The focus of 14GE will be on eight states, led by Johor, as to whether state power and government could change hands

The focus of the 14GE will not only be on Putrajaya, as to whether Federal power could change hands, but also on eight states led by Johor, as to whether state power and government could change hands.

These are Johor, Kelantan, Pahang, Melaka, Negri Sembilan, Terengganu, Kedah, and Perak.

The UMNO/Barisan Nasional Federal Government is a minority government, securing the support of only 47% of the national electorate.

Based on the 13GE results, there are eight states where the political party/coalition forming the State Government has secured 55% or less of the total state votes cast and are vulnerable to change of state government in a general election.

They are:

Kelantan: 55%

Pahang 54%

Johor: 54%

Melaka: 53%

Negri Sembilan: 52%

Terengganu: 51%

Kedah 50%

Perak 45%.

Perak is even worse than the national scenario, as the UMNO/Barisan Nasional Perak state government has secured only 45% of the total state votes cast, even less than the popular vote won by the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak who is governing with only 47% of the national vote.

All  the above  eight states (including Kelantan which is under PAS government) are vulnerable to a change of government in a general election.

Of the list, the most remarkable should be Johor, which until the 11th General Election in 2004, was regarded as a totally “impervious” and “invincible”  BN “fixed deposit” state to the extent that the 2008 GE campaign theme of the BN in the state was to ensure that Johor will be a “zero-Opposition” state.

Johor has since made a quantum leap, with the BN’s share of the total votes cast in the state slashed from 77.4% in the 2004 GE to 63% in 2008 and to 54% in 2013 – a fall of over 23 percentage points  in three general elections in nine years.

This was because of the major breakthroughs made by the Pakatan Rakyat in the 13GE, winning five Parliamentary and 18 State Assembly seats in the state.

The “fall from grace” in the past two general elections have been equally steep for three other BN state governments, like Melaka with fall of 16 percentage points from 69% in 2004 to 53% in 2013; another fall of 16% percentage points from 68% in Negri Sembilan to 52% in 2013; and an 11 percentage point fall for Pahang from 66% in 2004 to 55 % in 2013.

As a result, all these eight state governments are vulnerable to change of power and state government in a general election.

It is an intriguing question whether PAS can maintain its over two-decades-old hold on Kelantan State government in the 14GE, and the real reason for the push for hudud implementation in Kelantan is the belief that this is the most effective way ensure that PAS can preserve its power base in Kelantan.

There are strong differences of opinion, however, such as the conviction that good governance is the best answer to preserving the PAS power base in Kelantan, for any violation of the Pakatan Rakyat Common Policy Framework and the important consensus principle for the Pakatan Rakyat Leadership Council such as the unilateral push for hudud implementation would jeopardise not only  Kelantan but also destroy all hope of re-capturing the Kedah state government.

It is significant that Kelantan and Kedah are the only two states in Peninsular Malaysia where the Barisan Nasional had increased its share of the total votes cast in the state in the last general election, i.e. from 44% to 45% in Kelantan and from 47.4% to 50.4% for Kedah.

The events of the next few weeks will decide whether the efforts in the 13GE creating  a political scenario making the eight states, led by Johor, the focus on the next 14GE as to whether state power and government could change hands would be fortified or undermined.

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 30 April 2015, 3:32 pm and is filed under
Elections
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Najib should come to Permatang Pauh before polling day for a “1MDB scandal – Answer All Questions” Dialogue or he should seek a motion of confidence when Parliament re-convenes on May 18 to demonstrate he still commands support of the majority of MPs

One of the mysteries of Permatang Pauh by-election is not only the disappearance of the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak, but also his posters, which like his two Prime Minister predecessors,  had always pride of place in all previous Barisan Nasional by-election campaigns – and invariably given greater prominence than the contesting Barisan Nasional by-election candidate.

But this is not the case in Permatang Pauh. Has the Barisan Nasional leaders come to a stage where they are embarrassed about the presence of the Prime Minister, even his posters?

Is the disappearance of the Prime Minister and his posters in the Permatang Pauh by-election an eloquent testimony that Najib had got very serious things to hide from the voters of Permatang Pauh?

The voters of Permatang Pauh have a right to chant: Where is the Prime Minister?  In particular with regard to his accountability and answers to the endless questions which are being asked by Pakatan Rakyat leaders and recently, former Prime Minister, Tun Mahathir about the “mother of mother” of all financial scandals in Malaysia – the RM42 billion 1MDB scandal?

Is Najib hiding not only from the voters of Permatang Pauh but also from 30 million Malaysians about the 1MDB scandal, with all his boasts about the flagship policies of  his premiership  turning sour like his National Transformation Programme not good and beneficial but  in a bad and detrimental sense for Malaysians, as  transforming Mahathir’s first  RM2.5 billion Bumiputra Malaysia Finance (BMF) scandal and  Abdullah’s first RM12.5 billion Port Klang Free Zone (PKFZ) to his first RM42 billion 1MDB scandal?

Najib owes the people of Malaysia and the voters of Permatang Pauh by-election a responsibility to answer the teeming questions which have been raised by PR Members of Parliament, Tony Pua and Rafizi Ramli, former Prime Minister Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad and the whistleblowing website Sarawak Report about the 1MDB scandal.

I have listed the 1MDB scandal as one of the five key issues in the Permatang Pauh by-election, the four others being a powerful protest on behalf of the 30 million Malaysians against the second jailing and continued persecution of Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim; the  6% GST; the growing repression in Malaysia against PR leaders and NGO  activists and fifthly, to “Save Malaysia” from the failure of  Najib’s 1Malaysia policy with the worst racial and religious polarization in Malaysia under his premierkship.

On the RM42 billion 1MDB scandal, Permatang Pauh voter must lead the country to demand immediate transparency and accountability.

When the voters cast their votes in the by-election on May 7, it will be more than two months after Najib had ordered the auditor-general to independently verify the accounts of the 1MDB.

Nobody knows what  the Auditor-General had done in these two months.

The voters of Permatang Puah must not only vote to demand that the Auditor-General should table his report or interim on the 1MDB scandal to Parliament when it reconvenes on May 18 –  they should also demand that Najib should come to Permatang Pauh before polling day on May 7 for a “1MDB scandal – Answer All Questions” Dialogue or he should seek a motion of confidence when Parliament re-convenes on May 18 to demonstrate he still commands support of the majority of MPs.

