Will There Be Justice for Sabah?

Kee Thuan Chye

20th August 2013

The recent testimonies at the Royal Commission of Inquiry (RCI) on illegal immigrants in Sabah have certainly been revealing – to some of us, shocking.

To be sure, prior to the RCI, we had heard rumours and allegations of identity cards being given to illegal immigrants, under what has been called Project IC or Project M (after ex-prime minister Mahathir Mohamad), so that they could vote for the ruling Barisan Nasional (BN) and keep it in power, but hearing it now from the mouths of people involved in the project confirms our fear that our country’s citizenships have indeed been given away cheaply and illegally.

One of the witnesses, former Sandakan chief district officer Hassnar Ebrahim who first gave out forms in 1981 to Filipino and Indonesian illegal immigrants to allow them to apply for ICs, gave damning indication that Mahathir must have given his approval to the project because an enterprise of such a magnitude would have required it.

Besides, Hassnar said he attended a “secret meeting” in the 1980s that involved officers from the Prime Minister’s Department, the Immigration Department and the police, and at this meeting, then home affairs minister Megat Junid Megat Ayub said Mahathir had approved the project.

It was proposed that 130,000 to 150,000 names be added to the Sabah electoral roll to boost the Muslim vote. Although there were protests from one of the officers present, the proposal was passed. Hassnar himself was given 30,000 HNR3 forms to take back to Sabah. These forms were for the immigrants to apply for blue ICs.

Another witness, former banker Mat Swadi Awi, gave startling testimony when he revealed that he was the “grand designer” of the exercise conducted from 1987 to 1990 to distribute voters throughout Sabah who would vote for United Sabah National Organisation (Usno), a BN component party, with the aim of toppling the Parti Bersatu Sabah (PBS) government.

He did this in response to a personal request from then Usno president Datu Mustapha Datu Harun – with the consent of Megat Junid. They both told him that Mahathir knew about the plan and had given his approval.

The plan was to increase the number of Malay and Muslim voters in strategic constituencies by deploying to these places immigrants who already had either fake or genuine Malaysian documents, as well as Malaysian citizens from Peninsular Malaysia and those serving in Sabah.

Mat Swadi said he selected a total of 20,000 names. Of these, one-third comprised Malaysian citizens and the rest were immigrants.

What did he do with these names? Here’s the punchline – he gave them to the Election Commission (EC) to be registered as voters in those constituencies. The EC! The body that is supposed to be independent and neutral colluded in this sinister exercise!

Also, according to Mat Swadi, the National Registration Department (NRD) helped by identifying who among the immigrants should be Malaysianised and then supplying the data to him.

The terrifying thing that emerges from these testimonies is that the various branches of authority were in it together. The police, the NRD, the Immigration Department, the EC were allegedly in on the scheme. As Mat Swadi said, “You would not get the approval for (the issuance of the ICs and their registration in electoral rolls) without the involvement of the agencies concerned.”

And, according to Hassnar, even Biro Tata Negara (BTN), which comes under the Prime Minister’s Department, was involved in registering illegal immigrants as voters after they had secured their blue ICs.

This makes it sound all the more that the whole project would have been a government conspiracy.

And what was it all for?

From what we’ve heard throughout the RCI, it was all for the purpose of increasing Malay-Muslim power in Sabah in order to oust the Kadazandusun-dominated PBS and keep it out … well, forever.

The alleged motive is political engineering at its most repulsive. Hassnar said the then Sabah NRD director Sani Abdullah refused to join the secret meeting chaired by Megat Junid. Sani said “this was treason and it would cause a disaster”. As it has turned out, Sani was right.

It is treason. And it is a disaster. Malaysian-born Sabahans are now swamped by the foreigners who were given citizenships.

Hassnar observed that “these foreigners are even taking over native land that belonged to the original Bumiputera Sabahans”. He also spoke of a Bugis immigrant who came to assume the name of Sabahan Halim Ahmad who had died without his death having been reported to the authorities. The Bugis used Halim’s birth certificate to apply for a blue IC in 2009. It was approved by the NRD. Today, this man allegedly controls illegal gambling dens in Sandakan.

It would seem that unlike Singapore, which has been opening its doors to foreigners in order to attract the best talents, we have been attracting the dregs of society.

What should be done about the situation? Clearly, the absorption of illegal immigrants into the Sabah citizenry has been a problem for genuine Sabahans for a long time, and many of them have been hoping that the RCI will finally address the problem with genuine seriousness in order to solve it. But will it prove to do that?

And will the current federal government, regardless of what the RCI panel eventually recommends, do what really needs to be done to once and for all correct the wrong and the injustice the past federal governments have inflicted on the people of Sabah?

As early as last year, the Sabah Progressive Party (SAPP), now in the Opposition, proposed the issuing of Sabahan identity cards only to those qualified to be Malaysians in order to safeguard the rights of genuine Sabahans.

Then in March this year, Bernard Dompok, president of BN component party United Pasokmomogun Kadazandusun Murut Organisation (Upko), asked for all ICs issued in Sabah to be recalled and reissued to only those identified as genuine Sabahans, so as to weed out those who obtained theirs through dubious means.

Two other Sabah BN parties, PBS and Parti Bersatu Rakyat Sabah (PBRS), joined in to support the idea.

It was, however, rejected by then Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Nazri Aziz, who said it would be difficult to be implemented and there would be legal implications.

He could be right. Now that the camel has been allowed into the tent, how do we coax it to leave? How will we clean the Augean stables that has proven to be a herculean task?

Just on a simplistic level, we could consider that many of the illegal holders are now running businesses in the state. Some, like the Bugis posing as Halim Ahmad, are probably controlling illegal syndicates. Try taking the ICs away from them and see what their reactions would be.

Even so, the right thing has to be done. Apart from that, the result of the heinous action of giving away the ICs has been tantamount to selling the country to foreigners. It is outright treason. And that demands punishment.

We revoked the permanent residence status of a Singaporean because he allowed a group of Singaporean Buddhists to meditate in a surau. What should we do to people who sell our country?

* Kee Thuan Chye is the author of the bestselling books No More Bullshit, Please, We’re All Malaysians and Ask for No Bullshit, Get Some More
!

                This entry was posted on Friday, 23 August 2013, 8:34 pm and is filed under
Kee Thuan Chye
,
Mahathir
,
Sabah
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Acquittal of murder of Altantuya Shaariibuu –  Najib could not have a more powerful “soft launch” of his new national branding campaign of “Endless Possibilities”

With a triple strike in the past month, the Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak could not have a more powerful though most ironic “soft launch” of his new national branding campaign of “Endless Possibilities” in place of his earlier “lame-duck” 1Malaysia slogan.

Firstly, “Endless Possibilities” broke new ground when  the Registrar of Societies (RoS) forced a DAP Central Executive Committee (CEC) re-election on pain of deregistration of DAP, although the RoS is unable to give any reason why he is “dissatisfied” with the DAP party elections last December, a triumph of the seven-month-old and continuing Umno/BN “DDD” – “demolish/destroy DAP” – campaign.

Secondly, “Endless Possibilities” opened up new vistas with the official approval for the screening of the Tanda Putera movie  in cinemas nationwide on August 29, including one depicting a young Chinese man urinating in front of the Selangor Mentri Besar’s official residence provoking the May 13, 1969 racial riots.

There  are no historical facts, whether photographs or documentation, including the White Paper issued by the National Operations Council on 9th October 1969 entitlted “The May 13 Tragedy” and Tunku Abdul Rahman’s book “May 13 – Before & After”, to show that such a urination incident was not a figment of imagination and a most scurrilous and incendiary lie in a multi-racial society.

Even if it is completely fictional, it is the height of irresponsibility to depict the urination incident in an officially-funded movie because it could  incite inter-racial distrust, discord and hatred, completely inimical to nation-building efforts particularly on the occasion of the country’s 56th National Day.

But today, Najib’s new branding of “Endless Possibilities” plumbed new depths even before it is officially launched next month  and has become the most favourite “quote” of Malaysians when the three-member Court of Appeal unanimously freed Special Action Unit officers Chief Inspector Azilah Hadri and Corporal Sirul Azhar Umar of the charge of murdering Mongolian translator Altantuya Shaariibuu.

Malaysians are asking whether these three incidents are  examples of what Najib meant by his new slogan of “Endless Possibilities” to replace the 1Malaysia slogan to rebrand his administration?

                This entry was posted on Friday, 23 August 2013, 2:10 pm and is filed under
1Malaysia
,
Court
,
Crime
,
Najib Razak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


So, who killed Altantuya? And why?

NEWS ANALYSIS BY JAHABAR SADIQ, EDITOR

The Malaysian Insid
er

August 23, 2013

Seven years on, no one has paid the price for the death of Altantuya Shaariibuuu. And no one knows why the pretty Mongolian was killed one night in October 2006.

But today’s Court of Appeal decision does not close the file on her mysterious murder.

Instead, the ruling to acquit former chief inspector Azilah Hadri and former corporal Sirul Azhar Umar raises more questions than ever.

Who killed her? Why?

She was shot dead and C4 explosives were allegedly used to blow her to bits but both police commandos said they had no access to the explosives. So what happened? Were there others involved?

She came into the country but there were no immigration records with her name. Did she use another passport? Can the authorities explain this?

Some of these questions that could have been answered if the likes of DSP Musa Safri had been called to give evidence.

The prosecution did not call him and the appeal court today allowed the appeal because material witnesses were not called to testify, including Musa.

Musa would have been able to testify what help that political analyst Abdul Razak Baginda had asked him to fend off Altantuya.

The interpreter had become Abdul Razak’s lover but later hounded him that he had to hire private investigator P. Balasubramaniam to keep watch on her. When Altantuya turned up that fateful night on October 18, 2006, the policemen scooped her and that was the last time she was seen alive.

What followed rocked Malaysia’s political establishment. Abdul Razak was held in connection with the murder and both police commandos Azilah and Sirul were later charged for Altantuya’s murder.

