Stephanie Sta Maria

Free Malaysia Today

May 8, 2012

PETALING JAYA: Social activist Marina Mahathir has said that she hadn’t witnessed any provocation from Bersih 3.0 supporters during the massive rally on April 28.

The rally, which turned ugly an hour after it officially began, saw police shooting tear gas canisters and water cannons into the 80,000-strong crowd after a group of protesters breached the barricades surrounding Dataran Merdeka.

In the aftermath, videos and pictures of violence from police as well as protesters surfaced with both sides insisting that the other take responsibility for the rally’s outcome.

In a recent interview on business radio station BFM, Marina recounted walking up to the barricades at Jalan Lebuh Pasar where the police were gathered.

“No one was being provocative,” she said. “There were high spirits, many young people and the police was being very patient.”

“But having said that they suddenly brought out the trucks, and the guys in helmets and shields. We didn’t really understand why. I thought it was an intimidation factor, to just have them standing there.”

Marina added that while word of Bersih 3.0 co-chairperson, S Ambiga’s, directive for the crowd to disperse had spread, many “rally tourists” still wanted to get closer to the barricades for snapshots.

“I don’t think anyone is really going to know just yet who is responsible,” she mused. “We may need a Royal Commission of Inquiry (RCI) to get to them bottom of this.”

“The government should set up such a commission to clear its name, and everyone should support it because everyone has a stake in it.”

Last Wednesday, the Association for the Promotion of Human Rights (Proham) had also urged Putrajaya to do the same in the light of conflicting reports on the violence between police and protesters during the rally.

No political hijacking

The police have defended their actions, saying that the situation would have worsened if they had simply stood aside. Marina, however, didn’t buy it.

“Horrible things happened (on that day) because they threw tear gas,” she pointedly said. “If they didn’t want people entering Dataran Merdeka then the tear gas should have been lobbed there instead.”

“Why shoot it straight into the crowd? I read one person’s account of being tracked by the water cannon so what’s that all about?”

Another claim that didn’t sit well with Marina was that of the opposition hijacking the rally and being ultimately responsible for the ensuing clashes.

According to her, the supporters were shouting for Ambiga and not for opposition leader, Anwar Ibrahim. She also observed that isolated political chants were not taken up by the crowd either.

“So I don’t know whether that’s a fair charge to say about the whole rally,” Marina stated when asked for her thoughts on the rally’s link to the Pakatan coalition.

“They are politicians, that is their gain and that is what they do. If they were BN politicians, they would have done exactly the same thing.”

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 8 May 2012, 5:51 pm and is filed under
Bersih
,
Elections
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Rally Bersih itu haram, kata Majlis Fatwa?

Oleh
Aspan Alias
 | May 08, 2012

The Malaysian Insider

8 MEI — Majlis Fatwa Kebangsaan dalam mesyuarat kali ke-99 telah membuat keputusan bahawa rally Bersih dan demonstrasi itu adalah haram. Fatwa ini memang satu fatwa politik kerana hakikatnya pihak polislah yang merancang kekecohan dalam rally Bersih baru-baru ini. Bagi saya, saya rela dicemuh dan dikata oleh sesiapa pun, tetapi ini merupakan fatwa yang sangat mengejutkan.

Majlis Fatwa sepatutnya mengambil isu-isu yang banyak berlaku di keliling kita yang sangat bertentangan dengan kehendak hukum dan syariat agama suci kita. Saya bukan orang pandai agama tetapi untuk menentukan yang fatwa ini adalah fatwa politik tidak payah menjadi seorang ulamak kerana ianya adalah fatwa politik.

Jika benar Majlis Fatwa ini mempunyai kredibiliti elok kita cadangkan supaya Majlis Fatwa Kebangsaan ini mengeluarkan fatwa tentang isu NFC misalnya. Ini merupakan isu salah guna kuasa yang dilakukan oleh pihak pemerintah dan jumlah yang terlibat bukannya sedikit.

Majlis Fatwa juga sepatutnya memberikan fatwa tentang kehadiran ratusan ribu pengundi yang di kalangan pendatang asing tercatit dalam daftar pengundi di Selangor misalnya. Kerja memasukkan nama-nama pengundi yang tidak layak mengundi itu merupakan satu penipuan dan itu adalah salah dari segi agama kita yang suci. Saya tidak tahu mengapa Majlis Fatwa tidak mahu mengeluarkan fatwa tentang isu ini jika benar-benar mahu terlibat dalam politik negara.

Mencuri wang rakyat yang telah sampai ketahap trillion-trillion ini juga wajar diketengahkan oleh Majlis Fatwa Kebangsaan. Pembaziran yang dilakukan oleh kerajaan BN yang begitu ketara juga wajar dikeluarkan fatwa yang kukuh dari Majlis Fatwa Kebangsaan. Oleh kerana Majlis Fatwa mahu bertanggungjawab maka Majlis Fatwa harus menerima “accountability” terhadap isu rasuah secara besar-besaran yang dilakukan oleh pemimpin-pemimpin besar kita.

