Is this Muhyiddin’s 1Malaysia?

Pakatan elected reps kept out of S’gor schools

Christine Chan

Malaysiakini

Aug 4, 10

A circular that allows specified BN leaders to attend events organised by Selangor schools but keeps out those from Pakatan Rakyat, has been criticised as an example of double standards.

The circular dated Feb 16, 2009 states that the education minister has appointed 57 leaders from Selangor Umno, MCA, MIC and Gerakan to represent him at these events in the state.

Signed by the principal secretary to the minister, the circular was sent to the director of the Selangor Education Department.

It also states that the BN representatives have each been issued a certificate of appointment, copies of which were attached to the circular with a full list of names and posts held in the respective political parties.

When contacted, Hannah Yeoh, the DAP state assemblyperson for Subang Jaya said that – by implication – school authorities have to get the minister’s permission to invite Pakatan representatives.

“(When the schools ask for permission), it is never given,” she claimed.

Yeoh had recently mentioned this in a tweet, in which she questioned the contents of the circular and said she had managed to obtain the list of ‘approved’ BN leaders.

“I am not allowed to attend any function in the schools in my area. This is not right as it sends the message to the children that you have to receive whoever you are given. They cannot choose their own leaders,” she said.

She, however, said she was allowed to enter her alma mater – SMK Subang Utama – after the Parents-Teachers Association (PIBG) stepped in.

“In my case, because the PIBG insisted, I was able to attend. So it shows that PIBG plays an important role,” she added.

‘Clearly unfair’ policy

DAP’s Teratai state assemblyperson Jenice Lee confirmed the situation.

“Some schools had requested donations from me, but I was not allowed to go in and give a speech,” she said.

There was one occasion where I had to hand over the cheque outside the school compound.”

“I know this has happened to many other Pakatan leaders, not just me and Hannah. And this is clearly unfair.”

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 4 August 2010, 7:12 pm and is filed under
1Malaysia
,
Education
,
Muhyiddin Yassin
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Malaysia’s Opposition on Trial

Anwar Ibrahim could be headed to prison again on trumped up charges. We urge the U.S. government to speak out on his behalf.

By
AL GORE AND PAUL WOLFOWITZ
 | Wall Street Journal

We come from opposite sides of the political spectrum and disagree about a great many things. However, one issue that brings us together is the case of Anwar Ibrahim, the former deputy prime minister of Malaysia who is now leader of the political opposition in that country.

Mr. Anwar has been charged under very dubious circumstances with sodomy, a criminal offense under Malaysian law. If convicted, he faces a possible 20-year sentence—effectively life in prison for a man of 63. His trial, scheduled to resume next week, threatens not just Mr. Anwar but all those in Malaysia who have struggled for a freer and more democratic nation. It is also important for the rest of the world, because it casts a troubling shadow over the future of a nation that should be a model for other Muslim countries.?

Our views of Anwar Ibrahim have been formed completely independently of each other. We do not always agree with his views on foreign policy, but we do agree that as a political leader, statesman and intellectual, Mr. Anwar possesses qualities that encourage hope for the future. These qualities include lucidity and openness to debate and engagement; commitment to principles of accountability and good governance; and a serious concern for the future of his country and the world—not to mention his extraordinary courage in standing up for what he believes. We are convinced that he is committed to the values of pluralism, tolerance and freedom that are needed for Malaysia to flourish.

In the end, what matters is not our opinion of Mr. Anwar’s character, but the opinion of his fellow countrymen. Malaysians should decide for themselves, through an open electoral process, who they wish to lead them. They should not be deprived of that opportunity by an abuse of judicial power.

This is the second time that Mr. Anwar has been subjected to a politically?motivated trial on similar charges. The first time was in 1998, when as deputy prime minister and finance minister he dared to mount a challenge to then Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamed. Mr. Anwar was jailed, beaten severely, and condemned to years of solitary confinement after a trial that was a travesty of justice. That is not just our conclusion. It is the conclusion of the International Commission of Jurists, the International Bar Association, and a number of international human-rights organizations. It was also the conclusion of Malaysia’s highest court, which overturned the sodomy conviction in 2004, after Mr. Mahathir was no longer prime minister.

Mr. Anwar now leads the coalition of Malaysia’s three opposition parties, which won more than a third of the seats in the parliamentary elections of March 2008. This was the best showing that the opposition had ever managed against the governing coalition led by the United Malays National Organization, the party that has ruled the country for the past 53 years.

Three months after the election, Mr. Anwar threatened to call for a vote of no confidence in Parliament and take over the government. He was then arrested and charged again with sodomy. Like the charges 10 years earlier, the timing of these new charges carries the strong odor of political manipulation. And, if anything, the case against Mr. Anwar this time is even less credible and the violations of due process are even more egregious.

While Anwar Ibrahim is on trial before the state, the state is on trial before its people and the world. If he were to be convicted, the whole of Malaysia’s political life and its standing in the world would be damaged. And for what gain? The timing of the trial has led many observers to the conclusion that the objective is to stem the ruling party’s loss of popular support. Public opinion polls indicate that the great majority of Malaysians see the charges against Mr. Anwar as politically motivated. In any event, as Mr. Anwar himself would be the first to say, his imprisonment would not extinguish his cause. On the contrary, the movement he began a decade ago will continue to spread.

This is a pivotal moment in Malaysia’s history with consequences that are also meaningful on a global scale. With a population of nearly 30 million, Malaysia is not a small country. But it is also significant as an example of a Muslim-majority country making its way in the world. It has been able, over the first half-century of its independence, to demonstrate that it is possible to achieve economic growth while sustaining a degree of harmony among its religiously and ethnically diverse population.

In recent years, however, the country has been sliding backwards, with increasing exploitation of religious and ethnic differences for political purposes. The trial and conviction of Mr. Anwar would intensify these problems by destroying the confidence of millions of Malaysians in the possibility of justice under the law.

We urge our own government to make clear the importance the U.S. attaches to the role of the law in sustaining a political process in which justice and freedom are natural allies. We know from experience that sensitive issues of this kind are often best pursued quietly, government to government. But time is running out. A moment of truth is approaching.

Two days ago, a judge postponed Mr. Anwar’s trial in order to deal with charges of an improper relationship between a female prosecutor and Mr. Anwar’s accuser. This is an opportunity. Malaysia’s system of governance has the capacity to do the right thing—not only for Anwar Ibrahim, but for the millions of Malaysian citizens who look to him as a spokesman for their aspirations. We urge those in the Malaysian government who will decide this matter to act with wisdom.

Mr. Gore was the 45th vice president of the United States. Mr. Wolfowitz was deputy secretary of defense from 2001 to 2005.

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 4 August 2010, 11:47 am and is filed under
Anwar Ibrahim
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Sime Darby to report biggest ever loss

The Malaysian Insider

KUALA LUMPUR, Aug 5 — One-time Malaysian icon, the 100-year-old Sime Darby Berhad, appears to be in a downward spiral as it faces huge losses again after the last one 13 years ago, with top officials being taken off from several units.

The Malaysian Insider understands that the government conglomerate will next month announce that potential full-year net loss could top RM2 billion — and go as high as RM2.5 billion. Most of the losses are down to ill-advised investments in the energy and utilities sector in Qatar as well as tardy business practices in the development of the Bakun dam in Sarawak.

The last time Sime Darby saw red on its balance sheets came after the 1997 Asian Financial Crisis, when a plunge in the stock market and a sharp depreciation of the ringgit led its financial arm, Sime Bank, to post a RM1.6 billion loss — the largest in Malaysian banking history — for the six months to December 1997. The conglomerate went on to post a six-month loss of RM676.2 million and closed the 1998 financial year with a net loss of RM540.9 million.

It is also learnt that property division managing director Datuk Tunku Badlishah Tunku Annuar has been removed from some units within his division while other top officials are being put on notice after Sime Darby instructed former chief executive Datuk Seri Ahmad Zubir Murshid to take a leave of absence last May 13 in relation to the losses.

But hefty losses and disciplined officials aside, the group could also face crippling billion-ringgit law suits as it moves to abruptly end some of its joint ventures across the globe.

It is understood that since being appointed as the acting chief executive, Datuk Bakke Salleh has been looking at joint ventures involving Sime Darby, arguing that some of these were not as advantageous to the group as others and mooting that they be revisited or ended.

The only hitch is this: All the ventures are legally-binding, were agreed to and vetted by Sime’s legal department, and given the green light by the previous management and the board of directors. A couple of the ventures even pre-dated Zubir’s tenure as the chief executive.

Any move to end these ventures is likely to set off an expensive legal battle for Sime Darby. The conglomerate could also have an embarrassing face-off with Zubir. He has been forced to go on leave but has not quit as the chief executive.