Their connection to each other was simply Musa, who was aide-de-camp to then deputy prime minister and defence minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak.

Now prime minister, Najib has denied any links to the case although Abdul Razak was closely associated with him. Will today’s ruling provide closure for him too?

Will it also provide closure for Abdul Razak, who was the first to be acquitted of conspiring to kill Altantuya. He had admitted to fending her off but not asking for her death.

Interestingly, the prosecution never appealed his acquittal.

But the prosecution has said it would appeal today’s ruling that freed Azilah and Sirul, both of whom were hooded and shielded from public view during their 159-day murder trial.

That again raises more questions. And endless possibilities. – August 23, 2013.

                This entry was posted on Friday, 23 August 2013, 12:36 pm and is filed under
Court
,
Crime
,
Law & Order
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Airy-fairy Slogan May Suit Najib Well

By Kee Thuan Chye

Yahoo! News

22nd August 2013

I’ve said before that Najib Razak is a prime minister who does things by halves. Now there’s talk that he’s going to junk his ‘1Malaysia’ slogan for a new one. Online news website The Malaysian Insider reported this on August 21, based on information from sources. If it turns out to be true, I’ll be able to say that Najib is also a prime minister who doesn’t see things through.

A brand needs time to be developed. Najib’s ‘1Malaysia’ has been around for only four years, and that’s not long enough to win it acceptance and pulling power. Work has to be done to imbue it with more substance – work that includes making Malaysia a truly inclusive nation, which wholeheartedly embraces all its races, religions, cultures, languages without placing any above the rest – so that in the longer run, it can come to be trusted. If Najib discards it for a new slogan, it would show that he’s not willing to put in the work; he has no staying power.

And what might that new slogan be? How more potent will it appear? How more meaningful? If you haven’t heard it yet, hold on to your seats. Just in case you fall off laughing. Or faint. It’s called “Endless Possibilities”!

Many Malaysians will be wondering what it means. “Possibilities” is a big word. It’s also an abstract word. You can’t picture anything when you come across it. It also has five syllables, which is not appropriate for any slogan. Combine that with “endless” and the meaning is even more abstract. Not only that, it sounds pompous.

And of course it’s vague. But then vagueness seems to cohere with what Najib prefers. Last year, he reportedly said of ‘1Malaysia’, “I didn’t define the concept very clearly, but that was by design.” He said he wanted to give it an “element of strategic ambiguity” so that it could take in other views, including those from the public.

Perhaps his advisers told him to say that, but it doesn’t sound like good advice. One would think a slogan that has something concrete to impart works better. ‘Bersih, cekap dan amanah’ (Clean, efficient and trustworthy) which Mahathir Mohamad touted during his early years as prime minister may not be the best of examples, but at least it was something that people could relate to. His successor Abdullah Badawi’s ‘Work with me, not for me’ also made some earthy sense, even though it was also broad.

But ‘Endless Possibilities’ … what endless possibilities?

As a slogan per se, it’s lame. It’s not action-oriented. Compared to it, ‘1Malaysia’ has at least a semblance of concreteness. It symbolises an ideal state – of national unity and racial harmony, even equality. ‘Endless Possibilities’ connotes something airy-fairy. It doesn’t convey certainty, only what may be.

Just consider this: “There’s a possibility that it will rain tonight.” When tonight comes and it doesn’t, well, it’s okay, we were only expressing a possibility. “There’s a possibility we will achieve high-income-nation status.” If we don’t, well, we did say it was only a possibility. “Heck, there’s a possibility we are going to be the greatest country in the world.” Syiok sendiri laaa. Possibility only.

I’ve also called Najib a dream merchant before for trying to sell us intangible transformation programmes. Perhaps something insubstantial and phantasmagorical like ‘Endless Possibilities’ would suit his workings fine.

Already, people are making jokes about the slogan. A friend of mine came up with the satirical ‘Endless Piss-abilities’. Another friend asked, “Endless possibilities for bleeding the nation dry?”

On the same note, it looks like Government cronies may be faced with possibilities of making money. ‘1Malaysia’ spinoffs such as Kelinik 1Malaysia, Kedai Rakyat 1Malaysia, the 1Malaysia Youth Fund and Bantuan Rakyat 1Malaysia (BR1M) may have their names changed. Perhaps, too, the company set up and wholly owned by the Government called 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB).

With name changes, we would of course also need new logos, letterheads, posters, billboards, shop and company signs. Who do you think would be cashing in on this? Ahhhh … perhaps that’s where the slogan might be apt.

By the way, what would BR1M be called? Endless Bantuan Rakyat? Bantuan Rakyat Tak Habis-habis? Well, giving out BR1M to households earning RM3,000 or less a month has already been promised by the Government, which also said it would be done every year, so why not get literal and call it that indeed?

One thing’s for sure. BN component party leaders would have to mouth new platitudes and propaganda. And with ‘Endless Possibilities’, it should be easier to avoid getting caught out. They are less likely to find themselves in the spot MCA President Chua Soi Lek got into when he said that ‘1Malaysia’ would make the people think of themselves as Malaysian first, their race second – only to have Deputy Prime Minister Muhyiddin Yassin declare, “I am a Malay first.”

Perhaps that’s why Najib might be giving up on ‘1Malaysia’. It’s not working. What it promises contradicts with reality. By and large, his own party doesn’t support it. And to be sure, he cannot change the reality without causing an upheaval that could end in his own downfall. As I pointed out when he first unveiled it in 2009, there will always be 2Malaysias as long as there are two classes of Malaysians – Bumiputeras and non-Bumiputeras – and they are accorded different statuses. Najib wouldn’t have the courage to try and change that; he wouldn’t be prepared to sacrifice his own position.

He might therefore indeed opt for the safe and easy way out – change to a slogan that is neither here nor there, and therefore invite no controversy. If and when that happens, be prepared to think of words that might describe his action and the character of his administration. The possibilities, you can be sure, will be endless.

* Kee Thuan Chye is the author of the bestselling books No More Bullshit, Please, We’re All Malaysians and Ask for No Bullshit, Get Some More!

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 24 August 2013, 10:45 am and is filed under
1Malaysia
,
Mahathir
,
Najib Razak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Director admits Tanda Putera a work of fiction, defends controversial scenes

by Hasbullah Awang Chik

The Malaysian Insider

August 24, 2013

The director of the controversial film Tanda Putera, which has upset the opposition, now admits it is a fictional account of events surrounding the May 13 racial riots.

Datin Paduka Shuhaimi Baba said her film is an interpretation of historical events derived from multiple opinions.

She explained that after certain parties strongly objected to a scene where a character urinated at a flagpole in front of the house of a former Selangor menteri besar, she edited the scene to tone it down.

“I made some slight edits of the scene. There were words that I removed. That scene was acted out according to those who were present at that time.

“I had to make sure I could fit in most of the opinions collected into a two-hour movie. Of course, not all of the responses we got could be enacted in the film.

“It is tough for me to throw away scenes that are called sensitive. If I have to follow the opinions of everyone then the first 20 minutes of the film depicting incidents of 13 May would not even be there. So I have to defend my work,” she told The Malaysian Insider today.

Suhaimi’s admission that the film is a fictional account of events is a comedown from her stand at the film’s premiere this week where she asked the public to give the film a chance since it is about the nation’s history based on “true stories”.

The film is set to start its run in local cinemas on August 29.

“That incident did happen but no one could identify who was the one who did it,” Shuhaimi said in reference to the urinating scene, which purportedly portrayed a young Lim Kit Siang, now the DAP adviser.

Shuhaimi said the movie showed the friendship between two leaders, then prime minister Tun Abdul Razak and his deputy, Tun Dr Ismail Abdul Rahman, and how they faced the challenge of developing the country while battling racial tensions and their health problems.

Shuhaimi said she did not feel any scenes in the movie were too radical and described the protests of DAP leaders as a political gimmick.

The director said that it was Kit Siang himself who took offence and felt that the scene depicted him.

On Thursday, The Malaysian Insider reported that DAP had urged Tanda Putera’s producers to declare the film a fictitious work.

DAP national publicity secretary Tony Pua said the film would provoke anger and racial tension.

Last year, Lim criticised the production company when it uploaded a photograph of him being arrested by the police, with a caption “Lim Kit Siang urinating on the flagpole at the home of Selangor Menteri Besar” on the film’s official Facebook page.

It was later removed after the company received numerous complaints. – August 24, 2013.

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 24 August 2013, 10:15 pm and is filed under
DAP
,
Media
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Malaysia’s Najib Weakens

Written by Our Correspondent

Asia Sentinel

Thursday, 22 August 2013

KL sources say he’ll remain as PM, but as a “lackey” of former PM Mahathir

Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak appears to be under increasing pressure from inside his own party and under blistering attack by bloggers allied with former Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad — one of whom compared him to a flattened bug on a windshield.

 Najib saw his ruling coalition lose the popular vote in May national elections, garnering only 47.38 percent of the vote against 50.87 for the three-party opposition Pakatan Rakyat led by Anwar Ibrahim. The Barisan, however, managed to maintain its 56-year hold on parliament by a 133-89 seat margin because of gerrymandering.

 Since the election, Najib has faced a drumfire of criticism from within the United Malays National Organization over his strategy to attempt to reach out against the country’s minority Chinese and Indian races. Because UMNO raised the number of seats it won while its component Indian and Chinese parties went down the tubes, the party more and more appears to be in the hands of Mahathir and his allies, particularly former Finance Minister Daim Zainuddin, who advocated a strident Malay nationalism strategy to lure ethnic Malays, who make up 60.1 percent of the population, to the polls.

 A quiet approach to Anwar to seek to set up a unity government after the election was batted back by the opposition leader, ostensibly because Najib wouldn’t rein in the strident racists in his party, but probably actually because Anwar wasn’t really interested in playing no. 2 to Naib in any political scenario.