(Media Statement in Permatang Pauh on Friday, 1st May 2015)

                This entry was posted on Friday, 1 May 2015, 3:37 pm and is filed under
Anwar Ibrahim
,
Financial Scandals
,
Mahathir
,
Najib Razak
,
Parliament
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Was Mahathir a leader or a boss?

By Tajuddin Rosli

Malaysiakini

30th April 2015

I am sure most people who decide to read this article are doing so because the title of my article questions the popular belief. Some may already begin deploying their cavalry and loading their artillery even before reading past the first paragraph. I look back at Dr Mahathir Mohamad’s 22 years at the helm and wonder if he was a leader or a boss.

Management is efficiency in climbing the ladder of success; leadership determines whether the ladder is leaning against the right wall. – Stephen Covey

 Dr Mahathir brought enormous success to the development of the nation. It is because of him we now have the Petronas Twin Towers. It is because of him Malaysia is on the Formula 1 circuit map. It is because of him Malaysia experienced economic growth. He definitely broadcasted Malaysia globally in many aspects of science and technology.

 Unfortunately, it is also because of him corruption has seeped deep into the genes of the nation. It is because of him cronyism has become a well-known word in Malaysian politics. It is because of him racism went on a malignant spurt. He was for sure a success but the success he brought jeopardised the nation such that its effect is still being felt today.

A good general not only sees the way to victory; he also knows when victory is impossible. – Polybius

 Despite being advised not to do so by most of his advisers, Mahathir still went on with the Bakun Dam project; a project that till today is Malaysia’s biggest failure despite tonnes of money being spent and pocketed by contractors close to Mahathir. The Multimedia Super Corridor mega project has also been deemed a failure.

 Mahathir splurged insane amounts of money to keep Proton alive and to save it from bankruptcy. Till today despite all Mahathir’s confabulations, Proton has failed miserably in the international market.

You don’t lead by hitting people over the head; that’s assault, not leadership. – Dwight Eisenhower

 Today the whole nation tunes into the online media daily to see Mahathir’s ranting over the current governance. What did he do when people questioned him during his tenure? He introduced the Internal Security Act and kept detaining anyone that questioned him. He ruined the career of the once very popular M Nasir who just uttered two words, “Siapa Mahathir?”

He saw Anwar Ibrahim as a threat and, he did anything and everything to destroy Anwar. Today we see Mahathir boasting that he led the flagship of the country for 22 years. Anyone can hold the helm when the sea is calm, Dr M. You went on eradicating people and never allowed questioning; anyone can lead that way. Adolf Hitler, Ariel Sharon and Kim Il-sung led that way, too.

Creating more followers

I start with the premise that the function of leadership is to produce more leaders, not more followers. – Ralph Nader

 Even with the aid of Google, my efforts of looking for charismatic leaders that Mahathir empowered remains futile. He never wanted to create a leader. He only went about creating more followers. He appointed Abdullah Ahmad Badawi (Pak Lah) as his successor hoping Pak Lah will bow down to him. When he realised that was not happening, he got rid of Pak Lah. He then masterminded the appointment of Najib Abdul Razak as the country’s premier.

 Of late, Mahathir is crying out loud that the reason he spearheaded Najib as PM was because he felt indebted to Abdul Razak Hussein. To me it shows his weakness as a leader. When the crooked bridge is still not built, the PM is a bad man.

 My responsibility is getting all my players playing for the name on the front of the jersey, not the one on the back. – Unknown

 Mahathir practiced the divide and rule concept throughout his tenure. He never condoned the idea of a ‘Malaysian Race’. He always propagated Malay, Chinese, Indians and others as separate racial entities. He stood firm on creating difference races among the people rather than championing Malaysian as a race with multiple diverse ethnicities.

Lead and inspire people. Don’t try to manage and manipulate people. Inventories can be managed but people must be led. – Ross Perot

 One day I am sure the greatest question in Malaysian history is going to be, “Did Mahathir lead the people or did he manage the country by manipulating the system and the people?”

                This entry was posted on Friday, 1 May 2015, 11:23 am and is filed under
Mahathir
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


What is Dr M really fighting for?

By Dennis Ignatius

Malaysiakini

Apr 30, 2015

COMMENT
 The redoubtable Dr Mahathir Mohamad is once again on the warpath.

 In recent months, he has fired salvo after salvo of withering criticism against Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak accusing Najib of a whole array of sins – mismanaging the economy, squandering billions, living lavishly, mishandling the Altantuya Shaariibuu murder investigation, not being a strong leader, burdening the people with Goods and Services Tax, kowtowing to the United States on the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement etc.

He has even levelled against Najib what is perhaps the ultimate insult in his lexicon – being worse than former prime minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi!

 His attacks on Najib have, of course, thrilled the hearts of the legions of Malaysians who are fed up with Najib’s leadership.

 Indeed, many now look to Dr Mahathir as the would-be saviour of the nation. Even the equally redoubtable Lim Kit Siang has offered to work with him to save the nation.

 If anybody can succeed against Najib, it is, of course, Dr Mahathir. He alone has the stature, the authority, the political smarts and, of course, the impunity, to go head to head with the PM.

 There is none more implacable, more skilful, more determined than he. He also has the experience, having brought down a sitting PM before. When the doctor gets his political scalpel out, somebody is most likely to get scalped.

Freedom, justice and equality, not

 But what is Dr Mahathir fighting for and what does he really stand for?

 Is he fighting for the restoration of our freedom and democracy? Is he fighting to repeal unjust laws like the Sedition Act, which is being used to harass, intimidate and incarcerate government critics?

 No, he actually doesn’t think much of democracy and considers freedom vastly overrated.

He favours censorship of the media, supports the use of the Sedition Act and has called for the reintroduction of the Internal Security Act.

 His governance philosophy tends to favour almost untrammelled powers for the executive – especially if they stick to his script.

 Is he fighting for better economic management of the nation, an end to corruption and crony capitalism? No sign of that either.

 Malaysia continues to slide into an abyss of unimaginable  corruption with billions upon billions being siphoned off and squirreled abroad. We have careened from one scandal to another with no end in sight.

 A recent survey found we are the most corrupt nation in the region. Another survey ranked Malaysia number five in the world in terms of the illicit outflow of capital – more than RM171 billion in 2012 alone.

 None of these things have earned the ire of the doctor. His criticism of Najib over the 1MDB scandal, as deserving as it certainly is, does not appear to spring from any intrinsic distaste of corruption or crony capitalism; it is merely another convenient nail to drive into the PM’s coffin.