Along the corridors of Wisma Sime Darby, there is growing belief that he will engage a lawyer to protect his interest and avoid being made the scapegoat for all the problems at the conglomerate. A slugfest in court will prove bloody for both Zubir and the board of directors, led by Tun Musa Hiitam, but it could also have serious repercussions for the Barisan Nasional (BN) government.

It is widely known that government-linked companies sometimes enter into deals at the behest and urging of government leaders and political masters.

One of the chief concerns of investors on hearing the news that Bakke has been selected to steady the listing ship at Sime Darby was his relative inexperience in running a public listed entity.

He has helmed Tabung Haji and Felda, where profit making were not the primary objective. In both these organisations, corporate social responsibility (CSR) is a key objective, and since occupying the hot seat at Sime Darby and meeting senior officials, the view in the conglomerate is that corporate social responsibility will enjoy equal billing with profit making, news which may not cheer investors.

Officials who have met him describe Bakke as driven but impulsive.

Sime Darby closed at RM7.70 per share yesterday, falling one sen from the opening price. It has lost nearly some RM6 billion in market capitalisation since news of its troubles became public last May 13.

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 5 August 2010, 10:51 am and is filed under
Financial Scandals
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


The Malays in Singapore – no crutch mentality

(Speech by Berita Harian Singapore editor Guntor Sadali, at the Berita Harian Singapore Achiever of the Year Awards ceremony on July 28, 2010)

It is a fact known to all that Malays in Singapore are a minority.

However this minority is quite different from other minorities in the world.

Similarly, to some, Singapore is just a red dot in this vast Asian region.

But it is no ordinary red dot.

It is a grave mistake to equate size with ability, just as it is wrong to assume that being small and in the minority is to be weak and insignificant.

The recent World Cup proved this. While Spain may be the world champion, it was minnow Switzerland that became the only country in the tournament that was able to defeat Spain.

Forty-five years have passed since Singapore left Malaysia, yet every now and then we still hear non-complimentary comments from across the Causeway about the Malay community here.

The latest came from former Malaysian Prime Minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad, who casually reminded Malaysian Malays not to become like Singaporean Malays.

He did not make it clear what he actually meant, but the comment was made in the context of the possibility of Malaysian Malays losing their power in Malaysia.

Again he did not specify what type of power, but it could safely be interpreted as political power.

Now, what could have happened to the Malays here in the last four decades?

What could have driven Dr Mahathir to voice his concern and to caution the Malaysian Malays?

I wonder.

The Malay community in Singapore, of course, know what has become of us here.

First and foremost, we have become a completely different community from what we were 45 years ago.

We have developed our own identity and philosophy of life that are distinct from our relatives across the Causeway.

We may wear the same clothes, eat the same food, speak the same language and practise the same culture.

However, the similarities end there.

We are now a society that upholds the philosophy of wanting to stand on our own feet, or what is known in Malay as ‘berdikari’ or ‘berdiri atas kaki sendiri’.

We do not believe in being spoon-fed or being too dependent on government help.

In other words, we do not have a crutch mentality.We firmly believe that a community with such a crutch mentality will soon become a “two M” community – the first ‘M’ stands for ‘manja’ (spoilt), and the second for ‘malas’ (lazy).

We definitely do not want to be labelled as a pampered and lazy community.

That is why our Malay community here constantly work hard to raise funds to build our own mosques, madrasahs and other buildings in expensive and land-scarce Singapore.

Over the years we have raised millions of dollars to become proud owners of these buildings.

Through our own efforts and with the help of other organisations, we have also helped the needy not only financially, but also in equipping them with new skills so that they can earn their living.

For Dr Mahathir, however, all that we have done and achieved so far are not good enough.

He takes a negative view of our changed attitudes and different mindset, and has therefore cautioned Malaysian Malays not to be like us.

What about power? For Malays in Singapore, power is not about wielding the keris.

For us, knowledge is power. In fact we believe that knowledge is THE real power.

The constant emphasis by the community on the importance of education and acquiring knowledge has led to the formation of institutions such as Mendaki, Association of Muslim Professionals (AMP), the Prophet Mohamad Birthday Memorial Scholarship Board (LBKM) and many others.

These self-help organisations not only provide financial help to needy students, but also strive to nuture our students to their full potential.

At the same time, these organisations help to tackle various social ills faced by the community.

Again, we do these all on our own. Malay children here attend the same schools as other Singaporeans with a shared aim – to obtain a holistic education and, of course, achieve good examination results.

Yes, it is tough. Like all other children, our Malay students have no choice but to work hard.

It is a reality of life in Singapore that we have come to accept – that there is certainly no short cut to success.

We do not believe in getting any special treatment, because it would only reduce the value of our achievements and lower our dignity.

The meritocratic system that we practise here is, without doubt, a tough system but it helps us to push ourselves and prevent us from becoming ‘manja’ and ‘malas’.

Still, Dr Mahathir and some Malay leaders across the Causeway do not like the way we do things here and have therefore warned Malaysian Malays not to be like us.

On our part, there is certainly no turning back.

Meritocracy has proven to be a good and fair system.

It pushes us to work hard and makes us proud of our achievements.

We can see how it has benefited us by looking at the growing number of doctors, lawyers, magistrates, engineers, corporate leaders and other professionals among us.

It is the successes and achievements of some of these people that Berita Harian wants to highlight and celebrate when we launched this Achiever Award 12 years ago.

Tonight, we have another role model to present to our community.

So, the question is: Shouldn’t our friends and relatives across the Causeway be like us – Malays in Singapore?

It is definitely not for us to suggest or decide.

And we too have no intention of asking our own community if we would like to be like them either, because we have already chosen our very own path for the future.

We, the Malays in Singapore, should be proud of our achievements, because we have attained them through hard work.

It is true that what we have achieved so far may not be the best, and that we are still lagging behind the other races.

There are large pockets in our community facing various social problems.

We have achieved so much, and yet there is still a long way to go. But we should not despair.

We can do a lot more on our own if the community stay united and cohesive.

In critical issues, we should speak with one voice.

We need to help and strengthen each other while at the same time reach out to the other communities in multi-racial, multi-religious Singapore. A successful and prosperous Singapore can only mean a successful and prosperous Malay community.

Can we do it? Well, to borrow US President Barack Obama’s campaign slogan, “ Yes, we can”.

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 5 August 2010, 9:52 am and is filed under
Mahathir
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Who decided on the  Cabinet gag order yesterday on any public discussion of “Allah” controversy?

Who decided on the Cabinet gag order on any public discussion of the “Allah” controversy announced by the Deputy Prime Minister, Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin after the Cabinet meeting yesterday?

Was it with the full support of the four MCA Ministers and all other non-Muslim Cabinet Ministers – or did they express and register their protest and objection?

Malaysians had been told that the Cabinet operates on the principle of consensus – which means that if there is one Minister objecting, a decision on a new policy or measure would not be taken by the Cabinet.

If so, if the four MCA Ministers had spoken out against the gag order and asked the Cabinet to consider resolving the long-protracted “Allah” controversy by deciding that the Home Ministry should withdraw its appeal against the Lau Bee Lan judgment in the Kuala Lumpur High Court in January this year

which allowed the Catholic Church to use the word “Allah” in the Bahasa Malaysia section of its publication, Herald, the Cabinet would not have imposed a gag order as announced by Muhyiddin yesterday.

The UMNO stand on the “Allah” controversy is untenable and exposes the mockery of Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak’s 1Malaysia slogan and policy.

Even Umno veteran Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah had criticized the Umno leadership for failing to provide leadership in the “Allah” controversy, asking why Umno is “digging itself into an intolerant hardline position that has no parallel that I know of in the Muslim world” when PAS is holding onto the “more plural and moderate position”.

It is all the more pertinent that the four MCA Ministers declare whether they had acted yesterday to oppose the Cabinet gag as the MCA President Datuk Seri Dr. Chua Soi Lek had publicly said yesterday that the MCA Ministers had been instructed to speak up on the resolution of the “Allah” controversy.

As Najib was absent in yesterday’s Cabinet meeting, would the MCA Ministers re-open the subject at next week’s Cabinet meeting when the Prime Minister returns from his overseas leave?

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 5 August 2010, 12:52 pm and is filed under
1Malaysia
,
MCA
,
Najib Razak
,
Religion
,
UMNO
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Malaysia in the Era of Globalization #26

By
M. Bakri Musa

Chapter 4:      Modern Model States

The Celtic Tiger  (Cont’d)

 Liberalization went beyond the economic sphere.  It was Lemass’s political genius to use old-style nationalism, an inherent part of the Irish character, to forge progressive changes.  A considerable part of that change involved a marked curtailment in the role of the Church both in the affairs of the state and in the lives of individuals.  Thus birth control and sale of oral contraceptives were legalized in1979, despite severe opposition from the Church.