 Publication of Najib’s vain attempt to reach across the aisle to the opposition is considered to have weakened the prime minister further, partly because of Mahathir’s implacable enmity against Anwar. And while the 88-year-old Mahathir has remained silent, Mahathir-aligned blogs, including “outsyed the box” and one maintained by former information Minister Zainuddin Maidin have stepped up their attacks on Najib in recent days.

 Outsyed the box, maintained by Syed Akbar Ali, described as “Dr M’s chief spin doctor,” recently posted that “Najib Tun Razak’s popularity is about as flat as a bug stuck on your windscreen at 160 km/h. The PM is going down. Rats, prepare to jump ship.” To make his point, he used this picture.

 Others have asked Najib to step down before he is thrown out. The first possibility for that is later this year at the UMNO annual general meeting, where for the first time all 160,000 delegates will vote on the UMNO presidency — who becomes prime minister — rather than selecting the winning candidate through proportional representation.

 However, as has been reported repeatedly, “Najib is expected to survive,” said a western academic with extensive sources inside UMNO. He described Najib as a “lame-duck PM and the influence ranking in Malaysia today is the old man (Mahathir) as no. 1, (Najib’s wife Rosmah Mansor) as No. 2, and Najib as their lackey,” he said “In fact many UMNO affairs are being handled by the first two these days and Najib is likely to have a hostile supreme council in control of the old man. Najib is likely to survive because he will do their beck and call.”

 That jibe about Rosmah is likely wide of the mark. She is considered to have lost considerable influence as well. However, Najib is expected to stay prime minister at least partly because at this juncture nobody is interested in the job, or ready politically to take it on.

 “Najib Is weaker by the day,” said an Umno source. “Tun (Mahathir) is in charge. Najib will remain President. Weak. Tun remains the power broker.”

 Several sources say Mahathir will attempt to install his son, Mukhriz, as deputy UMNO president and deputy prime minister, although Muhyiddin Yassin, a Mahathir ally, now has that job and in the past was considered ambitious enough to take on Najib if he stumbled, which he clearly has. But the 66-year-old Muhyiddin has made definitive statements that he isn’t interested in the job, at least for now.

 “Muhyiddin will likely retire as deputy. Mukhriz rises,” an UMNO source said.

 Certainly since he became chief minister of the northern state of Kedah, once the power base of his father, the 48-year old Mukhriz has been a whirlwind of activity.

 “Mukhriz in Kedah has adopted the transformational approach to government and is moving at one hundred miles per hour,” said a northern Malaysia-based academic. “No one will ever be able to challenge him in Kedah for a long time. He is focusing on attracting foreign investment and doing well. Ironically look at both Penang and Kedah, both states look to prosper.”

 One of the tests to watch for is the possible sale of MAS, the government-owned flag carrier, which has been plagued with deficits for decades, and which was sold at least once to a Mahathir crony who looted it of hundreds of millions of dollars and then sold it back to the government.

 Mahathir recently told reporters the airline should be privatized again because of the cost of running it. Najib however, said the losses are diminishing and that the government should hang onto it.

 That has spurred a Malay nationalist group, Jerangan Melayu Malaysia, to attack the current MAS chairman and CEO and to call for the appointment of Abdul Aziz Zainal, the former defense forces chief to head the airline.

 The popular thinking in Kuala Lumpur is that Mahathir will push to hand the airline over to Syed Mochtar, one of the country’s most prominent tycoons, who was handed control of the port in Penang, the Proton national car and a flock of other privatized entities.

 Najib’s brother Nazir, managing director of the CIMB banking group and others including the head of Kazanah Nasional Bhd, the government’s sovereign wealth fund which controls the airline, are reportedly upset at the attacks and have appealed to Najib to stop them.

 If the sale of the airline is announced over the next few weeks or months, it will be a demonstration of Mahathir’s power against Najib’s. Watch this space.

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 24 August 2013, 12:11 am and is filed under
Mahathir
,
Najib Razak
,
UMNO
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Will Najib have to abort his new branding slogan of “Endless Possibilities” after it is mired in double-barrelled Israeli and Mongolian controversies some three weeks before official launch?

Even before the official launch of his  new campaign to replace his earlier lame-duck “1Malaysia” slogan,  the Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak has to grapple with the headache whether his  new “Endless Possibilities”  campaign should be aborted some three weeks before launch as it is mired in a double-barrelled Israeli and Mongolian controversies.

On the Israeli knot, the Prime Minister’s Office has officially responded to The Malaysian Insider reports declaring that  the new “Endless Possibilities” campaign is not lifted from an Israeli campaign idea, claiming that Putrajaya had launched the campaign globally in January before Israel launched its version.

This is a revisit of the earlier 1Malaysia slogan which faced the charge  that it was a copy of the 1Israel campaign.

Before the dust could settle on the controversy of the Israeli link of the “Endless Possibilities” slogan, it is now mired in a second controversy involving of all countries Mongolia.

This was reported by The Malay Mail Online today about  a video advertisement marketing Mongolia using the exact same tagline which had been uploaded onto YouTube nearly one year before Najib first mentioned the “Malaysia ‘Endless Possibilities’” nation branding concept at the World Economic Forum annual meeting in Davos, Switzerland in January 2013.

As reported by MMO, a short clip titled “Mongolia Endless Possibilities by CNN” has been available on YouTube since it was uploaded on February 19, 2012.

The Mongolian knot of Najib’s new national branding slogan is equally if not more embarrassing than the Israeli knot, especially after the “shocker” yesterday with the unanimous acquittal by a  three-member Court of Appeal of  Special Action Unit officers Chief Inspector Azilah Hadri and Corporal Sirul Azhar Umar of the charge of murdering Mongolian translator Altantuya Shaariibuu, plunging the system of justice in Malaysia to its worst crisis of confidence in the 21st century.

To ordinary Malaysians, the more pertinent question about Najib’s “Endless Possibilities” campaign is not it is a copy of Israeli and/or Mongolian campaign ideas, but whether it would be a clarion and  inspirational call to all Malaysians to scale new heights of national endeavour in nation-building and all fields of human accomplishments or it would symbolise the country plumbing new  depths of all that is bad, dark, evil, new injustices, exploitation and oppression – the very opposite of the Malaysian Dream for justice, freedom, accountability, transparency, good governance, national unity and harmony for all Malaysians.

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 24 August 2013, 2:00 pm and is filed under
1Malaysia
,
Good Governance
,
Najib Razak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Tanda Putera – Height of criminal and anti-national irresponsibility for anyone to concoct the spurious  urination incident as one of the purported causes provoking May 13, 1969 riots

It is the height of criminal and anti-national irresponsibility for anyone to concoct the  spurious urination incident as one of the purported causes provoking the May 13, 1969 riots, especially in a film funded with taxpayers’ money, when it is completely fictional with no factual basis in any historical material, whether documentation or photographic.

This is because such a spurious and fictitious incident depicting a young Chinese man urinating in front of the Selangor Mentri Besar’s official residence provoking the May 13, 1969 riots, is highly incendiary and inflammatory in a plural society like Malaysia, and could gravely undermine and threaten inter-racial relations and harmony and even inflame and incite inter-racial hatred and conflict completely inimical to nation-building efforts to promote inter-racial peace, goodwill and harmony.

No excuse of “creative licence” could justify such an irresponsible, criminal and anti-national act.

Although Datin Paduka Shuhaimi Baba, director of the movie “Tanda Putra”, has admitted that the film is a fictional account of events surrounding the May 13 racial riots, she must specifically admit that the “urination” episode in front of the Selangor Mentri Besar’s official residence as one of the causes of provocation of the May 13, 1969 racial riots is a complete figment of her imagination and that no definition of “creative licence” could justify such irresponsible, incendiary and anti-national act.

Shuhaimi who prides herself as “the original founder of horror films” after directing a Pontianak film must not regard “Tanda Putra” as belonging to the genre of  “ghost films” she had directed in the past, giving her total “creative licence” to create any fictitious scenes that caught her fancy, totally reckless about their adverse consequences on inter-racial relations in the country.

Shuhaimi has said that it was I myself  who took offence at the urination scene and felt that the scene depicted me.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

I was in Sabah on July 20 last year on a three-day visit with DAP MP for Segambut Lim Lip Eng when Malaysiakini reported on the “Tanda Putera” film, which stated:

One apparent scene was that of DAP parliamentary leader Lim Kit Siang purportedly urinating on a flagpole in front of the then-Selangor menteri besar’s residence.

“Lim Kit Siang telah kencing di bawah tiang bendera Selangor yang terpacak di rumah menteri besar Selangor ketika itu, Harun Idris, (Lim Kit Siang had urinated at the foot of the flagpole bearing the Selangor flag at the then Selangor MB’s Harun Idris’ house)” read the caption of a photo of the actor portraying Lim being manhandled.

The photo was posted in the album titled ‘Peristiwa-peristiwa yang dimuatkan di dalam filem ini’ (Events depicted in this movie).

However, the photo and caption has since been removed from the movie’s official page, though Malaysiakini had captured a screenshot of the earlier posting.

Those in the industry who have watched the movie in a special preview on Wednesday to focus groups also said that no urinating scene was included in the preview cut.

There was also no mention of the scene in the movie’s script, a copy of which was obtained by Malaysiakini.

I issued an immediate rebuttal in Sabah reiterating that I was never in Kuala Lumpur on May 11, 12 and 13 of 1969 and that the photograph used in the movie’s earlier Facebook was not a photograph taken in 1969 but from a different incident in Sabah 15 years later in 1984.

An eye-witness, Ahmad Habib, who was then a second year undergraduate student at Institut Teknologi Mara (ITM) and was at the Selangor Mentri Besar’s residence during the May 13, 1969 riots, has  said that such an “urination” incident was impossible as the flagpole was  inside a heavily-guarded compound of the Selangor Mentri Besar.

It is a mystery why the “urination” episode is so central to Shuhaimi’s “Tanda Putera” movie although it has no factual basis whatsoever.

Shuhaimi  has said that the movie “Tanda Putra” showed the friendship between two leaders, then prime minister Tun Abdul Razak and his deputy, Tun Dr Ismail Abdul Rahman, and how they faced the challenge of developing the country while battling racial tensions and their health problems.