 After all, the culture of crony capitalism and corruption became etched in the national fabric during his administration; 1Malaysia Development Bhd is simply the chickens coming home to roost.

 Is he fighting for the rejuvenation of our national institutions – the justice system, the civil service, law enforcement – which are all in crisis today? Again, unfortunately, he is no reformer.

Criticisms smack of opportunism

 Even his criticism of the way the Altantuya murder was handled smacks of opportunism rather than a deep-seated concern about a grave injustice.

 If a cover-up has indeed been perpetrated, as many now believe, then surely the entire justice system deserves to be condemned and completely overhauled. But again, this is not what he is calling for.

 Is he fighting to enhance national unity and improve racial and religious harmony which is a pressing national concern? Unfortunately, the answer is again no.

 There was a time when he thrilled Malaysians with his vision of “Bangsa Malaysia” and held out the hope that, finally, we might be able to exorcise the twin demons of racial and religious division that have so impeded our progress, but that is just a bad joke now.

 Instead, he continues to make outrageous remarks against minorities and finds common cause with extremists. It was not by chance that he turned up at a recent rally with two of the nation’s most polarising figures.

If not any of the above, what then is he after?

 Judging from his own statements, the inescapable conclusion is that he is not fighting to bring down a corrupt and abusive system; he merely wants a more competent, and perhaps malleable, manager to ensure the long-term survivability of a regime that is in crisis, that doesn’t deserve to survive, that has wreaked so much havoc upon the nation, that the majority of Malaysians have already rejected in the last general election.

 And, of course, as he himself mentioned on more than one occasion, he is fighting to postpone the day of reckoning for all the corruption and abuse of power that has flourished for so many decades.

 If Najib deserves to be condemned for his abuse of power and mismanagement, then so, too, do all the others.

An unholy war

 Dr Mahathir’s campaign against Najib is thus an unholy war that has more to do with self-interest than with national interest. It is a struggle to preserve and consolidate a politically and morally bankrupt regime.

 It is an unprincipled quest with unprincipled partners for unprincipled ends.

 There is no doubt that Najib must go – not in the interest of preserving the status quo but that real change can come.  As it now stands, if Dr Mahathir succeeds, we lose; if he fails we still lose.

 Of course, there is no doubt that Dr Mahathir is an outstanding leader. His ability to inspire people, his unlimited ambition for Malaysia, his talent for wielding the often cumbersome

 machinery of the state in pursuit of national objectives were always impressive.

If only he had marshalled all that for the good of our nation, what a legacy he would have left behind, what a great nation we would have become.

 During the course of my long career as a diplomat, I had many occasions to work with Dr Mahathir and I have to say that I still treasure those times.

 He was always gentle, kind, courteous, an honour  to work with. Some of my proudest moments came when I stood beside him on the international stage and saw the respect our nation commanded.

 I dare say that most of us would have followed him to hell if necessary, and we did.

 Too bad he insists on keeping us there.

DENNIS IGNATIUS was Malaysia’s ambassador to Chile and Argentina and High Commissioner to Canada.

                This entry was posted on Friday, 1 May 2015, 6:16 am and is filed under
Mahathir
,
Najib Razak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Two speeches by UMNO Ministers in Permatang Pauh yesterday highlighted the urgent need for  UMNO to get a real education in democracy by being sent to Opposition benches with the end of its  national monopoly of power since Merdeka in 1957 and Malaysia in 1963

Two speeches by UMNO Ministers in the Permatang Pauh by-election campaign yesterday highlighted the urgent need for  UMNO to get a real education in democracy by being sent to Opposition benches with the end of its  national monopoly of power since Merdeka in 1957 and formation of Malaysia in 1963.

The first was the haughty, arrogant and insufferable statement by the Agriculture and  Agro-based Industries Minister, Datuk Seri Ismail Sabri Yaakob, who said that applications for agricultural funds and projects in Permatang Pauh will not be approved if Pakatan Rakyat wins the by-election again.

Speaking at  the Kuala Mengkuang polling district, Ismail said:

“This is an agricultural area. I will surely approve if it is Suhaimi Sabudin (BN candidate) who is making the applications.

“If it is (PKR’s president and candidate Datuk Seri Dr) Wan Azizah (Wan Ismail), she will not even get past my office lobby.

“There is no reason for me to see her. She is from the opposition.”

Ismail, of the “call to Malay consumers to boycott Chinese businesses” notoriety, who not only highlighted the ingrained racist thinking of certain UMNO Ministers  but also the double standards in the “administration of justice” by the Police and the Attorney-General’s Chambers, clearly had no notion that his Ministerial responsibility is to 30 million Malaysians regardless of race, religion, territory or political affiliation; that he is not paid by UMNO funds but by public funds by all taxpayers and his duty is to be a Minister for all Malaysians, and not just to UMNO (which, eventually, ends up in only UMNO cronies)!

In a truly democratic administration, a Minister who make such petty-minded, anti-people  and undemocratic sentiments would be immediately hauled up by the Prime Minister and made to retract his statement, even facing the risk of being sacked from the Cabinet, with or without such a retraction.

But not in Malaysia, and Ismail is even preening himself for his outspokenness to espouse UMNO interest at the expense of national interest.

This is one reason why UMNO Ministers must be taught a lesson in democracy by sending them to the Opposition benches.

PKR vice-president Nurul Izzah Anwar has urged the Election Commission (EC) to investigate Ismail’s statement as it  was akin to bribery under the Election Act 1954.

Nobody expects the Election Commission to take any notice of Ismail’s electoral offence or Malaysia would not have been ranked in the lowly No. 114 out of 127 countries surveyed in terms of the country’s polling system in a study by the Electoral Integrity Project – where Indonesia was ranked 51, Thailand 88 and the Philippines 91.

The second example was furnished by the UMNO Vice President and Defence Minister, Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Hussein who warned that “changing leaders” could lead to worsening of problems, and the countries he cited to substantiate his warning are Libya, Iraq and Egypt pointing to the fate of their former leaders, Muammar Gaddafi, Saddam Hussein and Hosni Mubarak.

Hishammuddin rhetorically asked:

“They (the people) were so angry at Gaddafi that they shot him, at Saddam who was then hanged, at Mubarak (who was jailed).

“I want to ask the people of Permatang Pauh. Were the problems of these countries solved?”

Of course, Hishammuddin got the “no” answer he had expected.