             With the widespread use of birth control and the increasing participation of women in the workforce, Ireland’s former dizzyingly high birthrate declined substantially.  The large unruly brood of yore is now replaced by one considerably smaller, but much better clothed, housed, and educated.

             Closely related to the issue of contraception is the question of women’s rights.  The old Irish constitution required women to give up their civil service posts upon getting married, consistent with the prevailing societal view (and also that of the Church) that a woman’s place is in the home.  But by the end of the 20th century, Ireland had elected its first woman president, Mary Robinson.

             What a remarkable change!  Robinson was born and raised a strict Catholic and when she married a Protestant, her parents refused to attend her wedding.  Lest one thinks that this was in the Dark Ages and that her parents were some narrow-minded peasants, Robinson’s marriage was in the 1960’s, and both her parents were doctors.  If this was a reflection of their prejudices, I wonder if those two doctors treated their non-Catholic patients differently?

             Divorce is another strict “No!”  On this issue the Church is again far behind its followers.  When divorce is strictly forbidden, many marriages remain in name only.  Interestingly, divorce had been legal in Ireland during British rule; it was made illegal only in 1925, with the resurgence of Irish nationalism.  But by 1986 a referendum on the issue saw the conservatives barely etching a victory.  These changes and openness did not mean that the Irish were becoming less religious; indeed attendance at church masses remained high.

             By far the most dramatic change, and one that had the greatest impact on Ireland’s economic fate, was its education policy.  Ireland today enjoys one of the highest literacy rates, its workforce among the most highly educated and productive.  Secondary education was made free in the 1960s, and over 80 percent of Irish students completed high school.  Equally important, the role of the Church was significantly reduced, with education now essentially secular.

             Like the Koreans, the one thing the Irish have going for them is their eagerness for learning.  To the peasants and farmers of the old days, education was the only way out for their children.  Even today a good education is still the ticket to a job in America and Britain.

             In the past the Church, both Catholic and Protestant, was deeply involved in education.  The Protestant institutions were, as expected, modeled along British lines and more secular.  The Catholic Church on the other hand treated its schools and other institutions as a way of controlling the flock.  Their schools were less educational institutions, more indoctrination centers, heavy with catechism and rituals.  Many of the teachers were nuns and priests.  With the education reform of the 1960s, the curriculum was radically updated and the school-leaving age was also raised to 15.

             The secularization of education in the 1970s also saw the development of vocational and community schools focusing on non-academic and technical subjects.  The scaling down of the role of the Church in education continues to this day.

             Despite or perhaps because of the heavy Catholic Church influence on education, Protestant schools and colleges attracted many Catholic students.  Their parents obviously valued the quality of the education.  Trinity College of Dublin, modeled after Oxbridge, is perhaps the most prestigious.  Its perceived (and real) Protestant ambience is such that until 1970 Catholic bishops forbade students in their dioceses from attending the college, a transgression deemed a mortal sin.

             Despite that, in the 1920s a fifth of Trinity students were Catholic.  They are now no doubt doing time in purgatory!  The prohibition was lifted only in 1970 and by the 1990’s the majority of Trinity’s students and many of the professors are Catholic.

             A brash new entry into the scene is the secular University of Limerick, modeled after an American institution, complete with electives and a year spent off campus.  Like many competitive American universities, Limerick encourages interdisciplinary research and studies abroad.  With a curriculum heavy on technology and biotech, the university attracts many potential students and employers who value its graduates.

             The education system continues with the use of English.  Had it succumbed to nationalistic impulses and reverted to Gaelic on achieving independence, Ireland would have been severely handicapped.  Today young Irish with their English proficiency enjoy a definite advantage in the global marketplace.  With Ireland now prosperous and successful, there is a resurgence of interest and pride in the Irish for their ancient language.  Gaelic is now mandatory in schools.

             Too many independent countries are obsessed with developing their own language at the expense of handicapping their own citizens.  A language is more likely to thrive if the nation or race behind that language is successful and thriving.  Had the Irish remained poverty stricken, I am certain that they would not be very proud of their language and culture.  The decline of Gaelic coincided with the economic eclipse of the Irish.  Until Ireland’s recent economic revival, less than 1 percent of the Irish used Gaelic.  With Ireland poised to join the ranks of developed nations, even Mary Robinson sprinkled her speeches with touches of Gaelic.  The language is now chic.  For Malays, a point to ponder!

             The tight grip the Church had on the Irish extended to the arts.  With the active backing of the Catholic establishment, the government in 1926 set up a Committee of Enquiry on Evil Literature, leading to the formation of a Censorship Board.  You can bet that none of the committee members had contributed an iota of creativity.  The Board still exists today but it has a much lower profile.  More importantly, the state has duly recognized the value of artists and writers by setting up an academy (Aosdana—The Wise People) where they receive modest state stipends to pursue their crafts.  And earnings from creative works are free from income tax for anyone living in Ireland, native or foreigner.

             None of these remarkable changes occurred in isolation.  They all go in tandem, one reinforcing the other.  The secularization of the education system would not have occurred without there being a corresponding decline in the influence of the Church.  This also enabled the introduction of significant social and political reforms such as legalizing birth control and the subsequent decline in fertility rates.  In turn these would not have happened had Irish leaders not looked outward and freed themselves from the trap of their colonial experience and excessive nationalism, together with the tight leash the Catholic Church had on them.

             It is significant that the Irish fought a vicious civil war over the issue of partition soon after their independence.  Even up until recently, reunification with the north obsessed many Irish.  Today such previously divisive nationalist issues rapidly fade into the background as the Irish concentrate on developing what they have instead of thinking of expanding their domain.

             Any change of the social order can be very disruptive and destabilizing.  As we have seen in South Korea, it has its own price tag.  The term “moral vacuum” has been used to describe contemporary Ireland because of the gap created by the decline of the Church’s authority and there being no comparable element taking its place.  The old certitude is gone and with it, for some at least, the sense of security and anchoring stability.  It is indeed a challenge to come up with an alternative value system.  However such challenges are more likely to be solved when the nation is thriving than when it is economically stagnant or declining.

 Next:   Don’t Cry For Argentina

                This entry was posted on Friday, 6 August 2010, 11:39 am and is filed under
Bakri Musa
,
globalisation
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Whose credit? Not MCA’s, of course

By
Thomas Lee

The cabinet decision to allow school heads to decide on the setting-up of non-Muslim religious societies in schools, without the need to obtain approval of the state education director, is certainly welcome.

The decision, however, should not be taken as something magnanimous on the part of the federal government for according this “concession” to the non-Muslim community.

The fact is that it is not something to be considered as a concession or a privilege given by the federal government, but a fundamental right provided for in Article 11 of the Malaysian Federal Constitution and enshined in the human rights covenants and conventions of the United Nations.

Hence, the federal government, in particularly the Education Minister, should apologise to the non-Muslim students for unilaterally restricting and depriving them over the years of their fundamental human and constitutional right and freedom to practice their religious faiths, through the unwarranted and unjustified action of the Little Napoleons in the Education Ministry.

Now that the cabinet has officially declared that such non-Muslim religious clubs and societies are allowed to exist and be formed in schools if there are at least 15 students signing up to start one, I hope the school heads, some of whom practise the Little Napoleon culture, will not make things difficult for the students who want to form such clubs or societies.

In fact, the school heads should help the students by providing the meeting place and appointing teachers to be advisors to guide them. If there is the unlikelihood or improbability that a school may not have a teacher practising the faith of any such club, the school concerned should allow a pastor, a priest or a religious elder acceptable to the parents of the students to act as the religious advisor. The school should also allow speakers from the churches or temples to be invited to speak at the meetings of such clubs or societies.

Soi Lek has hinted that the MCA fought for the decision when he said he chaired a pre-council meeting with the four MCA ministers – Datuk Seri Liow Tiong Lai, Transport Minister Datuk Seri Kong Cho Ha, Housing and Local Government Minister Datuk Chor Chee Heung and Tourism Minister Datuk Seri Dr Ng Yen Yen – in Kuala Lumpur on Tuesday to discuss the matter, before the cabinet met on Wednesday to discuss it.

And Liow, the MCA deputy president, was given the honour to announce the decision after the cabinet meeting chaired by Deputy Prime Minister and Education Minister Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin in Putrajaya on Wednesday.

The fact that the Umno-controlled federal government is now being more open and liberal in acceding to demands and requests of the people is simply because the coalition does not have the two-thirds majority in Parliament since the March 2008 general election, and there is now a very viable alternative coalition – the Pakatan Rakyat – which the people can turn to if the Barisan Nasional does not serve them well.

The favourable decision on the non-Muslim religious societies in school is simply the result of the fear of a stronger backlash against the Barisan Nasional at the next general election, not because the MCA has any political clout and potency to pressure the Umno-dominated cabinet to comply with its request or demand.