I have not seen the movie and am therefore in no position to make any comments.

It would however be very sad and pathetic if Shuhaimi’s latest film is remembered as the “urination” film because of  the irresponsible and criminal lie about the fictitious “urination” episode which has overshadowed  the rest of the film and subject-matter.

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 25 August 2013, 6:25 pm and is filed under
DAP
,
Media
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Mahathir’s Continuing Burden Upon The Nation

M. Bakri Musa

26.8.13

Mahathir is the only prime minister who devalued the ringgit, the very symbol of the nation’s sovereignty. If that were to be his only negative legacy, Malaysia could easily bear it.

            Unfortunately the man has burdened (and continues to burden) Malaysia with many more ugly legacies. He has also devalued our culture and institutions. Most of all he has devalued the trust we have in each other, a vital but scarce asset in a plural society.

            On a much lesser scale, and to serve more as a concrete example, the upcoming UMNO leadership convention will be another. With its “no contest” rule now the norm, the convention mocks the very meaning of a leadership election, reducing it to the same level as the old Soviet “elections.” This coming event will again expose the party’s corruptness and how pathetically bereft it is of talent. The same old tired and tainted candidates will be recycled. It is an exercise less of renewal and rejuvenation, more of an old and leaking sewer treatment plant, with nothing to hide the stench.

            As for the candidates, they would be like desperate monkeys elbowing and clawing each other for the top branches, their howling effectively drowning out the sound of the tree crashing down.

            Legally speaking, this party is of course not the original UMNO, rather “UMNO Baru,” Mahathir’s own creation after he maneuvered a less-than-honest squeaky victory over his challenger, Tengku Razaleigh, back in 1987. The party was subsequently deregistered. UMNO Baru is but a pretender to that glorious old party, the spirit of 1946, the one that bravely fought against the Malayan Union and ultimately brought the country to independence. No surprise then that this UMNO Baru has all of Mahathir’s ugly trademarks.

            I am privileged not to have met the man; thus my analysis is strictly based on his policies and performances as a leader. It is not colored by personal feelings or show of gratitude. I am spared the “mudah lupa” (ingrate) epithet.

            Again thanks to Mahathir, this mudah lupa is a special burden in our culture where one’s personal kindness and familiarity could hide and indeed excuse many a sin. Mahathir himself is not spared this burden; hence his being easily hoodwinked by the put-on piety and humility of his chosen successor, Abdullah Badawi. Even Mahathir’s subsequent enthusiasm for Najib to replace Abdullah was based less on Najib’s talent, more an expression of Mahathir’s gratitude to Najib’s late father for having “rehabilitated” Mahathir into UMNO.

            Yes, Mahathir was once kicked out of that grand old party back in 1970 in the aftermath of the deadly 1969 race riots. Those early leaders of the original UMNO were wise and prescient.

            Rehabilitated he was, and with his subsequent ascent to the top post, the country now bears the burden of his follies. We will continue to do so long after he is gone, such was the damage he inflicted upon the country.

            The currency devaluation was painful enough, especially to the poor. We still bear it today. Judging by past performances, this upcoming leadership contest would again assault our sensibilities, especially of Malay culture. Forget about our budi bahasa (gracious) and halus (soft) ways.

            Those previously found guilty of “money politics” (that’s corruption, to the rest of us) like Isa Samad and Khairy Jamaludin would again be elected to top positions. So too would former Selangor Chief Minister Khir Toyo, except that he is now serving time for corruption. Incidentally Khir Toyo is regarded as “clean” by his fellow UMNO members. As for Isa and Khairy, the former is now put in charge of the multi-billion ringgit FELDA, the latter, a cabinet minister. That too, is part of Mahathir’s legacy.

            One might quibble about Khairy for he once bragged about being Mahathir’s vocal critic. However, Mahathir’s legacy is the overall negative culture he fostered in UMNO Baru. In any other culture or jurisdiction, that young man would not even be nominated for dog catcher. That speaks volumes to the degradation of UMNO Baru.

            That is Mahathir’s legacy, its destructiveness is pervasive and permanent precisely because it is less obvious.

            Mahathir’s scathing and relentless criticism of his successor, Abdullah Badawi, cannot hide the obvious fact that he (Mahathir) was responsible for the mess. He appointed Abdullah. Similarly, Mahathir was highly instrumental in Najib replacing Abdullah. Mahathir’s excuse of there being no one else is just that – an excuse. Two successive dud appointments to the highest office of the land, another of Mahathir’s ugly legacies!

            Mahathir never tires of reminding us about Petronas Twin Towers, the gleaming highways, and the KLIA, all built during his administration. He also used to brag about Putrajaya, the multibillion-dollar new capital city. Not anymore. Yes, Putrajaya sports some futuristic bridges but it must be the only capital in the world that does not have any foreign embassies. As for those bridges, they must be the only ones to be erected where first they had to dig a lake so they could be water underneath those bridges!

            It is pathetic that after having served as the nation’s longest serving chief executive, Mahathir could point only to those physical monuments as his legacy. We have to constantly remind ourselves that the deterioration of our institutions (especially our schools and universities), the pervasiveness of corruption, the soiling of our culture (especially Malay culture), and the erosion of the trust we have in each other are very core of his legacy.

            It took the Soviets generations to free themselves of the grip of Stalin’s ghost. It took the Chinese decades to recognize and then overcome Mao’s malignant feng shui. How long will Malaysians, Malays specifically, take to escape the hantu of Mahathirism? Will we ever?

                This entry was posted on Monday, 26 August 2013, 2:28 pm and is filed under
Bakri Musa
,
Mahathir
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


We Want to Know Who Killed Altantuya

By Kee Thuan Chye

Yahoo! News

24.8.13

The Altantuya Shaariibuu murder case has taken another appalling turn. First, political analyst Abdul Razak Baginda, who seemed to have more of a motive for killing the Mongolian model, was acquitted in 2009, without his defence being called. Now the Court of Appeal has freed the two police commandos convicted by the High Court of actually killing her and blowing her body up with a C4 explosive.

The Court of Appeal acquitted Chief Inspector Azilah Hadri and Corporal Sirul Azhar Umar because it ruled that the judge who heard the case in the High Court committed serious misdirection. Among other things, he did not allow then deputy prime minister Najib Razak’s aide-de-camp, DSP Musa Safri, a key witness, to be called to testify, and he failed to establish how the two accused came to possess the C4 and whether there was common intention between them to commit murder.

The Malaysian layman, however, doesn’t want to know the legal implications. He is concerned only with the moral aspects. He knows that Sirul made a cautioned statement describing what he and Azilah did to Altantuya that fateful night, and that he mentioned the offer of a reward of RM50,000 to RM100,000 for killing her.

This cautioned statement was ruled not permissible as evidence by the judge, Mohd Zaki Yassin, and the two commandos were never asked during the trial as to who made that offer to them. But it seemed clear that Sirul and Azilah were merely hitmen. They didn’t know the victim. If they had a motive to kill her, it would appear to be only to collect the reward.

That being so, it was, however, never asked in court who instructed them to kill Altantuya. To the layman, it is extremely strange that the prosecution did not ask that crucial question.

To the layman, therefore, someone else must have been behind the murder of the Mongolian model. And as such, it would not be quite right for the two commandos to be hanged for it. But then again, it’s also not right for them to be freed on technicalities. It’s not right for them to be freed because the High Court judge made bloopers. If they did commit the act of killing, they must be held accountable. Perhaps on a lesser charge. They can’t simply be absolved of it.

Even more important to the layman is knowing the truth about the murder. He has invested seven years of interest in the case, and its outcome has a bearing on how much confidence he can give to his country’s system of justice. He doesn’t want to be disappointed – no, devastated – by an outcome that reveals nothing.

As a concerned citizen, he wants to see justice done. He wants the real culprit to be found. He wants closure. He doesn’t know Altantuya personally, but he wants justice for her and her family.

So he wants something concrete done about it. But as a layman, he doesn’t know what can be done. He is putting his trust in the country’s authorities, but so far, they have not inspired confidence.

In fact, he is beginning to feel suspicious about whether the prosecution and the High Court judge mishandled the case by design. He wonders what should happen to public officials who do their job badly. He wonders if the purpose of mishandling the case was to allow it to be closed with no one getting convicted. And once the case was closed, people would in time forget it.

He even wonders if it was to cover up something. Or to protect someone. He is reminded of what Sirul said, in tears, on February 3, 2009, when he pleaded with Mohd Zaki not to pass the death sentence because he was “a black sheep that has to be sacrificed” to protect unnamed people who had not been brought to court or faced questioning.

“I appeal to the court, which has the powers to determine if I live or die,” he said, “not to sentence me so as to fulfil others’ plans for me.”

Who are these “others”? Why do the people who are responsible for dispensing justice not want to know? That’s what haunts the layman. How do we proceed to find out?

The prosecution has said it will appeal the Court of Appeal decision, but that still won’t get to the bottom of the crime because the Federal Court will not allow fresh evidence to be presented then. Besides, might not the Federal Court judges also agree that the prosecution did indeed present a shoddy case and the judge did misdirect, and therefore uphold the decision of the Court of Appeal? And after that, what? Would that be the end of the story?

Some people are saying the Court of Appeal should have ordered a retrial, and some are saying it wouldn’t have been fair because it would give the prosecution a second chance to do better. The layman doesn’t care. He only wants to know the truth.

Could it be achieved by launching new investigations? The layman is aware that the Bar Council said last March that there is enough new evidence to persuade the Attorney-General (A-G) to do just that. So why not?

Bar Council President Christopher Leong said then, “The revelations by Deepak Jaikishan, the late P. Balasubramaniam and Americk Singh Sidhu have raised sufficient concern to warrant further investigations by the authorities.” So why not?