Malaysians are flabbergasted by the examples Hishammuddin had chosen to warn about the dangers of changing leaders.

Hishammuddin is right that changing leaders can lead to better or worse leaders, but to cite  Libya, Iraq and Egypt as examples which can befall Malaysia if there is a change of leaders is not only completely out of place but reflects a most undemocratic mindset.

In the first place, there is not much of a democratic setting or culture for Gaddaffi’s Libya, Saddam’s Iraq or Mubarak’s Egypt to talk about.

Does Hishammuddin really think that Malaysia’s democratic governance should be held on par with Gaddaffi’s Libya, Saddam’s Iraq or Mubarak’s Egypt, which may be why there is an upsurge of repression in Malaysia, not only in the persecution and victimisation of Pakatan Rakyat leaders and NGO activists but in the enactment of one repressive law after another.

We are in the midst of major police crackdown, after a peaceful May Day celebrations by over 20,000 people in Kuala Lumpur yesterday calling for the abolition of the oppressive 6% Goods and Services Tax, turning May 1, 2015, into Najib’s 2015 Black Friday mass arrests, reminiscent of  Mahathir’s 1987 Black Tuesday “Operation Lalang” mass arrests on Oct. 27, 1987 under the Internal Security Act.

The voters of Permatang Pauh should in fact use their vote on May 7 to condemn the repressive and malicious post May Day rally mass arrests last night.

Among those arrested are the  DAP National Organising Secretary and MP for Seremban, Anthony Loke, former Bersih Chairman Datuk Ambiga Sreenevasan and PSM secretary-generral S. Arutchelvan.

The voters of Permatang Pauh should use their vote on the by-election polling day to state loud and clear on behalf of 30 million Malaysians (i) to condemn the spate of arrests post-May Day peaceful demonstration; and (ii)  that Malaysia does not want to be compared in democratic governance  with Gaddaffi’s Libya, Saddam’s Iraq or Mubarak’s Egypt but with developed nations which Malaysia aspire to join in 2020, like the United Kingdom, European Union countries, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, the United States, or Asian democracies like Japan, South Korea, India and Indonesia, where a change of government during  elections is not regarded as a national catastrophe but a normal democratic choice of the people.

It is curious why Hishammddin is talking about the perils of change of leaders at a time when pressure is mounting inside UMNO for Najib to step down, as that was not his stand when pressure mounted after the 2008 general election for Abdullah Ahmad Badawi to step down as Prime Minister.

Is Hishammuddin suggesting that if Muhyiddin takes over from Najib, a scenario like Gaddaffi’s Libya, Saddam’s Iraq or Mubarak’s Egypt could be enacted?  May be Hishammuddin would care to elucidate.

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 2 May 2015, 2:06 pm and is filed under
Anwar Ibrahim
,
Elections
,
Hishammuddin
,
Najib Razak
,
UMNO
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Don’t rely on our university rankings alone, QS tells Putrajaya

by Anisah Shukry

The Malaysian Insider

2 May 2015

Despite Malaysian universities’ continued strong showing in QS Quacquarelli Symonds’s world rankings, the London-based firm has cautioned Malaysia not to solely rely on its results to gauge the performance of the nation’s varsities.

While Putrajaya often cites QS’s rankings as proof Malaysian universities are world class, QS head of research Ben Sowter agreed with Times Higher Education (THE) that Malaysia must refer to multiple sources to get an accurate picture of how local varsities fare compared with the rest of the world.

“Ours is only one of range of publicly available measures. Universities and policy-makers should combine data from multiple sources to form an accurate diagnosis of their strengths and weaknesses,” Rowter told The Malaysian Insider in an email interview.

“We strongly discourage anyone from making important choices on the basis of only one input.”

He said Malaysian universities should also improve on its research if it wished to be conferred world-class status by “objective commentators”.

“From our perspective, Malaysia has universities that are world class in some areas, and insofar as UM (Universiti Malaya) is well placed in our top 200 it could be considered world class… but it rather depends on the definition and how many world-class universities that definition considers there to be.

“Research productivity and impact is currently a recovering weakness for Malaysian universities and one which may need to recover further for objective commentators to confer them with world-class status.”

On Tuesday, The Malaysian Insider reported that two local universities, UM and Universiti Sains Malaysia (USM) made it to this year’s QS World University Rankings by subjects, compared with just one last year.

Last September, five Malaysian universities also made the top 400 in the QS World University Rankings 2014 survey.

However, on Thursday, THE revealed that Malaysian universities have once again failed to make the THE’s annual 100 Under 50 2015 rankings – a list of the world’s best universities under the age of 50.

Malaysia in March also failed to make THE’s list of seven fastest-rising young universities and the THE World Reputation Rankings 2015.

Despite this, Second Education Minister Datuk Seri Idris Jusoh has often cited QS’s rankings as proof that Malaysian universities were doing well and even said that local varsities were on a par with those of developed nations, such as Britain, Germany and Australia.

This prompted THE editor Phil Baty to warn Malaysia not to rely only on “flattering” rankings such as QS, saying that other world rankings highlight concerns about the performance of Malaysian universities.

Baty told The Malaysian Insider that Malaysia excelled in QS’s rankings because they employed “very, very weak and simplistic methodology” to assess universities worldwide.

But while Sowter agreed with Baty that just one ranking was not enough, he defended QS’s methodology and said it was inappropriate for anyone to make generalised opinions on other rankings.

“The strength and relevance of a methodology is in the eye of the user. As a factual comparison, the QS ranking exhibits much less wild fluctuation year on year, bases 50% of its methodology on more than 90,000 survey responses (THE bases 33% on slightly more than 10,000) and remains the only international ranking to consider employability.

“QS also relies much less heavily than THE on self-reported data, which reduces the possibility of data manipulation and enables us to rank universities whether they like it or not.”

Sowter said he believed the main reason Malaysian universities did not perform as well in other global rankings was because they primarily evaluated universities based on research output.

“Aside from QS and THE, other global rankings are built almost entirely on research productivity and impact in English and while improving, this is an area where Malaysian institutions have traditionally been weak.”

But he said in the case of THE, it seemed that the key factor for Malaysian institutions’ failure to feature in the rankings was their decision not to participate in it.

“Not participating is not the same as performing poorly and it’s extremely misleading to suggest it is,” said Sowter.

Most of Malaysia’s universities have stopped submitting data to THE to be ranked – even UKM, the sole university to make THE’s Top 100 under 50 in 2012, has snubbed THE’s rankings for at least two years in a row.