This is illustrated so obviously by the fact that MCA boss Soi Lek immediately backed down from the initial MCA position to endorse the rights of Christians to use the word “Allah” the moment Deputy Prime Minister and Umno deputy president Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin rebuked the party and warned it not to champion the issue.

Soi Lek made the about-turn, just hours after Muhyiddin reprimanded the MCA, and said that the party does not share the same stand with the DAP on the call to lift the ban on the use of “Allah” by non-Muslims.

His explanation is that the MCA held a dialogue with the Christian Federation of Malaysia (CFM) last week and that the CFM felt that there was a need for the issue to be resolved as soon as possible.

Soi Lek, in trying to appease Muhyiddin, one of his big Umno bosses, has claimed that the MCA was only voicing out the CFM wish on the issue which has yet to be resolved.

In other words, Soi Lek is saying that the MCA does not have any conviction or stand on the “Allah” issue, and all it does is to play postman for the CFM.

If that is the case, the CFM is wasting its time raising and discussing the “Allah” issue and any other issues with the MCA as the party is certainly poltically impotent to do anything. The CFM should go straight to the top Umno leaders to get their problems resolved.

CFM executive secretary Tan Kong Beng was quoted in the MCA magazine The Guardian as saying: “I think the MCA can win back the voters if it is seen as being independent and able to speak for the concerns of Malaysians. The party can be a voice in government for better and principled governance.”

Tan is one of those poorly informed persons who are living in illusion and delusion to expect the MCA to be “a voice in government for better and principled governance.”

The fact is that the MCA is, for all intent and purpose, poltically impotent and powerless in the Barisan Nasional ruling coalition, with its leaders servile and subservient to the powerful Umno leaders.

It is perhaps time for those sincere and honest MCA leaders like ex-Wanita MCA chief Chew Mei Fun, vice-president Gan Ping Sieu, and perhaps even ex-president Ong Tee Keat to either mobilise and organise the sincere grassroots leaders and members to oust the Soi Lek leadership and reform the party, or lead an exodus to join the DAP to continue their struggle for a truly just, fair, progressive and prosperous Malaysia for all who call it their motherland.

                This entry was posted on Friday, 6 August 2010, 9:44 am and is filed under
Religion
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Biggest flaw in Soi Lek’s new-fangled theory is whether he would back down from it when pressured by UMNO

The main objective of MCA President Datuk Seri Dr. Chua Soi Lek’s new-fangled theory that Malaysia had been trapped for a decade as a middle-income nation because of “non-progressive” competition between UMNO and PAS is to pass-the-buck and disclaim MCA responsibility for the deplorable state of the Malaysian nation 53 years after Merdeka to the extent that one Cabinet Minister had warned that Malaysia could go backrupt in the year 2019!

However, the biggest flaw for Chua’s new-fangled theory is whether he would back down from it when pressured by UMNO!

In the first place, Malaysia had been stuck in a middle-income nation trap for some two decades and not just the past 10 years – as admitted by the New Economic Model that since becoming an upper-middle income country in 1992, Malaysia has largely stayed where it is.

Can this be solely explained by the competition between Umno and PAS in using religion to strengthen their influence resulting in “non-progressive policies”?

What is the role of MCA as the second largest component party in the Barisan Nasional coalition in the formulation and implementation of “non-progressive policies”?

When former Prime Minister, then Datuk Seri Dr. Mahathir Mohamad arbitrarily and unconstitutionally declared on Sept. 29, 2001  that Malaysia was already an Islamic state, who were the first to give support to the “929 Declaration” if not the BN component parties of MCA and Gerakan?

The New Economic Model (NEM), which had been abandoned unceremoniously in less than three months although it was proclaimed as the basis of the Tenth Malaysia Plan, had pinpointed the  disastrous effects of retrogressive policies  causing Malaysia to lose out in the competitiveness stakes of nations, eg: “A disastrous exodus of human capital has flowed from the perception that in Malaysia’s labour markets, rewards have historically not been commensurate with skills, achievements and merits.”

The New Economic Model warned that Malaysia risks being left behind or worse still, suffering a reversal in living standards, unless it implements far-reaching and comprehensive reforms.

The NEM  has given the correct prescription when it said that for Malaysia to face up to the challenges of globalization and compete on regional and international scale, Malaysia must retain and attract talent and “be seen by its people and by others as a land of equal opportunity to earn a good living and provide a secure, happy life for each individual and the family”.

This is where MCA failed dismally as a leading component party in the governing coalition, not just in the past decade but the past few decades!

Instead of foisting a political fallacy on Malaysians with his new-fangled theory as to why Malaysia had been being trapped as a middle income nation in the past two decades, the MCA Ministers and leaders should own up to their role in Malaysia’s faltering international competitiveness and defend the NEM prescription of high-income advanced Malaysia with inclusiveness and sustainability with a major overhaul of nation-building policies, by stamping out corruption, ending institutional degradation and implementing affirmative action programmes based on need targeting the 40% of Malaysian households which still earn less than RM1,500 a month.

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 7 August 2010, 1:55 pm and is filed under
Islam
,
MCA
,
PAS
,
UMNO
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


DAP chides Chua’s negative portrayal of Muslim nations

by Susan Loone | Aug 7, 10 11:57am

Malaysiakini

Penang Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng has today rubbished the views of MCA chief Dr Chua Soi Lek, who has portrayed Muslim countries as “poor, backward and corrupt”.

Lim (right in photo) urged Chua to learn more about the history of Islamic civilisation, whose global empires had not only contributed breathtaking art and architecture, but also the introduction of numbers, algebra and astronomy.

“Muslim countries are suffering from the same problem suffered by India and China previously.

“Only when India and China were free, independent and not dominated by imperialist powers, that they were able to realise their potential and take their place in the world stage as economic powers,” he said at International Integrity Conference 2010 today in Penang.

“I believe that Muslim nations can also recapture their past glories if they were allowed to be similarly unshackled like India and China,” he added.

Also present at the conference was Pakatan Rakyat leader Anwar Ibrahim.

Lim, who is DAP national secretary-general, said Muslim countries can excel if there was good governance just as Islam was a centre of learning, justice, and excellence under the rule of Umar Abdul Aziz.

“The choice is whether we follow the Umar Abdul Aziz’s governing model of integrity and good governance or the alternative model of corruption and dictatorship,” he added.

Middle-income trap

Lim was referring to Chua’s comment yesterday at MCA’s Annual Convention in Alor Star, Kedah (below) that both Umno and PAS used religion to strengthen their influence and win Malay support.

Chua said that when the two Malay-Muslim parties compete, the consequence was the implementation of non-progressive policies, which has resulted in the country falling into a middle-income trap over the past 10 years.

He added that Umno has become more conservative to compete with PAS in fishing for Malay votes.

Chua however stressed that he raised the issue to prod Chinese Malaysians into think twice about voting for PAS.

He said many in the Chinese community should do away with their belief that once the Islamic party is in government, the country will be free from corruption.

“Some of the most corrupt countries are Muslim majority,” he told 300 participants at MCA’s 33rd annual convention in Kedah.

Problem with Umno not Islam

Meanwhile, Lim challenged Chua to pose serious questions on two major controversies – the ‘Allah’ row and sports betting – to MCA’s political ally, Umno.

He urged Chua (right) not to ‘miss the woods for the trees’ and suggested that the MCA chief was deflecting attention from the real root of the problem – Umno.

“These issues appear to be not a problem with Muslim countries, but it is a problem with Umno. For example, sports betting is not allowed by some Islamic countries but it is allowed by Umno,” said Lim sarcastically, when asked to elaborate his views about Chua’s comments.

“The issue of (using the term) ‘Allah’ is not an issue with other Muslim countries, but it is somehow an issue here. Perhaps he is trying to distract attention that the real root of the problem is Umno. We (take issue) when he blames it on Muslim countries because I think it is wrong,” he added.

Chua was in a tight spot recently when the party’s central committee member Loh Seng Kok issued a statement urging Home Minister Hishammuddin Hussein to rescind the ban on use of the term ‘Allah’ by non-Muslims, after the latter blamed his predecessor for the controversy.

Loh was ticked off by Deputy Prime Minister Muhyiddin Yassin for playing up the issue and accused the party of ganging up with the DAP, which Chua vehemently denied.

What resulted shortly was a gag order on MCA to stop raising the issue, making it appear as if it had back-downed under Umno’s pressure.

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 7 August 2010, 5:20 pm and is filed under
Islam
,
Islamic state
,
MCA
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Kee Thuan Chye unmasked

by
Jee Wan

Malaysiakini

Aug 6, 10

Kee Thuan Chye , a stubbornly patriotic writer, journalist, editor,playwright, and occasional actor, allows a peep into what makes him tick and what does not, particularly where big brother is concerned.

Jee Wan:Firstly, congratulations on the upcoming new edition of ‘March 8: The Day Malaysia Woke Up’. What started your involvement in politics?