With new investigations, the layman thinks, we might be able to answer the questions of who instructed the two commandos to kill Altantuya; how they managed to obtain the C4 explosives; what Musa Safri’s role was; who instructed the Immigration Department to expunge all records of Altantuya’s entry into Malaysia; what Najib Razak meant when he allegedly SMSed Razak Baginda: “I am seeing IGP [Inspector-General of Police] at 11.00am. Today … matter will be solved … be cool.”

And whether Najib did SMS Shafee Abdullah, who was Razak Baginda’s lawyer: “Pls do not say anything to the press today. I will explain later. RB will have to face a tentative charge but all is not lost.” And if he did, what he implied by that. And whether he was trying to intervene.

The layman is being idealistic in hoping that everything will eventually fall into place, but he is also aware that there will be stumbling blocks. Would the A-G be willing to call for new investigations? After all, why didn’t he appeal the acquittal of Razak Baginda?

But the truth is important to the layman. Like it or not, the Court of Appeal verdict has raised even more questions without answering any. Well, not directly. If there had been any intention on anyone’s part to bundle off the case so that it would be removed from the public sphere, it hasn’t worked. In the court of public perception, it has instead been brought into sharper focus.

It has also made Malaysia look bad to the rest of the world. Our public attorneys cannot conduct a proper prosecution. A High Court judge misdirects. Another court acquits on technical grounds. We can’t ensure that justice is done.

The layman finds this unacceptable. He wants the right thing done, he wants the truth. He wishes the prime minister would come out to call for a way to get to the truth, no matter what, no matter how. He knows it’s idealistic and beyond his wildest dreams, but if Najib were to do that, it would be the best thing he’s ever done. And why not? Isn’t this the era of ‘Endless Possibilities’?

* Kee Thuan Chye is the author of the bestselling books No More Bullshit, Please, We’re All Malaysians and Ask for No Bullshit, Get Some More!

                This entry was posted on Monday, 26 August 2013, 2:40 pm and is filed under
Court
,
Crime
,
Judiciary
,
Kee Thuan Chye
,
Najib Razak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Call on Cabinet tomorrow to establish a Royal Commission of Inquiry on the May 13, 1969 racial riots not to punish the culprits but to allow the country to heal its worst racial wounds

Shuhaimi Baba should seriously consider my advice that although she  prides herself as the original founder of horror films after directing a Pontianak film, she must not regard the May 13,1969 movie
“Tanda Putra”
 as belonging to the genre of “ghost films” she had directed in the past, but must be conscious of a sense of responsibility to the nation especially to  the present and future generation of Malaysians to protect and promote inter-racial goodwill, peace and harmony in the country.

Shuhaimi should therefore list out what are the fictional or unverified incidents on the May 13, 1969 riots in her
“Tanda Putra”
 movie so as not to mislead and incite  Malaysians resulting in worsening race relations in the country.

This is all the more imperative as Shuhaimi has admitted that the film is a fictional account of events surrounding the May 13, 1969 racial riots.

On Feb 21 this year, Malaysiakini carried a film review  entitled
“Tanda Putera a double-edged sword”
by a “film enthusiast” who had the opportunity to watch the film at one of the previews held for different groups over the previous months, and it is clear from the film review that the film is studded with fictional or unverified incidents on the May 13, 1969 riots which could mislead and incite inter-racial mistrust, hatred and even conflict.

I refer to three incidents cited by the film review:

1.	“Another scene shows a group of Chinese youth urinating on a flag pole bearing the Selangor flag, outside the residence of the then state menteri besar Harun Idris.”

2.	“In another scene at a cinema, the screen suddenly blacks out, replaced with Mandarin words asking the Chinese to leave the venue, which they do.

“A man then shouts out, in Malay, why there were Chinese words on the screen and demands the movie be put back on. Then, suddenly, the remaining audience in the cinema is massacred.”

3.	“Throughout the build-up of tensions and race riots, there is a mysterious Chinese man who observes the happenings. He is later revealed to be a communist leader – indicating that the communists may have had a hand in orchestrating the mayhem.”

I have questioned the historical veracity of the urination incident in the first instance.

Are the second and third “incidents”  factual or are they pure figments of the imagination and totally fictional?

In my first speech in Parliament 42 years ago on February 23, 1971, I called for a Commission of Inquiry into the May 13, 1969 racial riots to find out their causes, assess the racial polarization in the country and to make recommendations to prevent a recurrence of the May 13, 1969 racial riots and arrest the racial polarization in the country.

Instead of spending public funds to allow a movie director the “creative licence” to concoct fictitious events purportedly provoking the May 13, 1969 riots, I call on the Cabinet tomorrow to establish a Royal Commission of Inquiry on the May 13, 1969 racial riots.

The RCI on the May 13, 1969 riots should be tasked to ascertain the true events and causes of the May 13 riots, who were responsible for them, not so much to apportion blame or to punish the culprits as 44 years had elapsed since the occurrence of the national tragedy in 1969, but to ascertain the true causes and developments to present the historical truth to present and future generations and to heal the country’s worst racial wounds and remove the spectre of May 13 from being used at every general elections since 1969 to blackmail voters from freely exercising their constitutional right to vote or to justify the pursuit of  divisive and unjust policies.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 27 August 2013, 8:10 am and is filed under
DAP
,
Media
,
nation building
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Services not shortcut out of middle-income trap, ADB tells Malaysia

By Zurairi AR

The Malay Mail Online

August 27, 2013

KUALA LUMPUR, Aug 27 — Industrialisation remains a vital step countries like Malaysia can ill afford to skip if they hope to beat the middle-income trap, the Asian Development Bank (ADB) cautioned as more emerging nations gave in to the siren call of the services sector.

In its flagship annual statistical publication Key Indicators for Asia and the Pacific 2013, ADB noted that Malaysia was among nations whose economies were transforming more slowly compared to heavily industrialised economies such as Hong Kong, Japan, South Korea, Singapore, and Taipei.

This warning comes as Malaysia continues to move away from manufacturing towards knowledge-based economy and the services sector, having started down the route with the Third Outline Perspective Plan (OPP3) between 2001 and 2010.

“Our analysis indicates that manufacturing is a developmental stage that generally cannot be bypassed on the road to becoming a high-income economy,” said a special chapter in the report titled “Asia’s Economic Transformation: Where to, How, and How Fast?”

“Virtually all countries that are rich today industrialised in the past — for a sustained period, their shares of both manufacturing output and manufacturing employment reached at least 18 per cent in gross domestic product (GDP) and total employment.”

In its Economic Transformation Plan to turn Malaysia into a high-income nation come 2020, Putrajaya is targeting to make financial services the “bedrock” of the country’s economy and for it to contribute an additional RM120 billion to the country’s income by then, according to the Performance Management and Delivery Unit (Pemandu).

“Right now, as services boom in the region, it’s tempting to shun industrialisation, but it will be a serious mistake if a country wants to be prosperous,” ADB’s chief economist Changyong Rhee said in a separate statement.

Once an agrarian economy, Malaysia made a concerted push towards industrialisation during the Mahathir administration but has gradually moved away from manufacturing since then.

The services sector is now the biggest contributor to the economy, accounting for nearly half of the country’s GDP, and total employment. It hit a peak of 48.6 per cent of GDP in 2012.

Since 2008, manufacturing has hovered around 41 per cent of GDP.

Malaysia was placed in the same pool of slow developers such as China and Thailand. Bangladesh, India, Pakistan and the Philippines were grouped as moving on a much slower pace than Malaysia.

ADB noted that Malaysia had a well-documented success in electrical and electronics manufacturing since the early 1970s, but the advantage seems to have reached a plateau in recent years compared to South Korea which grew at a 20 times faster rate.

According to a research by ADB researcher Jesus Felipe in 2012, South Korea has achieved new comparative advantage on significantly different products than those it manufactured five years ago.

In comparison, Malaysia only achieved new comparative advantage in products which are very similar to those it has exported five year ago.

Another analysis also pointed out that despite its dependence on multinational companies, Malaysia has failed to obtain a transfer of technologies and capabilities from them, resulting in a lack of competitive local firms.

The challenge for Malaysia, ADB said, will be to upgrade and deepen its already diversified industries, either by developing domestic capabilities or localise technologies from foreign direct investment (FDI) efforts.

ADB had earlier this year warned that Malaysia could remain stuck in the middle-income trap from failure to make the leap from exploiting cheap labour and natural resources to producing and exporting more technologically advanced products.

The report by ADB, however, differed slightly from the point made in a paper by the World Bank in April called “How to Avoid Middle-Income Traps? Evidence from Malaysia”.

According to World Bank, Malaysia has not been able to offset its manufacturing export weakness with a strong services sector compared to Singapore and Hong Kong which have reached the high-income nation rank through a boost in the services sector.

“While other developing countries are reaping the benefits of globalisation of services, Malaysia has yet to take advantage of this phenomenon,” the paper said.

In a recent release by Bank Negara Malaysia (BNM), the manufacturing sector experienced growth on the second quarter of 2013 thanks to domestic demand, expanding by 3.3 per cent, a marked increase from 0.3 per cent in the last quarter.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 27 August 2013, 7:49 am and is filed under
Economics
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Tanda Putera a double-edged sword

Carrie Rina

Malaysiakini

12:13PM Feb 21, 2013

FILM REVIEW
Despite the cabinet deciding against airing the controversial Tanda Putera film until after the next general election, the leader of the same cabinet, Najib Abdul Razak, appears keen on showing it to selected segments of the Malaysian populace.

The reason is likely that the film is a double-edged sword, serving as an effective propaganda tool for one community – but which may well offend the other communities.

While both the Malays and Chinese are depicted in the film as turning on each other during the May 13 riots, the Chinese were often characterised as the aggressors.

The film opens with a group of Chinese, who appear to be Communist sympathisers, attacking a party worker, and calling for the 1969 general election to be boycotted.

The victim was later revealed to be an Umno member, for news flash with the headline: ‘Umno party worker killed’ is shown.

A voice then narrates that victory marchers had chanted “Melayu balik kampung” (Malays should go back to their villages), hurting the feelings of Malays and thus triggering the May 13 race riots.