UKM told The Malaysian Insider last year that this was because the university preferred to focus on rankings that were fair to its direction.

UKM’s Strategic Centre deputy executive director (performance assessment) Associate Professor Dr Masturah Markom had said the university could not compete in the indicators set by THE’s rankings, so “it is best if we spend on rankings that are better suited to our direction and focus”.

“It is common and perhaps inevitable for universities and governments to primarily promote the rankings which paint them in a positive light… this is not unique to Malaysia,” said Sowter. – May 2, 2015.

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 2 May 2015, 10:56 am and is filed under
Education
,
university
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Baghdadi may be gone, but his empire will live on

By David Blair

Chief Foreign Correspondent

Telegraph

02 May 2015

The Isil leader may have been wounded in an air strike, but the terrorist movement no longer depends on him

After leading a desert blitzkrieg across Syria and Iraq, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi stood before thousands of followers and proclaimed himself “Caliph” of a new “Islamic State”.

Yet the bloodsoaked reign of a terrorist who achieved global prominence by conquering swathes of the Middle East now appears to have been cut short by one American air strike.

Iraq’s government and other sources are convinced that far from leading his men in battle, Baghdadi now lies critically wounded and receiving constant care. A US air raid near the town of Al-Baaj, 90 miles west of the Iraqi city of Mosul, appears to have injured Baghdadi and killed three of his companions on March 18.

The self-styled “Caliph” is understood have suffered spinal damage for which he requires continuous treatment. As a result, Baghdadi is thought to be incapacitated and no longer in command of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (Isil).

Instead, de facto leadership of the movement has passed to a council of senior commanders, including Baghdadi’s supposed deputy, Abu Alaa al-Afri.

If his injuries are as serious as reported, then Baghdadi is unlikely to recover and the transfer of power within Isil will become permanent. The terrorist movement would then have lost a brutally skilful commander with an American bounty of $10 million on his head.

Baghdadi fought tooth and nail for a decade after being released from US custody in Camp Bucca in southern Iraq in 2004. As such, he is a product of the terrorist version of Darwinian selection. Only the fittest could have survived the onslaught mounted by US forces against men like Baghdadi, particularly during the “surge” in 2007-08 when an extra 30,000 American soldiers were hurled against al-Qaeda’s network in Iraq.

Baghdadi, now 44, emerged from that particular furnace to become al-Qaeda’s leader in Iraq in 2010. Aided by Syria’s descent into civil war, he managed to transform a marginal organisation, reduced by the US offensive to a few hundred fighters, into an independent force capable of seizing thousands of square miles of territory and ruling millions of people.

Baghdadi, who broke away from al-Qaeda and founded Isil, ruthlessly exploited the opportunity presented by Syria’s agony.

Back in 2013, he captured oilfields in the deserts of eastern Syria, using these assets to fill a war-chest and make Isil perhaps the richest terrorist movement in history.

At the same time, he steadily infiltrated the Sunni Arab areas of northern and central Iraq. In Mosul, the biggest urban centre in northern Iraq with a population of 1.5 million, Baghdadi’s men were running protection rackets and even levying taxes for months before the city fell into their hands during last summer’s offensive. Isil’s empire is now the home for many foreign fighters, including the likes of Mohamed Emwazi, the Londoner also known as “Jihadi John” who has executed a number of British and American hostages.

Cautious about his own security, Baghdadi made his one and only public appearance in July last year, standing before worshippers in the Noori Mosque in Mosul and declaring himself to be “Caliph Ibrahim”, the leader of what he called the new “Islamic State”.

For all Baghdadi’s bloodstained achievements, however, Isil would still survive his loss, according to Professor Toby Dodge, the director of the Middle East Centre at the London School of Economics.

“The organisation’s coherence does not rely on him,” said Prof Dodge. “Baghdadi is one of collective leadership and behind him stand a series of figures who undoubtedly have a lifetime of experience in intelligence and violence.”

Isil’s leaders include hardened veterans of the Iraqi army and intelligence service from Saddam Hussein’s era. At its core, Isil amounts to an alliance between survivors of Saddam’s Ba’athist regime and a new generation of Sunni Islamist zealots.

They share the goal of overthrowing Iraq’s Shia-led government, which they regard as being a puppet of Iran, and restoring the Sunni supremacy in Baghdad that was swept away with Saddam’s downfall in 2003.

As such, Isil is merely an expression of the alienation of Iraq’s Sunni Arab minority, comprising about 20 per cent of the population. Baghdadi’s death or incapacitation would not change this central fact.

“The organisation itself is simply a symptom of the grievances arising from an Iraqi state was set up in 2003 and systematically represses and alienates the Sunnis,” said Prof Dodge.

Isil would continue without Baghdadi, but the movement might still be weakened by his loss. Little is known about his possible successor, Abu Alaa al-Afri, who may not share his military or strategic skills. The pragmatic alliance between the Islamists and the Ba’athists may also break down. Forcing a split within Isil’s ranks, perhaps along this faultline, will be a central goal of Western intelligence agencies.

In any case, an Iraqi government offensive, backed by US and coalition air power, has succeeded in breaking Isil’s grip on thousands of square miles. So far this year, Isil has lost about a quarter of its territory, including most of the city of Tikrit.

In addition, an effective combination of US air strikes and Kurdish resistance prevented Isil from capturing the town of Kobane in northern Syria. Meanwhile, Iraqi Kurdish forces have advanced north of Mosul, cutting vital links between the city and Isil-held territory in Syria. If Mosul is completely surrounded, this would pave the way for the city to be recaptured.

Isil has managed to stay on the offensive in the Euphrates valley, particularly by attacking the city of Ramadi in central Iraq. But local people have fought back, aided by government forces, and Isil units have found themselves tied down in what may become a war of attrition that the extremists cannot win.

Isil have almost certainly passed the peak of their powers, locking them into a slow and painful decline. If Baghdadi has been removed from the scene, his sudden departure might have coincided with the zenith of the movement that he helped to create.

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 3 May 2015, 8:12 pm and is filed under
Islamic state
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


United Kingdom Election – five days to go

Adrian Beaumont

The Conversation

2 May 2015

The United Kingdom election will be held in five days on Thursday. The current UK Polling Report (UKPR) poll average has the Tories on 34%, Labour on 33%, the Liberal Democrats (Lib Dems) on 9%, the UK Independence Party (UKIP) on 14% and the Greens on 5%; this represents a 1% gain for the Tories since last week.