Kee:Thanks. It may actually turn out to be a new book called ‘March 8: Time for Real Change’.

My political awakening occurred right after I graduated from Universiti Sains Malaysia when I personally suffered the effects of the New Economic Policy (NEP). I wanted to pursue my Masters but I wasn’t able to afford it unless I could get a tutor’s position. I applied, but didn’t get it – even though I was top in my class. It was given to someone else. So I had to go out and work.

Eventually, I was hired by The National Echo as literary editor. Part of my duties included writing editorials. During that time, I was able to write quite scathingly about political matters.

I remember one of my editorials criticised Mahathir Mohamad for warning that Malaysia would “shoot” the Vietnamese boat people if they tried to land on our shores. He later insisted that he said “shoo”, but I could already see then what kind of a guy we were dealing with.

I became more politically sensitised when I moved from Penang to Kuala Lumpur in the late 1970s, from The National Echo to the New Straits Times. In the capital, I began to see more sharply the contradictions in our society.

At the time, the social re-engineering that had come into place after 1969 was beginning to show its effects. They became more pronounced in the early 1980s when Mahathir Mohamad became Prime Minister.

Working at the NST made me see more clearly that things were going towards an authoritarian direction. I got numerous memos from my editor-in-chief for trying to push the parameters and opening up public discourse on ‘sensitive’ issues.

The most pressing issue then was race and how it had been politicised to divide the people. Mahathir was also showing signs of being increasingly dictatorial; he would tolerate no criticism of him in the media.

What I couldn’t express through the newspaper I eventually expressed in a play. Entitled ‘1984 Here and Now’; it spoke out frankly against Big Brother and institutionalised racial discrimination. It played to full houses in 1985 because it brought up issues of the day that people were afraid to discuss publicly. Those who came were surprised that it had obtained a permit to be staged.

I have since gone on to write more political plays. One of them, ‘The Big Purge’, brazenly satirises Mahathir (left) and Operation Lalang.

What was your most difficult assignment?

Kee: My most difficult assignment has been my entire journalistic career in the mainstream media!

Except in The National Echo, I’ve had to battle my bosses and, as a result, been punished, marginalised, shut out. It’s not something I would recommend to anybody – because if you work for a company, you should ideally not be fighting it. But I’ve always felt that journalism is not like a lot of other professions.

As a journalist, you also have a responsibility to the public – to inform them of the truth. And certainly not to spin – in order to save someone’s skin or to spew propaganda or to create the illusion that all is well with the country when it’s not. The last-mentioned is the most sinful type of spin!

A newspaper is not a public relations rag; it should uphold journalistic ideals and principles. If you work in a newspaper that goes against these ideals, what do you do? Accept it, shut up and just do what you’re told? Then you wouldn’t be fulfilling your responsibility to your readers and the society at large. What’s worse is doing what you’re told to do even though you know it’s wrong.

What are the challenges of being a political writer?

Kee: One of the challenges is making yourself clear in your writing so that you’re not misunderstood. Another is being consistent in your stand on certain things. Unlike the current Malaysian government, you can’t afford to perform flip-flops!

You are accountable for whatever you write, and a piece of writing that you wrote 20 years can come back and haunt you if the stand you took on a particular issue then turns out to be the direct opposite of your current stand.

Of course, opinions and beliefs can change over time, but you’ll still be flayed for the turnaround. This is an occupational hazard of political writers. In this regard, they are considered to be less than human!

You also have to be careful that you don’t libel anyone, which means you have to be sure of your facts and have evidence to support what you say.

In Malaysia, the additional challenges for a political writer are the numerous laws that discourage free speech. Every time you write a political piece, you have to be mindful that it is not seditious. Then your friends, out of concern, remind you that there is such a thing as the ISA so you’d better be circumspect. That’s because Malaysians have been so conditioned by fear for so long.

If you’re writing for a mainstream publication, you’ll be reminded you can’t knock the prime minister or his senior ministers. You might be cited incidents when the editor-in-chief was summoned to the Home Ministry to explain why a seemingly innocuous article managed to get published in the paper. Or of the telephone calls he has been receiving from Putrajaya.

You might even be reminded of the Printing Presses and Publications Act (PPPA) and the need for the paper to survive that, because it has to take care of so many people who would be out of a job if the paper lost its licence.

It’s no wonder then that most who write for the mainstream media become experts in self-censorship.

I could never have survived as a political writer in the New Straits Times or The Star, which I joined in 2001. This thesis was tested (although it was not my intention to test it) in 2007 when I started a weekly political column in The Star called ‘Playing the Fool’. In my inaugural article, I wrote that I would be speaking frankly on social and political issues, instead of bullshit and all that.

The second one hit out at racial discrimination. But when it came to my third piece, the editors shook their heads and it got spiked. After I’d written my fourth and it had gone upstairs for approval, the instruction that came back down was to terminate the column! To be honest, I wasn’t surprised.

Why do you still do it?

Kee: The desire and to speak up. The need to give my views on what I feel is wrong and how things can be made right, even if it won’t count for much. And, highfalutin’ as it may sound, the desire for a better Malaysia. These are what make me do it.

You can’t underestimate how strongly people want – nay, need – to speak up. Which is why any government that tries to stifle free speech hasn’t figured it out right.

Many books have been banned or confiscated in Malaysia. How do yours remain elusive?

Kee: That’s not for me to answer. But I would say that I’m a citizen who cares for his country and would not do anything to hurt it, so whatever I write is in its best interests, as far as I perceive it. That shouldn’t be something punishable, surely?

Have you ever been detained on some ridiculous charges? How do you feel about it?

Kee: No.
 (Knocking on wood.)

What’s the most challenging part of writing ‘March 8: The Day Malaysia Woke Up’? What’s the most gratifying?

Kee: Putting it together in a mere three months – from scratch! That was a challenge. But it had to be done fast because of the topicality of the book’s subject. It was most gratifying that I had friends who responded to my call for help by contributing articles and comments. I’m greatly indebted to them for that.

What’s perhaps even more gratifying is that others who contributed were people I had never known or met before. I found out about them and approached them – and they responded positively and generously. It showed to me that they, too, cared for their country, that they wanted to see a better Malaysia, which is the central theme and intent of the book.

The other challenging things were practical or logistical, like trying to fix interviews with busy people like politicians and ministers; chasing people to meet deadlines; editing very raw material; transcribing interviews.

What do you think has and hasn’t changed in Malaysia’s journalism industry over the years?

Kee: It has become more reactionary and conservative. When I started out in the 1970s, the controls were not so tight. Even when I joined the NST in 1979, there was a strong sense of editorial integrity and a greater degree of independence (or you could call it non-interference).

It had a Chinese editor-in-chief in Lee Siew Yee, which is something that became inconceivable not long after. Everything began to be race-centred from the beginning of the 1980s. I think the ruling regime then had a lot to account for that.

It also had a lot to account for muzzling the media. Editors-in-chief at the NST had to be politically halal – approved appointees. This naturally changed the orientation and workings of the media. And if it was felt that the editor-in-chief didn’t live up to political expectations, he’d be replaced. I’m told this was what happened to Munir Majid.

Although I had numerous clashes with him, I respected and still respect him for being the best and broadest-minded editor-in-chief I’ve worked under.

What would be the three changes that you’d like to see in Malaysia?

Kee: First, a change of government at the next general election. So that we can hopefully start on a fresh, if not totally clean, slate and have a better chance of seeing real reform. The current one is only making cosmetic changes, and its not showing true commitment to reform because it’s worried about too many factors, too many interest groups.

The highest-priority change for me is the elimination of race in all our considerations and endeavours. Perhaps that could begin with the disbanding of all race-based parties to herald the decline, if not demise, of the sickening politicisation of race.

I would extend this to religion as well. PAS should, therefore, disband or reconstitute itself. And let us uphold the principle of our founding fathers in envisioning Malaysia as a secular state.

The third change will cover everything that needs to be righted from the many wrongs committed by the ruling regime over the past few decades. You might call it a change-back, e.g. the judiciary changing back to being an independent one; the negotiated contract changing back to open tenders; the appointment of local councillors changing back to elected ones; and so on.

Ever thought of emigrating?

Kee: No. Because I’ve always considered Malaysia my home. It has everything going for it, except the lousy, dirty politics. Which is profoundly sad. I can’t stay away from the country for long. When I was doing my MA in England in 1987-88, I was impatient to come home.

In fact, in the 1980s, I was actively persuading my friends not to emigrate. But eventually, I saw the point of their wanting to leave. I wrote about it in an essay called ‘All We Want Is an Even Chance’, which got published in the NST, thanks to a forward-thinking editor. The decision to publish it was, however, questioned by higher-ups after it came out. The essay is also in my book ‘Just In So Many Words’.