The build-up to the tension in the film shows a group of Chinese youths vandalising campaign materials.

They are later, when fleeing, shot by the police,  causing anger among the Chinese community.

Later, an angry crowd of Chinese protesters assembles and their leader tells the crowd not to give reasons for the police to arrest them, for they could take “revenge” during the general election six days later.

After the general election, several scenes are shown, presumably of opposition supporters of Chinese descent, laying claim to to Selangor after the incumbent Alliance (present day BN) failed to obtain a majority to form the state government.

The antagonists

A scene showing a group of Chinese on a lorry entering a Malay kampung, declaring that the area now belonged to them, raises tension and the police step in to prevent a clash.

Another scene shows a group of Chinese youth urinating on a flag pole bearing the Selangor flag, outside the residence of the then state menteri besar Harun Idris.

The group declares that Kuala Lumpur – then still a part of Selangor – belonged to them and the menteri besar should get out.

At another protest, the crowd chants slogans in Chinese. A Malay police officer there shifts uncomfortably when he is told that they were chanting “Malays go die”.

In yet another scene in Setapak, a group of Chinese refuse to allow two Malay youths on a motorcycle to pass through, claiming that the area now belonged to them. The pair were beaten up when they insisted on passing through, until the police intervened.

The duo, beaten bloody, subsequently made it to Kampung Baru where a rally led by then-menteri besar Harun of Umno was going on.

Enraged by this, the Malay crowd took it out on a passing vehicle whose driver was Chinese and he was killed. Later, a similar Chinese crowd also went about hunting for Malays.

In another scene at a cinema, the screen suddenly blacks out, replaced with Mandarin words asking the Chinese to leave the venue, which they do.

A man then shouts out, in Malay, why there were Chinese words on the screen and demands the movie be put back on. Then, suddenly, the remaining audience in the cinema is massacred.

Throughout the build-up of tensions and race riots, there is a mysterious Chinese man who observes the happenings. He is later revealed to be a communist leader – indicating that the communists may have had a hand in orchestrating the mayhem.

This angle in Tanda Putera could likely have been derived from former prime minister Tunku Abdul Rahman’s book, titled May 13: Before and After, which was published in the same year of the riots and in which he blamed the communists.

Countering alternative takes

However, the film also seeks to portray the Umno leaders then as having taken every precaution to prevent the racial riots.

Prior to the Umno rally going awry, Harun is shown reiterating that the rally should be peaceful and urges participants to put away their weapons.

Even when the participants went out of control after witnessing the two bloodied youths, Harun repeatedly shouts for them to stop, until he suffers chest pains.

The scene appears to counter the version of the May 13 riots by author Kua Kia Soong in his book entitled May 13: Declassified Documents on the Malaysian Riots of 1969.

Kua’s book had blamed, among others, Harun for orchestrating the riots in a bid to oust the then prime minister Tunku Abdul Rahman.

The book, which was based on British declassified documents detailing observations by foreign diplomats and correspondents using dispatches in the country, also appeared to receive another rebuttal as the film portrayed these sources negatively.

In one scene, a group of foreign correspondents is shown arguing with an official as they are not allowed out due to a curfew, and subsequently they say they will write with their “imagination” since their movements are restricted.

The National Operations Council chairperson then, and subsequent second prime minister Abdul Razak Hussein, also raps a foreign diplomat for disputing the casualty figure in the riots, demanding the source of information, to which the diplomat is unable to answer.

The portrayal will a good reminder to audiences of the May 13 racial riots – the version as told, and in which the fear spectre is often raised by the establishment.

The film also focuses on a group of class of students of various races and their lecturer, who are threatened by Malay and Chinese mobs.

Despite their efforts to help one another regardless of race, they eventually drifted apart due to racial fears. But they later make up, as the country pulls away from this dark history under Abdul Razak’s premiership.

These scenes make up about an hour of the film and in the second hour, the attention shifts to Razak and his deputy, Dr Ismail Abdul Rahman.

Idolising Abdul Razak

Though Tanda Putera also touches on the struggle against the communist threat, the New Economic Policy as well as BN’s 1974 general election victory, they come in flashes as the attention is on the two leaders.

Razak and Ismail are gravely ill, but they conceal their illnesses from their families and struggle to perform their duties in the short lives they had.

It also tells of their close friendship, and in one instance, Ismail asks Razak to take his personal doctor along for the 1973 Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Canada, after learning of the Razak’s illness.

Ismail died of a heart attack when Razak was in Canada. Razak later insisted that Ismail be buried in the Heroes’ Mausoleum.

The pace of the second part of the film is significantly slower than the first, but was emotionally manipulative.

It portrays Razak’s slow and painful death and his family’s struggle to cope with the predicament.

As his condition deteriorated, one of his sons, Johari, spent most of the time by his deathbed but there are mentions of one “Jib” over the telephone, presumably present-day Prime Minister Najib.

After Razak’s death, there are several flashes of Razak interacting with common folk and how he had touched their lives.

One example is when he visits a run-down school and meets a teacher wearing a torn tie.

Razak immediately instructs that the facilities be upgraded, the children be provided with necessities and even gets the teacher a new tie.

The film’s portrayal of Razak is simplistic, with the bulk of it dedicated to idolising the former premier who oversaw several landmark policies of the BN, such as the New Economic Policy, Malay as the national language and Felda schemes.

No doubt large parts of the film are indeed based on research material, but they are religiously derived from the official versions.

Watching Tanda Putera may well be akin to flipping through a secondary school textbook, one-sided and shallow in its presentation, lacking in depth and hardly thought-provoking.

The scenes in the film will resonate well with BN’s age-old messages, but airing it to the general populace now will likely solicit controversy and debate, which may prove risky so near to a general election.

‘CARRIE RINA’ is a pseudonym. The writer is a film enthusiast who had the opportunity to watch the film at one of its previews held for different groups over the past months.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 27 August 2013, 1:15 pm and is filed under
General
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


The Government Doesn’t Understand Patriotism

By Kee Thuan Chye

msn.com

27.8.03

I would like to talk about patriotism. Not just because Merdeka Day is coming up this Saturday, but also because the Government has lately shown its lack of understanding of what patriotism means.

It doesn’t mean flying the flag during the Merdeka month or at any time. That’s put-on patriotism and counts for nothing. It doesn’t mean playing the national anthem at cinemas and getting people to stand up for it.

Patriotism is what you carry in your heart – your love for your country, if you want to put it that way. It is something that makes you decide you will fight to protect it, perhaps even die for it. It is not something for you to shout out and tell the whole world about. Not even in Malaysia, which has a habit of wanting to show off and grandstand – for example, by sending to the prime minister last Merdeka Day the highest number of twits … sorry, tweets.

Patriotism is also about showing concern for your country. At no time was that kind of patriotism more evident than during the run-up to the last general election, on polling day and even after the results had been announced. At no time before had so many Malaysians shown their concern for the country in expressing their reasons to save it from its current corrupt mess. They cared enough for the country to want to see it improve and stop it from going the wrong way.

This was not something forced on them, unlike what the Government is doing now by getting cinemas to screen videos from Aug 28 to Sept 3 to remind people about the significance of independence, and to get cinemagoers to SHOW that they are patriotic by standing up at the end of the videos when ‘Negaraku’ is played.

Worse, the cinema operators have been asked to switch on the cinema hall lights when the national anthem is played and to ensure that their patrons stand up.

Nawawi Mohamad, writing in the online news portal Malaysia Chronicle, is right in observing that this is “Umno’s brand of false patriotism”, and that it pathetically contrasts with the real spirit of patriotism: “If you were to attend any of the Opposition’s ceramahs or political rallies, and these are usually multi-racial unlike Umno’s only-Malays, you will find the ‘Negaraku’ is sung spontaneously and each time before the crowd disperses. It is always with joy and participation.”

According to Communications and Multimedia Minister Ahmad Shabery Cheek, “We hope this exercise [in the cinemas] can move the hearts of Malaysians.” He’s indulging in wishful thinking, of course. Even if it does, it will merely be superficial. Such exercises don’t instil true patriotism; they are only heart-tuggers that have short-term effects. And they will tug the hearts of only the simple-minded, not the true patriots.

To instil patriotism, Ahmad Shabery and his colleagues in government need to know that they have to restore whatever glory the country has lost and take it to even greater heights. That is the only sure way of making Malaysians feel the country is worthy of their patriotism. After all, who would want to die for a country that is shabbily governed, headed for financial distress, and one in which the Government plays politics to divide the people?

Even in Ahmad Shabery’s call to all businesses to fly the national flag, we can see this playing of politics. He is slyly insinuating that a community of Malaysians is not patriotic and so they must fly the flag to show that they are.

He has also said he is even going to study the need to introduce a law to make this compulsory during Merdeka month. Such a law, he reasons, would make especially private businesses understand the importance of flying the flag to show their love for the nation.

That, of course, is a stupid idea.

First, it won’t work. No amount of flag-flying will make anyone love the nation if they don’t love it already. It’s just going to make people hypocrites.

Second, how would the Government enforce such a law? There are countless businesses throughout the country; how would the Government monitor who are flying the flag and who aren’t? It would be a sheer waste of resources doing that. Such resources would be better employed for something productive.

Third, this idea promotes form over substance, something that is typical of our ethos but needs to be reversed. For example, we take on the form of appearing religious – observe the rituals, pray five times a day, go to the mosque on Fridays or to the church on Sundays – but when no one is looking, we demand a few million bucks in kickbacks, or take sexual advantage of an underaged girl, or kill someone who’s a threat to our own well-being.

Ahmad Shabery says Malaysians should be like the citizens of neighbouring countries who enthusiastically fly their country’s flag during their independence month. He clearly ignores the possibility that they do so because they have natural and spontaneous reasons for it.

“For all the benefits of independence and harmony enjoyed all this while, we are only asking for a little sacrifice, namely, to fly the flag,” he says. “Sacrifice” is indeed the wrong word to use in this context. If flying the flag has to be a sacrifice, it is something not heartfelt. Then what would be the point of doing it? Again, just for show.