Majlis Fatwa sepatutnya tidak selektif dalam memberi fatwa, lebih-lebih lagi dalam isu politik dan kenegaraan. Majlis Fatwa sepatutnya memerhati dan mengetengahkan isu-isu yang kotor dari segi Islam yang berlaku di hadapan mata dan kepala kita sendiri. Majlis Fatwa tidak sepatutnya menjadi alat kepada mereka yang “desperate” dan terdesak kerana ia akan memudaratkan rakyat negara ini.

Saya tidak sangka yang mengadakan rally untuk memberhentikan penipuan oleh suruhanjaya pilihanraya itu adalah salah. Yang saya tahu jika kita biarkan penipuan dilakukan secara terbuka oleh SPR itu bagaimana pula tanggungjawab sebagai seorang Islam yang membiarkan penipuan itu berterusan?

Adakah Majlis Fatwa mengharapkan kita untuk menadah tangan dan berdoa sahaja tanpa sesuatu usaha dilakukan untuk memberhentikan penipuan itu? Jika senarai pengundi itu merupakan senarai yang telah dilacurkan, apa pula pandangan Majlis Fatwa terhadap isu ini? Adakah Majlis Fatwa memfatwakan yang itu adalah halal dan boleh dilakukan dan kita semua membiarkan sahaja perkara terkutuk itu dilakukan?

Kenapa Majlis Fatwa memberikan kelonggaran kepada sebelah pihak untuk melakukan sesuatu yang jahat dan memberikan fatwa yang mengharamkan sesiapa yang mahukan kejahatan itu dihentikan.

Kita tidak boleh membiarkan apa yang dilakukan oleh SPR ini berterusan. Kita abaikan sahaja fatwa yang berat sebelah itu. Sebagai seorang Islam, pandai-pandailah kita untuk menilai yang mana satu yang jujur dan yang mana pihak yang menjadi alat kepada kepentingan yang rakus kuasa.

Oleh kerana pilihanraya sudah hampir bermacam-macam karenah setengah pihak yang tidak semenggah, termasuklah Majlis Fatwa. Memang sahlah kita hidup di akhir zaman. Yang baik dikatakan salah dan yang buruk dikatakan benar dan dilindungi dengan menggunakan agama.

Saya kira rakyat sepatutnya memanggil ribuan sadiqiah Islam dari seluruh negara untuk membuat ketetapan dalam isu ini untuk mendapatkan fatwa yang sebenar-benarnya mempunyai kredibiliti yang tinggi yang tidak menokok dan menambah hukum Tuhan yang sudah tersedia lengkap itu. Saya tahu dan ramai yang tahu, fatwa ini keluar kerana takutkan Bersih 4.0 yang akan mengeluarkan 1 juta rakyat kali ini.

Pandangan saya mungkin mendapat reaksi keras dari sesetengah pihak, tetapi biarlah kita berjumpa di Yaumil Mahsya sahaja untuk penentuannya.

Sekian. —
aspanaliasnet.blogspot.com

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 8 May 2012, 5:43 pm and is filed under
Bersih
,
Islam
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Say no to foreign interference

— Ali Kadir

The Malaysian Insider

May 08, 2012

MAY 8 — No matter who finally rules Putrajaya, one principle must remain sacred: that foreigners should not interfere with the internal affairs of this country.

This rule would apply to the United States, Australia, Singapore, China and even Saudi Arabia.

It is a most natural part of international relations that countries want to have leverage over each other, mostly through trade, financial aid, access to markets, visas, etc. Some try and interfere in more subtle ways like cutting down scholarships and quotas.

According to Jamil Khir (the same chap who used zakat money for his legal expenses), a Saudi Arabian diplomat in KL said that his government was considering cutting haj visas because of disturbance caused by Bersih 3.0. That is the prerogative of the kingdom and it would be perfectly understandable because Saudi Arabia opposes any expression of freedom of assembly or for that matter any other democratic right.

These are the people who shudder at the thought of the Arab Spring. So we should expect the Saudi government to react in this threatening manner.

But nevertheless it is disappointing. Did we ban Saudi citizens from entering Malaysia on the basis that some of their citizens played a major role in 9/11?

In any case, instead of standing up to any bullying by Riyadh, we can expect the government and its media to use the threat of haj restrictions to whip up anti-Bersih 3.0 sentiment. After all, the government capitulated a few months ago and allowed the Saudis to boss us around in the small matter involving the blogger on the run to New Zealand.

I repeat once again: anyone who occupies Putrajaya can never be a lackey for a foreign power.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 8 May 2012, 10:12 pm and is filed under
Bersih
,
Elections
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.