What’s your advice to anyone who aspires to be a political writer?

Kee: Open your eyes, think critically, be brave and write with good intentions.

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 7 August 2010, 12:03 pm and is filed under
Kee Thuan Chye
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Are you at home, minister?

By
Kee Thuan Chye

COMMENT Home Minister Hishammuddin Hussein said this at the press conference in 2009 in which he defended the cow-head protesters: “In this day and age, protests should be accepted in this world, as people want their voices to be heard. If we don’t give them room to voice their opinions, they have no choice but to protest.” He should of course be held accountable for this statement.

Why then did the police clamp down so hard on the people taking part in the anti-ISA candlelight vigil on Aug 1? Why did Hishammuddin not come out to advise the police that this voicing of the people’s opinions was acceptable and room should be given for it?

Why was he so understanding towards the cow-head protestors – who were potentially more threatening to national security because they displayed violence against a sacred icon of the Hindus – and so intolerant of the people participating in a peaceful demonstration, some of whom were reportedly singing the national anthem when the police moved in on them?

Aren’t those in power aware that this display of double standards will be viewed as such by sensible Malaysians, and that it may come back to haunt them at the hustings? Are they so arrogant about their power and so confident they won’t be displaced that they don’t have to care about what the public might think?

Hishammuddin has been eloquent in expressing this position. In fact, his track record since becoming home minister suggests that he is not behaving like a home minister who should be looking after the country’s internal matters and safeguarding its security for the sake of all citizens. He appears more like a home minister safeguarding the interests of the ruling party and those of selected groups. The rest of us can go to blazes!

Speaking of blazes, he sent out questionable signals on Jan 6, 2010, after the High Court’s ruling on the “Allah” issue, when he said he would allow a demonstration by Muslims after Friday prayers at a mosque in Kuala Lumpur’s city centre. One day later, churches in KL and Petaling Jaya were attacked with fire-bombs and molotov cocktails. The public reaction to that was that Hishammuddin should be held accountable because he did not forestall any potential undesirable action but instead allowed a sensitive issue to be stoked.

While he had been so assiduous in breaking up other demonstrations, especially those opposing government actions and policies – most of which were peaceful and of little potential danger to society – he was uncharacteristically lax when it came to the “Allah” issue protests. In other words, he put the nation’s security at risk.

He did nothing to stop the cow-head protest on Aug 28, 2009, either. Perhaps he couldn’t because it happened so fast. Nonetheless, it was one of the most shameful and blatant public demonstrations of religious intolerance Malaysians had seen in a long time. It had the explosive potential of causing inter-racial strife.

Worse, Hishammuddin came out to defend the protesters afterwards. This was almost unbelievable; sensible Malaysians were shocked that a minister was justifying what had apparently been a seditious act. And seated next to him at the press conference was a protestor who had earlier declared that all non-Malays were second-class citizens.

‘Pig’s head in Umno HQ’

As if that was not enough, Hishammuddin also said that a pig’s head had once been wrapped in an Umno flag and dumped outside Umno’s headquarters. Why did he have to bring that up? In drawing a parallel between that act and the cow desecration, was he saying that two wrongs made a right? Or, more sinisterly, was he trying to blame another community for having perpetrated that “haram” act as if to plead that the cow desecration was understandable and therefore excusable?

To this day, I have yet to fathom the reason for a home minister to bring up that kind of parallel. To me, it is something that would cause disharmony and divide the people, which a home minister should not do. Was Hishammuddin not aware of the importance of what he said? Is he someone who shoots off his mouth without thinking first?

The prospect of that seems likely – and recent evidence seems to support it. This was in conjunction with his declaration of regret over the mistake made by his predecessor, Syed Hamid Albar, in banning the Catholic Church from using the word “Allah”. He added that the mistake would haunt his ministry for a very long time.

Automatically, anyone hearing that declaration would retort, “So what are you going to do about it? Why stop at just expressing regret? It’s at your disposal to take action and rectify Syed Hamid’s mistake. Why not do so?”

That action would of course be to drop the government’s appeal against the high court ruling on the use of the word “Allah”. Taking that step would show Hishammuddin’s sincerity in saying what he said. Otherwise, talk is cheap, as they say. And people can accuse him of saying it merely as a cheap shot to win non-Muslim and East Malaysian votes.

But what was his reaction three days later? He back-tracked on his earlier statement by saying that the “Allah” matter should be decided by the courts. No, Hishammuddin, it doesn’t have to be. The government can choose not to pursue it further – and that doesn’t involve the courts.

But that apparently is not what he wants, because he rejoined, “Why would the government retract the appeal, or why would the church retract the court case?” The second part of that sentence is of course irrelevant. Nobody from the church has made any statement recently along the lines of expressing regret for having challenged Syed Hamid’s ban.

In dragging the church in, Hishammuddin was displaying the same warped thinking that characterised his mention of the pig’s heads dumped at Umno headquarters. In actuality, he was actually trying to deflect the question he should be answering, i.e. “Why shouldn’t the government retract the appeal?”

Then he tried to make some excuse for having expressed that regret in the first place, by saying that it should be seen in the context of his giving an answer to a question posed at a students’ forum. But why should that be considered less valid? He said it. He addressed the issue. That’s the point. Where he said it and in what context are irrelevant.

Wasn’t he serious when he answered the student’s question? Or is it that he only now realises he shouldn’t have said it because it’s come back to hold him accountable? And he wants to get out of being accountable by saying it was merely an answer to a student’s question? Sorry, my dear man, it doesn’t work like that. You can’t worm yourself out of the situation with excuses.

Then he got defensive: “I regret that there are terrorists in Malaysia, I regret there are peragut (snatch-thieves) in Malaysia, I regret that this (the word Allah) is becoming an issue. But why pick on that to make it a firestorm or bigger than what it is?”

Any intelligent person can see through the desperation in that defensive drivel. But more damning for him is the fact that by saying it, he was demeaning his earlier statement of regret. He now seemed to be connoting that he didn’t really mean it because he was merely speaking off the cuff at the time, speaking impulsively, merely answering a question. It came to his mind and it sounded right, and so he said it. So don’t take his word for it. He was merely talking. The bottom line, therefore, is, he wasn’t sincere.

If a minister can be like that, talk like that, make impulsive statements and later deny their import, even sincerity, then he has no business being a trusted official of the nation and its people. Perhaps he should do the honourable thing and step down. But then, that might be too much to expect of a man who cannot even stand by what he said.

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 8 August 2010, 6:38 pm and is filed under
Religion
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


How graft, racial-religious politicking killed Malaysia’s economy

By
Wong Choon Mei
, Malaysia Chronicle

In 2019, Malaysia would be 62 years old. If that is all it takes – just 62 years – for a nation to go bankrupt, then it only shows how grossly mismanaged the country has been.

Of the six prime ministers who have led Malaysia since 1957, the leader who must take the greatest blame for the sorry state the economy is now in is Mahathir Mohamad, whose 22-year rule alone accounts for nearly half of the nation’s post-independence history.

Thanks to his chase for mega projects, political opportunists and cronies were able to benefit from massive overpricing in almost all of the major deals that framed his career. From the North-South Expressway to Perwaja Steel, 1st Silicon to Proton, Bakun Dam to PKFZ, few of his projects have not ended up requiring some form of bailout from taxpayers at one time or another.

Smell of bankruptcy clearly in the air

It was also during his tenure that high-level government corruption in Malaysia really took off in a big way, and running parallel to this was his use of racial and religious politicking to divide and rule the multiracial country. Twin blows, double whammies for the economic future of the country. Didn’t anyone warn the Malaysian people then?

Yes, there were countless reports by research analysts and economic experts forecasting gloom and doom through the decades – from 70s to 80s, 90s and even now. But Mahathir chose to do it his way and no one dared to counter him.

The problem is that by now the gloom and doom is already a distinct possibility rather than a prophecy. Experts are talking about how and is it possible to reverse this trend rather than argue will it really happen. Even the Prime Minister’s Department has spoken – the smell of bankruptcy is clearly in the air.

Prime Minister Najib Razak’s minders have begun warning Malaysians if they refuse to allow the government to slash subsidies on a range of essential goods, then the government won’t have enough money to churn economic activity and a fate similar to Greece, Dubai and even Thailand 13 years ago will be unavoidable.

Inviting junk bond status for Malaysian debt

At the same time, there is cross-talk from these same officials, who say the economy needs to grow an average 6 percent each year to reach developed nation status by 2020. How does this reconcile with the bankruptcy warning? Will Malaysia become a developed nation or will it be bankrupt? Surely it can’t declare bankruptcy in 2019, and a year later, become a developed nation. Which is it to be.?

By World Bank’s definition, developed nation status would mean achieving a minimum per capita income of US$14,800. In 2008, Malaysia’s per capital income was US$7,733.