Based on uniform swings in England and Wales, and a separate uniform swing for Scotland, UKPR has Labour winning 290 of 650 seats, to 263 for the Tories, 19 for the Lib Dems, 60 for the Scottish National Party (SNP) and a few Others, and 18 for Northern Ireland parties. My adjustment to this is to take 20 seats off Labour and give them to the Tories owing to sophomore surges; this method gives the Tories 283 seats to Labour’s 270. If this is the result, the Tories would be the largest party by 13 seats, but Labour would form some sort of government with SNP support.

There are some signs that Labour has regained ground in the last few days.  Four of the last five polls have given Labour a 1-2 point lead, and the fifth was tied. As a result, the May 2015 poll average now has a dead heat between the major parties, after showing a slender Tory lead. A caveat is that the most recent polls are Internet based panel polls, and phone polls have been better for the Tories.

The last three Scottish polls all give the SNP over 50% of the Scotland vote, with Labour in the low to mid 20’s. As a result, there has been some speculation that the SNP could win all 59 of Scotland’s seats. The latest forecasts have the SNP winning between 49 and 56 seats.

I have some concerns about the proportion of undecided voters in the UK polls.  This chart shows the percentage of men and women in the various polls who say they are undecided, and it implies an undecided rate between 9 and 20% depending on the pollster. By contrast, the latest Federal Newspoll had a total undecided/refused rate of only 6%.

I think the UK pollsters have many more undecided voters than Australian pollsters because they do not follow up their first voting intentions question with a question that pushes weakly committed voters into saying which way they are LEANING.

Many UK pollsters assign some of the undecided voters to the party they recalled voting for at the last election. I think this is flawed because many of the undecided voters will not accurately remember who they voted for five years ago!  There is in fact a tendency for people to say they voted for the winning party, even if they did not. As a result, more of the current undecided voters probably remember voting for the Tories than actually did.

This problem could explain why phone polls have been more Tory-friendly than Internet based polls. Internet polls use a panel, and when someone new joins the panel, I think they would be asked then how they voted in 2010. Phone polls need to rely completely on recall of an event now five years old.

How votes are counted

Polls will close in the UK at 10pm Thursday night local time (7am Friday Australian Eastern). An exit poll will be released as soon as the polls close that will project the number of seats for the Tories, Labour, the Lib Dems, the SNP and UKIP. The exit poll only samples key seats, and does not provide information about the national vote share of the various parties.

Unlike Australia, votes are not counted in individual polling stations. Instead, all polling place votes are transported to a constituency’s counting centre, and it is only after all polling place votes have arrived that official vote counting begins. Once all votes have been counted, barring a recount request, a winner is declared.

This method of vote counting means that there will be few actual election returns until at least two hours after the polls close. Most seats will be declared in the small hours of Friday morning UK time, though a few seats will not be declared until well into Friday. By about 4am UK time (1pm Aus), we should have a good idea of the result.

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 3 May 2015, 9:43 pm and is filed under
Elections
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Excerpt #5: Two Black Swans and Many More Dark Crows

by Bakri Musa

Malaysia’s Wasted Decade 2004-2014. The Toxic Triad of Abdullah, Najib, and UMNO Leadership Excerpt #5

May 4, 2015

Already one component of the toxic triad – Abdullah Badawi – is gone and no longer heaping his share of trash upon the nation. As for UMNO, despite being the largest party and a ruling one at the federal level for over the past half a century, it never gets a foothold in Sarawak. Of the nine states in the peninsula, UMNO is permanently wiped off in Penang, Kelantan, and Selangor. If the federal territory of Putrajaya and Kuala Lumpur were also a state, UMNO would be wiped out there too. At one time it was also out in Perak, Kedah, and Trengganu.

That leaves only Najib. My earlier prediction of his premature ending as prime minister notwithstanding (see “Priority of Packaging Over Performance’” page 119), he is now secure at the top of the UMNO rubbish heap. To be the unchallenged skipper of the Titanic is no job security; it could very well undermine your well-being.

I am always amazed at the ability of one person to initiate transformational changes. Often those individuals are the ones we least expect. There is no rhyme or reason for such individuals to emerge except that they somehow appear at the right time and place, with all the right people to help him or her do the right thing in the right manner; in short, the confluence of all the elements and the alignment of all the stars.

In the 1990s Indonesia was threatened to be ripped apart by its bewildering centrifugal forces. Today it celebrates its peaceful democratic transition with a new and promising leader in Joko Widodo. Further east, who would have predicted back in the 1970s that a diminutive, uninspiring and uncharismatic Deng Xiaoping would dismantle the handiwork of the colossal but destructive Mao Zedong?

Further east across the Yellow Sea, in the 1950s the South Koreans depended entirely on the spending of the hundreds of thousands of American GIs stationed there. Then came General Park; today Samsung, Hyundai and LG are global household brand names.

At the same time I do not underestimate the ability of one idiot to wreck untold damage upon a nation while its citizens stand by and let it happen. Nearby there was Indonesia’s Sukarno, further away Zimbabwe’s Mugabe, and in the not-too-distant past, Iraq’s Saddam.

Thus I do not underestimate Najib Razak to do likewise to the great nation of Malaysia if Malaysians let him. I hope they would not.

Malaysia suffered through two horrific man-made disasters in the span of just a few months in 2014. The disappearance of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370 over the South China Sea remains a mystery to this day. While we know what happened to Flight MH17, the question remains of why a MAS plane? After all, a Singapore Airlines jet had earlier flown a similar route while an Air India one was only a few kilometers away.

When a “black swan” (rare, unpredictable) event occurs, it is natural for people to look beyond the realm of the rational for an explanation. This is not an affliction of only the uninformed and poorly educated. In part this reflects the universal recognition that there is a greater power governing us all that we have as yet to fully comprehend.

When 9-11 struck, many religious leaders insensitive to the pain of the victims’ relatives and friends called it divine retribution for America’s tolerance of homosexual ways; likewise when Katrina broke the levees of New Orleans.

At the other end of the world, when the Asian tsunami hit northern Sumatra at Christmas 2004, the iconic image that was seared into everyone’s memory was of the lone mosque standing forlornly and unscathed amidst the sea of destruction around it.

Those with even an inkling of science knew that the tsunami was caused by a shift in the earth’s tectonic plates deep in the floor of the Pacific Ocean off the coast of Sumatra. That knowledge has profound consequences; it led to the creation of ocean sensors that could detect those earth and giant wave movements well ahead to warn those that may be affected. Along the coast of Japan and western North and South America there are already early warning systems and clearly marked evacuation routes. Indonesia did not have them then.