He also asks, “After more than 50 years of independence, is it still necessary to be asked to fly the flag?” He should instead ask “why?”, a question he has cleverly chosen to ignore. And if he were to search for the answer to “why?”, he would find Umno at the centre of the root cause.

He and his government colleagues should face this root cause squarely, rather than pass the blame on to the Malaysian people. The leaders’ failure to do so would only show their own lack of patriotism.

Frankly, I wouldn’t be surprised if they were less patriotic than the Malaysians who want change.

* Kee Thuan Chye is the author of the bestselling books No More Bullshit, Please, We’re All Malaysians and Ask for No Bullshit, Get Some More!

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 27 August 2013, 10:23 pm and is filed under
Kee Thuan Chye
,
nation building
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Lets celebrate the 56th National Day in unity and harmony, by taking the first step to acknowledge and respect the patriotism of the 51% of Malaysians who voted for Pakatan Rakyat and 47% who voted for Barisan Nasional in 13GE

Something is very amiss in the air with the approach of the 56th National Day anniversary on Saturday.

Even the Communications and Multimedia Minister Datuk Seri Ahmad Shabery Cheek toyed  with the idea of introducing a law to make it compulsory for every premises to fly the Jalur Gemilang through the month of Merdeka but he backed off three days later after admitting his extreme disappointment on discovery that government quarters in Putrajaya are not leading the example in  flying the national flag.

He complained: “They are still waiting for the government to give them flags”.

Why is this so?

At the Pakatan Rakyat mega-rallies both before and after the 13th general elections on May 5, Malaysians regardless of race, religion, region, age or gender  stood proud and tall to sing the national anthem when it was played – demonstrating their patriotism and love for the country.

Could such patriotism simply evaporate?

Of course not.

I agree with commentator Kee Thuan Chye that “patriotism is what you carry in your heart – your love for your country….It is something that makes you decide you will fight to protect it, perhaps even die for it.”.

As I had occasion to say in Parliament, it was  because of my patriotism and love for the country, in pursuit of my Malaysian Dream for a better country for all Malaysians regardless of race, religion and region, that I was prepared to lose my liberty to be  twice detained without trial under the Internal Security Act.

This is why I look askance at the “patriotism” of leaders who were prepared to wax rich through corruption and abuses of power at the expense of the people’s rights and national interests.

Invariably, those who shout loudest about “patriotism” are  often the true knaves of the country, as there is considerable truism in Dr. Samuel Johnson’s famous saying: “Patriotism is the last resort of scoundrels.”

Return to the reality of present-day Malaysia.

For over a hundred days after the May 5 general elections, the majority of Malaysians from all races who had voted for Pakatan Rakyat  had been maligned and the target of calumnies, and together with Chinese and Indian bashings, the Prime Minister and his government have  failed to prove that they are Prime Minister and government for all Malaysians!

It is still not too late for Malaysians to celebrate the 56th National Day in unity and harmony – but the first step that must be taken is for everyone to acknowledge and respect the patriotism of the 51% of Malaysians who voted for Pakatan Rakyat and 47% who voted for Barisan Nasional in the 13th General Elections.

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 28 August 2013, 4:41 pm and is filed under
Elections
,
nation building
,
Pakatan Rakyat
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Of sectarianism, secularism and power politics

Zairil Khir Johari

The Malaysian Insider

August 28, 2013

A climate of fear and tension appears to be gripping the Muslim world today – not only in the ever-conflicted Middle East, but even here in Malaysia. In recent months we have seen an increasing zeal on the part of the authorities, certain politicians and right-wing groups.

The gross overreaction in the handling of issues such as the surau in Johor, the “dog lady” video incident, the use of the word “Allah”, and the growing persecution of minorities such as the Chinese, the Christians and the Shias, have revealed uncharacteristic fanaticism. Since when have we become such an intolerant society?

The worst part is that most of these sentiments do not assume any rationality.

Take the virulent stance against the Shias, for example. During one of the terawih prayers that I attended in the recent Ramadan, a popular cleric had been invited to deliver a tazkirah or sermon.

In his sermon, the cleric nonchalantly informed us all that the Shias were not really Muslims, and that they worshipped a different religion altogether.

I thought this extreme view was perhaps an isolated one, until I read that the Kedah state government is planning to gazette a fatwa that will effectively treat Shias as deviants.

Now, if Shias are deviants and regarded as non-Muslims, why do we invite them every year to participate in our annual Tilawah Al-Quran competition at the Putra World Trade Centre?

In fact, since 1961, nine Iranians (read: Shias) have won the men’s recital competition. Furthermore, why is Iran accepted as a member of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC)?

What about the thousands of Iranian students that we are willing to accept as students in our universities every year?

Obviously, there is more to it than meets the eye. I believe that this sudden surge of bigotry and hawkish posturing has more to do with local political manoeuvrings than cultural fault-lines.

It is no coincidence that certain political leaders have adopted extremely hard-line stances just as their internal party elections loom around the corner.

From now until October, I suspect we will see a proliferation of instant Malay-Muslim heroes. The only question is whether a keris will be brandished this time around.

In the same vein, a lot of what is interpreted as “sectarian tension” between Sunnis and Shias in the Middle East could also very well be a manifestation of geopolitics and the competition for power and influence, in particular between Iran and Saudi Arabia.

After all, as Duke University professor and Iranian exile Mohsen Kadivar astutely commented during his recent visit to Malaysia, the Sunni-Shia divide is 14 centuries old.

After 1,400 years, no amount of fighting can change what happened. What happened, happened. Whether it was right or wrong, it happened. That is no longer the issue.

Therefore, the conflict manifesting in the Middle East today is not really a quarrel over a historical event, but rather a struggle over influence and power in the region.

Seen in this light, the couching of the conflict in sectarian or religious terms is merely a convenient label to justify the actions of the power-hungry. After all, who can argue with God?

Secularism as a safeguard against abuse by the state?

It is relevant to be aware of how popular opinion and perspectives can be shaped by political agendas, not only in interpreting the dynamics of conflict but also in discussing social and political philosophies such as secularism.

This term has become highly contentious in our country, mainly because different communities understand it differently.

For the minority non-Muslims, secularism is what they believe to be the foundation of our state – a guarantee of their freedom to express themselves and practise their beliefs without undue interference by the state.

However, the majority Malay-Muslims have an altogether different view. They are inherently suspicious of the term and believe it to be antithetical to the Islamic deen, or way of life.

This is mainly due to the fact that their understanding of secularism is largely shaped by the Turkish experience of Kemalism and the Iranian experience under the Pahlavi Dynasty.

This influence is pervasive because most religious knowledge in Malaysia is derived from post-Islamic Revolution scholars and literature. As such, the thought of secularism brings to mind the trauma of statist governments that suppress religious expression.

Now, while the regimes of Atatürk and the Shah can be considered harsh forms of secularism, it must be noted that they were both authoritarian regimes.

In contrast, democratic models of secularism are far more moderate, such as that exists in India, Europe and the United States. In effect, secularism is not a definite concept and can take on various manifestations, ranging from the extreme to the liberal, depending on the nature of its implementers.

Broadly speaking, secularism in the political context is meant to denote a separation of religion and state. It is not to be confused with the secularisation of society. In fact, far from suppressing or casting aside religion, secularism as a concept of state can arguably provide greater respect for religion.

For example, an ideal secular state would respect freedom of religion and ensure that all religions can be practised without state interference and control, and instead be accorded assistance and support from the government.

In India, for example, the government has for decades been subsidising the airfare of Muslims going on the Haj pilgrimage. And we are talking about a secular country with a majority Hindu population!

Implemented well, a democratic secular state would also protect and allow greater space for discourse on cultural matters. This will allow civil society to flourish and contribute to the enlightenment of the populace.

At the same time, cultural decentralisation will also be allowed to take its natural course – something that is relevant to our country. As we know, Malaysia is a federation of states in which Islam, alongside land and local government, is designated as a state matter.

As a result, states may and do differ in opinion on various matters in the religion, thus allowing localised context and idiosyncrasies to exist.

For example, different states have differing opinions on the legality of practising yoga, the poco-poco dance, smoking and even investing in Amanah Saham unit trusts.

Now, whether right or wrong is a matter of opinion, and should ideally be debated by a mature civil society. Unfortunately, this isn’t the case in Malaysia.

Not only do we have very little room for discourse, we are now seeing things start to go wrong when overzealous officials attempt to implement opinions as laws set in stone and then go on to persecute those who question them as criminals.

In short, state capture of sociological identities rarely results in positive outcomes. As we have seen in Malaysia and elsewhere in the world, race and religion are too easily hijacked and abused as tools for political gain and convenience.

To avoid this, we need to entrench certain “secular” safeguards in governance, provided they conform to democratic norms, in order to not only protect against state abuse of race and religion, but also to facilitate healthier discourse and development via civil society.

The absence of such safeguards will allow room for those in power to impose their will in an arbitrary and self-serving manner.

After all, if history has proven anything, it is that whatever the ideological nature of the conflict, be it over race, religion or even class, the underlying pattern of power politics always remains the same. – August 28, 2013.

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 28 August 2013, 12:20 pm and is filed under
Islam
,
Zairil Khir Johari
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Patriotic in heart, in word and in deed

– Dr Amar Singh and Dr Lim Swee Im

The Malaysian Insider

August 28, 2013

There is an impression conveyed by the authorities that if you do not fly the Malaysian flag then you are not patriotic. Flying the flag means little if your life and “internals and motives of the heart” are not patriotic.

True patriotism is not about flying a flag or shouting slogans. True patriotism is:

 – Respecting everyone in the nation, irrespective of ethnicity or social status,

 – Supporting all segments of our population, especially those struggling and marginalised,

– Working together to protect our land – both the people and the environment (flora and fauna).