This means Najib, who is also finance minister, needs to roughly double the income per person in the population within the next 10 years. But can he do so? His hands are already severely tied by record-high national debt. Malaysia’s gearing or debt to national gross domestic product is 52 percent or about RM405 billion.

This level may not be disastrously high yet but it is enough to makes the government’s ability to pump-prime the economy extremely difficult. Hence, the absence of large-scale projects so far by the Najib administration. To continue borrowing would invite reduced bond ratings and even junk status for Malaysian debt.

The government’s annual cash flow is also affected as it has to set aside large sums to pay for the interest charged on the loans. This again bites into the amount it can spend on projects and other activities to raise the economic pace.

Driven out by Mahathir

What other way is there when you can’t borrow your way out of trouble and cash flow is tight? The answer is of course – other people’s money. These would come in the form of investments from Malaysians themselves and from foreigners as FDI.

But the big Malaysian investors are no longer so sure about their country. This is not a recent development. As far back as the 80s, Malaysian Chinese tycoons began diversifying their fortunes and investing in serious amounts in Hong Kong, China, Australia and more recently Vietnam.

At that time, Mahathir was in his prime. Brain drain, flight of talent and Malaysian capital didn’t bother him. The Singaporeans, Americans, Canadians and the British would come in and their wealth would more than compensate for these ‘disloyal people’, so went his rhetoric. Never did he once acknowledge that he was the one who drove them away with unequal opportunities, race-based policies and sheer arrogance.

Because the economy is a large animal, it takes time for trends to show. Thirty years ago, as long as Mahathir was in power and he suppressed costs, foreign investors didn’t mind about the country’s human rights record. Malaysia was still a good place to make money – many things including rent and wages were cheap, and the people could speak English relatively well.

But 1997 blew in. Foreign investors lost their shirts. The Singapore parallel trading system of Malaysian shares was shut down overnight to prevent their investors from selling their Malaysian stock. A large British investment bank was said to have lost US$3 billion in Malaysian assets within a week.

The nightmare stories are countless and this was when short-term portfolio investors first began falling out of love with Malaysia. Though they have since returned after boycotting the country for years, the amounts they bring in are much smaller and their investment horizon or the time they keep the money in the country much shorter.

The FDI players – and these include U.S. chip makers like Intel, Motorola and AMD – were shocked but saw no reason to suddenly shut down their plants. But even so, they were happy to go when a few years later, Vietnam, China and India beckoned with even lower-cost facilities and superior tax packages.

Najib destroyed confidence in the Malaysian system

Meanwhile, the Malaysian tycoons, including Mahathir’s own coterie of cronies, began feeling uncomfortable when he started to tear at his successor Abdullah Badawi and tried to bring his administration down. That’s when it dawned on them that perhaps ‘stability’ – as in how they always been allowed to carry out their money-making schemes without question or trouble – may no longer be taken for granted.

Slowly they began channeling to other countries more of their money – and many say this also includes the money they held on behalf of corrupt top leaders. Even the profits they made in other countries, they repatriated less and less of it home to Malaysia.

Then came the 2008 general elections and in blew a new political dimension Pakatan Rakyat. Worse still in 2009, in came Najib as Badawi’s successor. Not that they had anything against him – he seemed pro-business. But then he signaled ‘civil war’.

With the Perak coup d’etat, Najib single-handedly triggered the down spiral of the entire Malaysian system. In his insistence to annihilate Opposition Leader Anwar Ibrahim, he abused his power to such an extent that few people have any trust left in the Malaysian judiciary. They never had much faith in the police and the MACC to begin with.

Corruption, racial and religious politicking still rule

And so they began to step on the pedal to divest in Malaysia and invest elsewhere in the region. The foreign investors were not slow to catch on either. They too rushed to join the exodus. And this how in 2009, Malaysia recorded an 81 percent plunge in FDI – due to a combination of falling inward foreign investments and increasing reverse or outbound Malaysian investments.

Can Malaysia still achieved developed status by 2020? Only if these investors changed their minds and poured back their funds will the country of 28 million have a chance to raise its per capita income. This is the only way for Malaysians to break out from the middle-income trap into a high-income or developed status nation.

But for that to happen, it would require a miracle from Najib. Judging from his latest corruption battle that many have described as a charade with the arrest of former Transport Minister Ling Liong Sik over the PKFZ debacle, corruption is here to stay for so long as he is the prime minister.

As for a system of meritocracy, healthy competition and non-racial politics, again Liong Sik is a fine indication that racism will reign in Malaysia during his rule.

And judging from the way his Umno party is going hell-for-leather to beat PAS for the championship title of who is the No. 1 protector of Islam – even to the extent of minority bashing – it looks religion will continue to be a weapon of economic destruction in this country. Rather than a sanctuary for the spirit and the soul.

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 8 August 2010, 1:26 pm and is filed under
Corruption
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


The consequences of sleeping with the enemy

by
Mariam Mokhtar

MCA president Dr Chua Soi Lek’s comments about both Umno and PAS using religion to dominate the Malays and influence their vote, is a bit too little, too late. For decades, he, like previous MCA leaders, pandered to the wishes of Umno. Now that PAS has teamed up with DAP and PKR to become a credible opposition party, it is Dr. Chua who must contemplate his standing in his community and evaluate the worth of his party’s friendship with Umno.

Dr. Chua’s hypocritical attack on PAS is ill-judged and offensive. PAS have always been consistent in its Islamic roots but when it morphed into a modern Islamist party, it created panic in Umno.

He should direct his vitriol at Umno only, for it jumped onto the religious bandwagon, to appear more conservative than PAS so as to lure Malay voters.

Perhaps it is Dr. Chua who has been caught on the hop, just as in his previous indiscretion?

Dr. Chua urged the Chinese community to think about the impact if PAS were to rule at the federal level. He said, “Do not be too optimistic that if PAS comes to power, the country will be free from corruption and other problems”.

This is a bit rich coming from him. Is this an attempt to suck up to Prime Minister Najib, to Umno or to his own party and community? Was he as voluble complaining about the excesses, in previous years?

Corruption is not a new phenomenon. Many people already hold Dr. Chua in increasing contempt, and know that leaders like him have only thought about their own personal interests and feathered their nest. For him to speak out against PAS like this is a cheap shot in the dark.

He also said, “Although Malaysia is also a Muslim-majority country, we are luckier because of the moderate and pragmatic policies implemented by the BN government.”

When will he be man-enough to admit that the policies of the BN government have made this country bankrupt and brought it to its knees?

Furthermore, his attempts at scaremongering by alluding to PAS as a doomed power have been ineffective. He described the hypothetical situation of rule under PAS and said we would ‘have less democracy because of the emphasis on religion’.

Is he unaware that Umno has already provided these – a lowering of democratic values and religious intolerance?

He also reportedly said that Muslim ruled countries placed their emphasis on religion rather than on education, that their illiteracy rates were very high, especially among women, that these countries have elections but also have councils of Muslim elders enjoying absolute power and that policies were not on par with global development.

Not content with deriding PAS, Dr. Chua feels the need at Islam-bashing.

He should realise that BN has managed to achieve all that he has just described. Our education system is botched and our children receive a substandard level of education, compared with earlier generations. Our choice of senior Muslim clerics make statements that make us look ridiculous – doing yoga is practising Hinduism, wearing football jerseys equates to devil-worship. Surprisingly, child marriages are positively encouraged.  So how vocal has Dr. Chua been, to condemn these acts?

He continued his attack on PAS and said that people in Muslim-countries had low incomes, high unemployment rates and were racked by a lot of controversies based on the interpretation of law because their leaders were mostly fundamentalists.

But Umno has achieved all of these, with ease.

Given that Dr. Chua’s list covers corruption, abuses of power, racial and religious discrimination, repression and oppression, it would suggest that we need strong leaders who will fight for a Malaysian solution to these problems. Race-based politics are a thing of the past and have failed to attain unity of purpose.

The shocking decline in our country’s fortunes is because of the failure of BN. Both Umno and MCA have been complacent and allowed our country to slide into decline. Perhaps these parties have overstayed their welcome.

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 8 August 2010, 2:18 am and is filed under
Islam
,
MCA
,
UMNO
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


The Distracting Bilateral Issue of Maids

By
M. Bakri Musa

 It is telling of the state of development for both Indonesia and Malaysia that when their two leaders met recently, the key topic was Indonesian maids.  Malaysia wishes to import more while Indonesia wants better working conditions for its workers in Malaysia.

             I would have expected the two to discuss such consequential issues as jointly developing the region as a tourism destination to rival the Caribbean, harnessing the power of satellite and wireless communication to leapfrog the development of both countries, or perhaps conducting joint maritime research for both ecological and economic purposes.  Alas, none of that!