The science-challenged Indonesian peasants saw things differently. To them, the lone standing mosque was Allah sending them a message. The peace treaty that ended the generations-long civil war in Aceh was signed soon after. Their metaphysical interpretation of events too had a fruitful consequence.

Before we dismiss or belittle the Indonesians’ belief, there is still the question of why the tectonic shift had to occur there and at that particular time and not at some remote uninhabited part of the Pacific. That defies science, at least as we know it. Modern science offers only probabilities.

So when Malaysia suffered through two eerily similar “black swan” tragedies in the two passenger-jet crashes, it was not a surprise that many looked for some explanations beyond science. To be sure, a plane disappearing or crashing is not a black swan event, but MH370 disappeared without leaving any trace, incredulous in this day of round-the-clock ubiquitous satellite surveillance. That tragedy still baffles the experts. As for the ill-fated MH17, while we all knew what happened (it was shot down), still the question remains why a MAS plane was the unfortunate victim.

When an obscure village alim says that the calamities were caused by MAS serving alcohol, he can rightly be scoffed at and be ridiculed. By that theory Emirate Airlines would have been a top casualty. However, when thoughtful commentators like Kadir Jasin, the former editor-in-chief of The New Straits Times, and Zaid Ibrahim, a former cabinet minister and successful corporate lawyer, alluded to bala or divine retribution, then we are compelled to pause and reflect. This is especially so when their views resonated with the general public.

In reality, many had taken figurative pot shots at MAS in the past. Stated differently, long before these two black swans, the airline had had many dark crows. MAS would long ago have been grounded, and many times too, had it not been for the government coming in with expensive rescue bailouts.

Profitable units of the airline, like catering and maintenance, had been siphoned off to UMNO cronies, and then MAS was forced to buy back those services at inflated prices, converting what were once revenue-producing units into revenue-draining ones. On another front, instead of pampering its customers, MAS was pampering its employees, from ramp handlers to top executives. They all happily hogged the company’s trough at the customers’ expense, and with taxpayers ultimately paying the bill.

While other airlines were getting substantial discounts for their new planes and passing those savings back to their companies, MAS was paying full retail price, with the discounts going into the pockets of crony middle men “consultants” in cahoots with top executives. Then there was that “brilliant” idea of selling its headquarters in a prime Kuala Lumpur location and then renting space back from its new owner. It’s akin to selling your house and then paying rent to the new owner, adding another expense. This was what Pan Am Airlines did in 1970. We all know what happened to that company.

Then there was that wonderful scheme of financial engineering scheme dubbed WAU (Widespread Asset Unbundling) where MAS sold its planes and then leased them back. Again it was like selling its headquarters. Not owning your own planes is a smart and effective strategy for a start-up airline; it conserves capital that could be diverted to expanding its market. It is however a dumb move for an established company to do so as that would only add another layer of costs. The only ones wowed by that WAU scheme were the new owners of the planes and the investment bankers who arranged the deal. That deal was also a cute play on words as “wau” is Malay for kite, the airline’s logo.

If MAS shares serve as a metaphor for Malaysia, then what happens to MAS the company mirrors what happens to Malaysia the country. Previously reliable services like power and water that were provided by competent public entities are now privatized, sold at heavily discounted prices to favored political cronies. These ersatz capitalists, pseudo entrepreneurs, and rent seekers came out like bandits, but the pipes often run dry, and when they do flow, the water is not fit to drink. Likewise with electrical supplies; they are erratic and with ever escalating prices.

The government cannot forever protect MAS from the reality of an increasingly competitive world. The price for bailouts keeps escalating and is no longer sustainable. For MAS, the skid was greased by the entry of Air Asia at one end, which cannibalized MAS on the domestic and regional front, and Singapore and other Asian airlines like Cathay Pacific that chipped away at MAS’s long-haul destinations.

The first black swan, MH370 disappearance, exposed the incompetence of Malaysian leaders on the world stage. Malaysians of course have been fully aware of this for a long time. These leaders could not handle even simple queries from journalists and the public. The astute political cartoonist Zunar captured well the bumbling Najib. His biting cartoon depicting a “Too Weak” Najib “Two Weeks” after MH370 was carried by The Washington Post.

Like MAS, Malaysians too have been exposed to the reality of a highly competitive globalized world. They now realize that the “education” they had received at local institutions has been nothing more than indoctrination. Their low English proficiency and abysmal communicating skills and critical thinking faculties do not serve them well in the new marketplace.

I hope Malaysian leaders would heed the wisdom of Zaid Ibrahim and Kadir Jassin, that is, treat the two black swan events as the Indonesians treated their black swan of the Asian tsunami. Keep the Malaysian house pure and in good order, free of what displeases Allah, not to please Him but to please Malaysians.

If Najib and others in UMNO fail to heed this message, then Malaysians are duty bound to remove them and give others the privilege to lead the nation.

                This entry was posted on Monday, 4 May 2015, 4:32 pm and is filed under
Bakri Musa
,
Najib Razak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


The voters of Permatang Pauh must continue to lead the country to achieve what Malaysians  failed to achieve in 13GE two years ago – to bring change through a  new Federal Government with Anwar Ibrahim as Prime Minister

Two years ago, the hopes and dreams of the majority of  11 million Malaysian voters who  voted in the 13th General Elections for a new Federal Government and a new Prime Minister in Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim were frustrated by a undemocratic electoral system resulting in the appointment for the first time in the nation’s history of a “minority”  Prime Minister.

On Thursday, on 7th May, in Permatang Pauh by-election, the voters of Permatang Pauh must continue to lead the country to keep  these hopes and dreams for change alive and  to achieve what Malaysians had failed to achieve in the 13GE two years ago – to form a new Federal Government with Anwar Ibrahim as the Prime Minister in the 14GE.

Malaysia will never become a normal democratic country unless we can effect a peaceful transition of federal power through the electoral process instead of regarding it as a national catastrophe, and there can be no meaningful change of political, socio-economic, educational and whole range of nation-building policies unless there is such a political change.

The movement for change must be based on the formula to unite and  mobilise all Malaysians, regardless of race – Malays, Chinese, Indians, Kadazans and Ibans – and regardless of religion – Muslims, Buddhists, Christians, Hindus, Sikhs – as Malaysia’s future can only secured and advanced by  an inclusive political campaign which has a place of dignity and honour for every Malaysian under the Malaysian sun.