It is not important whether a Malaysian makes a public display of our flag or not. It is more important that every Malaysian has a heart of love for all the people of this land. That we share our resources and lives. That we have a collective dream and make it into a reality, a dream that is called Malaysia.

Unpatriotic acts are common and regularly practised. They include:

 – Pushing for a Malay-sia rather than a Malaysia (inclusive of all people groups),

 – Sharing the wealth of the nation with a few cronies and corrupt practices amongst those in power,

 – Using power to oppress others in small and big ways,

 – Acts of hypocrisy where words and actions differ, all empty talk with no meaningful action.

These days many of our leaders seem to be extreme in their comments, more interested in having a Malay-sia rather than a Malaysia. Much of their words are poison and very unpatriotic.

Their deeds leave us wondering if they even care about Malaysia. They are happy to rip off the country, abuse our hard earned tax dollars and ignore the poor. Their children and families live in lavish conditions while a sizeable portion of our people continue to struggle daily to survive.

Our leaders are helping to make people become more cynical, sceptical and fearful and protective of their own ethnic and religious group’s survival. Instead of instilling hopes for a better Malaysia for all, they are instilling despair and divisiveness.

As Merdeka and Malaysia Day approach we look not for some empty words, endless broken promises that do not materialise, but a reality shown in the real lives of our leaders. We have progressed little as a country in our nationhood.

Whilst we have more hope in the people than the government in creating a united patriotic Malaysia, we still want to have hope that our own government will one day make us proud and happy to say “Saya Anak Malaysia”.

We see more patriotism amongst ordinary Malaysians who may not fly the flag nor boast about being patriotic. They simply go about their daily ordinary lives, being more colour blind than many of our own leaders. It is these simple ordinary people who give us hope for a true Malaysia, people who show respect and kindness to all.

When leaders fail us, the people must take the lead. Let us join together in pushing for a true patriotism. One that comes from the heart with meaningful love and kindness. One that is expressed in words and action which bless and heal.

One that is clearly seen in everyday deeds of true kindness. We must work to uphold the rights of all Malaysians, irrespective of ethnicity or religion. – August 28, 2013.

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 28 August 2013, 2:32 pm and is filed under
nation building
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


When patriotism is more than just flying the flag

The Malaysian Insider

August 29, 2013

Eventually, it was going to happen. The decades of cutting corners; relegating meritocracy to an afterthought; putting political expediency above everything else; promoting the subservient; dumbing down the education system to allow droves to pass with paper qualification but little else.

Eventually it was going to happen. A pall of mediocrity settling on every corner of Malaysia, affecting the quality of policy-making, thinking, nudging common sense and logic out of the picture and paralysing once hallowed institutions.

So we should not feign surprise that the only contribution that a Cabinet minister like Datuk Seri Ahmad Shabery Cheek can make to the Merdeka season is to inform Malaysians that the government may pass legislation to make it compulsory to fly the Jalur Gemilang, the national flag.

He is a product of the system. He attended a school system that suffocated thinking, promoted rote-learning, and did little to plant and nurture ideas of integrity, equality, fairness and justice.

He joined a political party which rewarded those with money to burn, embraced those with elastic morality and was nervous about anyone with grey matter. Group think was encouraged and the more one spoke and thought like the masses, the better chance you had of climbing up the political ladder.

You did not have to be the best or even among the best to rise up. At times, where you were born was more important than what you achieved.

So do not blame Shabery Cheek. He is in the Cabinet by virtue of the fact that Tun Abdullah Badawi and after that, Datuk Seri Najib Razak, needed a representative from Terengganu – part of the geographical consideration all prime ministers of Malaysia are bound by.

So do not blame Shabery Cheek if after 56 years of independence, he does not understand that you cannot force-feed patriotism. Worse, he cannot accept that flying the flag is not the only sign of love of country.

Patriotism is not as shallow as planting 100 flags on your car and driving from Perlis to Johor. That is showmanship.

Patriotism is not standing erect and singing the Negaraku, wearing Salvatore Ferragamo shoes and Zegna suit, courtesy of kickbacks and inflated contracts. That is deceitful behaviour.

Patriotism is not standing on the stage on August 31, watching the march past at Dataran Merdeka but on 364 other days of the year doing your darnest to drive a wedge between Malaysians of different races and religion. That is playing to the gallery.

Malaysians showed their love of country by turning out to vote on May 5. They did not need to be dragged out of bed or be lectured on their civic responsibility. They came out in record numbers because of their love for Malaysia, their hope for a better country.

Love of country means fighting injustice, racism, poverty, corruption and doing everything possible to preserve this blessed country for future generations. Patriotism is best fostered when every Malaysian is made to feel that he is valued in the country, has a stake in the country.

It is not ordering cinemas to play Negaraku and then policing the cinema halls to ensure compliance. It is definitely not making it compulsory to fly the national flag. Or take part in a marathon cooking contest.

But expect more “ideas” from the likes of Shabery Cheek. He is a product of the system, a system which has for more than three decades allowed mediocrity to take root in our education system, political system, in every nook and cranny of Malaysia.

He is not alone. Mediocrity is all around us. Another successful project by the Barisan Nasional government for bringing this country down to their level. – August 29, 2013.

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 29 August 2013, 11:03 am and is filed under
nation building
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


An open letter to Shuhaimi Baba

Sugasini Kandiah

The Malay Mail Online

August 30, 2013

AUG 30 — Dear Ms Shuhaimi Baba,

Last night, I went to watch your movie “Tanda Putera” despite the many calls to boycott it. I went to see the movie because 1) You urged Malaysians to see it before criticising and 2) I had hoped to learn something about the May 13, 1969 riots.

After watching the movie, as per your recommendation, I feel I learnt very little, if not nothing, about the May 13 incident. And I believe this is due to two reasons.

One, the film tackles the incident in a manner so shoddy it downright insults the viewer’s intelligence. Second, the director’s poor ability to translate historical interpretation into production leaves the viewer confused as to whether events in the film are fictional or not.

To be quite honest Ms Shuhaimi, you lost me at the very beginning of your film when you chose to show communists killing an Umno election worker and then showed members of the DAP and Gerakan terrorising Malay neighbourhoods in Kuala Lumpur.

You fail to show how these incidents are related and instead seem to have a jolly good time insinuating that the Chinese were primarily responsible for inciting all forms of violence during the period while the Malays are portrayed as simply trying to defend themselves.

In fact, the scene where former Selangor Mentri Besar Harun Idris gathers his men and urges them to drop their weapons and then faints when his mob runs riot is simply pathetic. The urination scene too was totally unnecessary especially since, by your own accord, it did not even take place.

Indeed, it is irritating that many fictional scenarios of Chinese belligerence were conveniently created to justify actual decisions made by the country’s leaders.

Ms Shuhaimi, you deliberately chose to portray the Chinese as disrespectful and violent knowing you could get away with it. All Umno leaders meanwhile are portrayed as holier than thou.

Your depiction of how Tunku Abdul Rahman “happily resigned” when he had in fact been ousted was also disappointing. Surely as a story-teller, you must realise having one-dimensional characters does your movie no justice whatsoever.

That being said, I must commend your feeble attempt to show how friends of different races stood up for each other during the racial riots. I think, however, there was a lot more you could have done with the subject which would have driven Malaysians to the cinema in droves.

I’m not sure I agree with the Penang government’s directive against screening the film. However, after seeing the film myself, I wouldn’t encourage anyone to watch it.

The last historical drama I watched was “Lincoln” which reflected on Abe Lincoln’s handling of the Civil War and perhaps I unfairly had that as a benchmark when I watched your film.

Still, when I think of how this film was showed in Felda areas prior to the general election, I can see why the story had to be distorted even further than what we usually encounter in our history textbooks.

Ms Shuhaimi, Malaysia is a young country that has a long way to go in terms of generating honest discourse on racial issues. You unfortunately have in no way contributed to that.

                This entry was posted on Friday, 30 August 2013, 6:26 pm and is filed under
DAP
,
Media
,
nation building
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Let all Malaysians rally behind a Malaysian Dream to build a more united, democratic, free, just and prosperous nation for all Malaysian citizens

On Wednesday, Americans commemorated the 50th anniversary of Martin Luther King Jr’s historic “I have a dream” speech made in Washington on August 28, 1963, which evoked the American Dream which envisioned an inclusive nation where justice and freedom are enjoyed equally by her citizens regardless of colour or creed.

Although much progress have been achieved in the past five decades to achieve these goals in the United States,  the American Dream is still very much a work-in-progress.

On the occasion of our 56th National Day, it is my hope that  all Malaysians can rally behind a Malaysian Dream to build a more united, democratic, free, just and prosperous nation for all Malaysian citizens so that Malaysia can stand tall in the world.

Is this too much to hope for when in recent months, the language and  politics of hatred, suspicion and distrust seemed to have taken dominion of public spaces whether in print or Internet, causing concerned Malaysians to be worried about the nation’s future?

Just as their divisions, setbacks and failures in the past five decades of American nation-building have not been allowed to hold back the onward march of the American Dream, Malaysians must not allow our own divisions, setbacks and failures to obstruct the achievement of the Malaysian Dream – which envisions a plural society where all her citizens are united as one people, rising above their ethnic, religious, cultural and linguistic differences as the common grounds binding them as one citizenship exceed the differences that divide them.

I believe the overwhelming majority of Malaysians, regardless of race, religion or region, are patriotic citizens.

Regardless of our racial, religious, linguistic, cultural and regional differences, we are one Malaysian people who owe undivided loyalty to the country, we share one motherland – Malaysia – and we must come together as one people to develop the greatness of the country which we are capable of,  deriving from the best practices, values and traditions  from the diverse races, religions and cultures which have made Malaysia their home.

It is only on the back of the Malaysian Dream that Malaysia can achieve a tryst with Destiny to accomplish greatness in various fields of human endeavour and to become one the leading nations of the world.

(56th National Day Message on Friday, 30th August 2013)

                This entry was posted on Friday, 30 August 2013, 8:36 am and is filed under
nation building
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.