             It is reflective of the abysmal state of human development in Indonesia that maids are its major “export.”  Likewise, it reflects the perverted status symbol of Malaysians that they consider having a maid as a necessity for a “luxurious” lifestyle.

             It is beyond me why Malaysians think that way.  Australians have a per capita income considerably higher, yet I do not see them having a “maid crisis;” likewise the Japanese.  Even in America where it is now the norm for both parents to be working, very few homes have live-in maids; most do with only daytime helpers.  Granted, there are many childcare centers to take up the slack.

               In America, those maids (nannies) get social security benefits (America’s Employee Provident Fund – EPF) as well as workmen’s compensation insurance (for work-related injuries).  They are also governed by prevailing labor laws.  As can be seen, slavery is long gone in America.

             While conditions for maids in Malaysia are far superior to the old American slaves, nonetheless the family-servant dynamics in Malaysia is closer to the owner-slave mentality of the Old South than to a modern employer-employee relationship.

             I am surprised at the high level of engagement in this maid issue.  If only a similar commitment were made in luring foreign academics and skilled workers, imagine the good it would do to Malaysia!

             If Malaysia were to continue importing maids, then I would suggest imposing strict standards and paying them attractive salaries.  We can begin by calling them “nannies” instead of the degrading “servants.”

             The minimum monthly salary should be RM800.00, with overtime rate twice that on a prorated per hour basis.  Additionally, the employer would contribute towards the nanny’s EPF.  Those funds would become vested (meaning, the nannies could claim the benefits) only if they were to serve cumulatively for at least 40 quarters (equivalent of ten years), though not necessarily continuously or even with the same family.  This is the rule with America’s Social Security.

             As for work hours, they must have at least an eight-hour stretch of undisturbed time in a 24-hour day period, and an additional 24-hour in a seven-day period.  Of course they can choose to work during those times, but they would be paid overtime.

             The employer would also have to pay 10 percent towards health insurance, and another 20 percent towards a “performance bond.”  The pooled money in the bond would pay for any maid caught in a criminal activity.  It would also cover the cost of the loss as well as deportation.  The bond funds would also benefit the nanny should her employer for some reason is unable to pay her salary, as with the employer declaring bankruptcy.

             Thus it would cost at least RM1,200 per month to employ a nanny.  Such a remuneration would make not only the Indonesian authorities happy (that is always a good neighborly gesture) but also those nannies.  Heck, at that rate we may even interest locals to become nannies!

             For those who think that such a pay rate is unrealistic, consider that the average expatriate family in Malaysia is already paying considerably more.  Of course the services provided to those families are considerably superior than what Ahmad and Ah Chong are getting.

             To justify the higher pay, these maids must provide superior services.  They must be properly trained to do that.  They must take at least a three-month course learning basic hygiene and the rudiments of safe and healthy childcare.  This would include basic nutrition, child safety, and child proofing the house, including training in cardiopulmonary resuscitation and Heimlich maneuver.

            All these would cost money and beyond the reach of the potential typical maid from an Indonesian village.  However, the government, using funds from the performance bond, could finance these courses.  They would be free if the attendee were to work in Malaysia for at least three years, enough time to recoup the costs of training.  Such a scheme would benefit not only potential employers but also these young women.  When they return to their villages they could then take better care of their own children or grandchildren.

             Of course the government could ease the need for these foreign maids (and thus save on the associated social and other costs) by encouraging the setting up of childcare centers through various incentives.

More Fruitful Avenues for Cooperation

Despite the space devoted, it is not my purpose to write on how to get better maids.  Instead my focus is on exploring areas of potentially fruitful cooperation between Malaysia and Indonesia.  In my book Towards A Competitive Malaysia, I proposed greater economic cooperation leading to integration a la the European Union between Indonesia, Brunei and Malaysia (a political IBM!).

            While all three are still essentially developing and thus would be competing in the same arenas, nonetheless there are sufficient differentiating factors between them that would make cooperating more beneficial than competing.  The potential areas for cooperation include energy (oil and gas), plantations, tourism, wireless technology, and natural products development.

             All three are oil and gas producers.  Individually they are no match to the slick “seven sisters” oil companies, but collectively IBM could be a powerful countervailing force.  While Pertamina and Brunei National Petroleum are still babes in the wood, Petronas has acquired significant international expertise.

             With plantations, Indonesia has plenty of land in Sumatra and Kalimantan as well as labor, while Malaysia has the sophisticated experience.  Brunei of course has the financial capital; at least what is left after its profligate sultan has his bite.

             As for tourism, the area could rival the Caribbean as a tropical paradise for rich cold-climate dwellers.  It is just as arduous to fly from Frankfurt to Cancun or St. Bart as it is to Bali or Langkawi.  As in the Caribbean, I envisage four or five major cruise companies serving the area.

             The Malay Archipelago with its endless islands is an ideal place to test the limits of and potential for satellite and wireless technology.  Imagine if we were open up the whole area to global competition and let the likes of Nokia, ATT, Nippon Tel and Siemens compete.  Once we have reliable real-time communication from Sulawesi to Seremban, and from Lubbock to Langkawi, then watch as trade and other economic activities flourish.

             Likewise, imagine if we were to open up the region’s airspace to all comers, domestic and foreign.  Who cares if the companies are foreign; all we are interested is affordable, reliable and efficient service.  Those who can will stay and survive; those cannot, will leave.

                  As for natural products, both Indonesia and Malaysia still have vast tracts of ancient jungles that have yet to be explored.  What is lacking is the expertise to exploit this invaluable resource and the political enlightenment to treat it wisely.

             These are only some of the potential areas for cooperation.  The issue of maids pales in comparison.

             Indonesia’s Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono holds a PhD in economics, while Najib Razak is generously described as a “British-trained economist.”  This makes it all the more incomprehensible why they would be involved in dealing with such trivia as the maid issue.

                This entry was posted on Monday, 9 August 2010, 1:04 pm and is filed under
Bakri Musa
,
Foreign
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


The speech that wasn’t delivered

Aliran

Friday, 06 August 2010 21:05

(P Ramakrishnan was supposed to deliver this address at an anti-ISA vigil in Penang on 1 August 2010, but before he could speak, four activists were arrested and police dispersed the crowd.)

50 years of ISA – Enough is enough!

This is our 53rd year of independence. But for 50 years, that independence has been marred and rendered meaningless by the continued existence of the ISA. It has been used and abused to silence critics and put away dissidents. It is an instrument that threatens our freedom and our civil liberties. It creates a climate of fear.

That is why the indomitable D R Seenivasagam called the ISA “a vicious and repulsive  document, a document which is repulsive to all those who believe in democracy.”

He found it “difficult to believe any citizen of this country could have drafted this Bill if he has the interests of his  fellow citizens at heart”.

He was right there. The ISA did not serve the interests of the citizens; it only served the interests of those in power.

Under the guise of national security, the ISA has been turned into a political tool to serve the ruling elite to remain in power. Any time and every time the Barisan Nasional was in a fix, it resorted to the ISA to safeguard and entrench its position.

Some 10,000 innocent people have fallen prey to this obnoxious legislation. Without any justification, they have been detained unfairly and unjustly.

Not a single one of them has been charged or convicted in a court of law. They were not brought to court simply because the government had no specific and legitimate charges against them, and their flimsy reasons for detaining them would not have stood up in a court of law.

That is why the court’s jurisdiction to review or challenge their detention has been ousted. The Minister’s decision cannot be challenged in any court of law.

The Minister’s decision is final. End of the matter. That is wrong.

And the Minister has that absolute undemocratic right to extend a detainee’s detention every two years indefinitely. That is wrong.

The detainee can periodically appear before the Advisory Board to state his or her case. Very often it is a waste of time. The Advisory Board that hears a detainee’s representation can only make recommendations to the Home Minister which he usually brushes aside. That is wrong.

Friends: It is a mockery to have a law that does not provide for your defence in a court of law in keeping with natural justice.

It is a mockery to the rule of law when a detained person has no legal access to a lawyer.

It is a mockery to our democratic system when a person can be held in solitary confinement for up to 60 days without family visitation rights whatsoever.

It is a mockery to us as human beings that this terrible law has been allowed to be around for half a century.

Friend, don’t waste your time asking for the repeal of the ISA. It won’t happen. It is the armour that protects the BN. The BN will never throw away this protective shield. The BN will not repeal the ISA. Let’s accept that as a fact.

The only way to remove the ISA is to remove the BN from power. The moment you remove the BN, the ISA will disappear. As long as the BN exists, the ISA will exist.

We should target the BN and channel our energies for the defeat of the BN. When the BN becomes the Opposition in Malaysia, that day will spell the  end of the ISA.

Our slogan should be “Remove the BN” – not “Repeal the ISA”.

P Ramakrishnan is president of Aliran

                This entry was posted on Monday, 9 August 2010, 12:29 pm and is filed under
ISA
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.