On Nomination Day ten days ago, I had highlighted five key issues for the by-election, viz:

1. An unequivocal condemnation on behalf of 30 million Malaysians for the continued persecution of Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim and a categorical call for Anwar’s immediate release from jail.

2. Rejection of the 6% GST imposed on April 1;

3. Condemnation of the   RM42 billion 1MDB scandal – deploring Prime Minister Datuk Seri  Najib Razak’s failure to come to Permatang Pauh to explain the many questions about the scandal raised both by PR and UMNO leaders, including former Prime Minister Tun Dr. Mahathir.

4. Censure the growing repression in the country, the latest being the mass arrests after the peaceful May Day anti-GST demonstration in Kuala Lumpur.

5. To “Save Malaysia” from the failures of Najib’s  nation-building policies, with the country faced with the  worst racial and religious polarization under his administration.

These five key issues must remain uppermost in the minds of Permatang Pauh voters on Thursday when they cast their vote for Datuk Seri Dr. Wan Azizah Wan Ismail in the by-election.

(Speech at the Permatang Pauh by-election ceramahs on Monday, 4th May 2015)

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 5 May 2015, 11:49 am and is filed under
Anwar Ibrahim
,
Financial Scandals
,
nation building
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


We shall overcome! We shall never surrender!

By Martin Jalleh

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 5 May 2015, 10:17 am and is filed under
Human Rights
,
Martin Jalleh
,
Police
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


In the face of Islamic State successes, al-Qaida adapts, grows stronger

BY LEE KEATH AND MAGGIE MICHAEL

Associated Press

May 4, 2015

CAIRO — When al-Qaida overran the Yemeni port city of Mukalla last month, the group’s commanders immediately struck a deal to share power with the area’s tribesmen. No jihadi banners were raised. Al-Qaida even issued a statement denying rumors that it had banned music at parties or men wearing shorts.

A local tribal council now administers the city.

The approach was a stark contrast to al-Qaida’s rival, the Islamic State group, notorious for its savagery. And that was precisely the point.

In a competition with the Islamic State group for recruits and prestige across the Middle East, al-Qaida has sought to distinguish itself from its rival’s bloodthirstiness, taking an approach that in jihadi circles would be considered pragmatic. It is building alliances with local players, even old enemies, to seize new territory. Its leader, Ayman al-Zawahri, has told his followers to avoid IS-style brutalities against civilians in order to build support among local populations.

The strategy has paid off, winning new gains for al-Qaida. In Yemen, it even stands to emerge as the real winner as Saudi Arabia leads an Arab air campaign targeting the terror network’s rival, the Iranian-backed Shiite rebels known as Houthis who have taken over much of the country.

Al-Qaida “is the future Trojan horse,” warned a senior Yemeni military intelligence officer, Ali Sharif. When the war is over and leaves a security vacuum, he said, “the role of al-Qaida will come. … They will fill it and take control.”

While the United States and the West might hope that the competition between al-Qaida and the Islamic State group would weaken two major militant threats, each is instead maneuvering to benefit from the region’s turmoil.

The Islamic State group’s gains over the past year have been sizeable. For nearly two decades, al-Qaida was unchallenged as the world’s most prominent terrorist organization. But IS has stormed forward to rival it – and even surpass it in places.

Beyond its heartland in Syria and Iraq, the Islamic State group has planted flags across the map. It eclipsed al-Qaida in Libya, where IS’s strongest external branch controls several cities and most of al-Qaida’s one-time allies have switched to swear fealty to it. Militants in Egypt’s Sinai Peninsula and Nigeria’s fearsome Boko Haram – all once linked to al-Qaida – have also pledged allegiance to IS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.

Perhaps more importantly, the Islamic State group has a dynamism and fervor that has seemed to fade for al-Qaida. The IS declaration of a “caliphate” in Iraq and Syria inspired a stream of thousands of foreign fighters to join it and earned it pledges of allegiance by individual militants around the region. The group’s notorious brutalities – everything from beheadings to enslavement of women from religious minorities – are seen by its supporters as proof of its purity and refusal to compromise on what it considers “God’s law.”

That has helped the Islamic State group aggressively make inroads in areas long the domains of its rivals.

In Afghanistan, where the Taliban, a top al-Qaida ally, has long dominated, young militants frustrated with the lack of progress in a nearly 14-year insurgency see a winner in IS. In February, former Taliban commanders in southern Zabul province “exchanged their white Taliban flag for the black flag” of IS and were behind the abduction of 31 Shiites, according to Afghanistan’s senior Shiite leader, Mohammad Mohaqiq.

“This is a very fertile breeding ground” for the Islamic State group, said Nader Nadery, director of the Afghanistan Research and Evaluation Unit think tank.

Around the Middle East, prominent jihadi clerics to whom militants look for guidance have been split, lining up with one side or the other. The bitterness spills out on social media, where the two sides hurl insults at each other.

Al-Qaida backers gloated when Iraqi troops and Shiite militiamen retook the Iraqi city of Tikrit from the Islamic State group last month. “After all the blood spilled over the delusion of the caliphate, have you finally realized that declaring a nation and emirates only hurts Muslims and jihad?” asked one, with the Twitter handle Jabal al-Aiza.

Islamic State group supporters in turn accused al-Qaida of siding with enemies of Islam against the caliphate. A pro-IS figure on Twitter, Abu Khatab al-Yemeni, denounced al-Qaida’s branch in Yemen for allying with anti-Islamist militias that “once were considered apostates.”

By building such partnerships, al-Qaida is essentially betting that IS will burn itself out and be weakened by bearing the brunt of the Arab and Western military backlash against its caliphate, while the terror network gains ground through its alliances.

Al-Qaida’s approach hardly makes it more moderate, though. In a 2013 document called “General Guidance for Jihadi Action,” al-Qaida leader al-Zawahri underscored that the group’s priority is to strike “the head of the infidels, the United States and Israel, and their local (Arab) allies.”

At the same time, the document urges al-Qaida militants to avoid bloody killings of civilians in order to build support among local populations. They are not to kill Shiite civilians – even though the group considers them infidels – or the families of opponents. They are not to harm Christians or bomb mosques or other places where civilians gather.

In Syria, al-Qaida’s Nusra Front is the most powerful fighting force outside the territories held by the Islamic State group. Last month, it worked with other rebel factions, including ones backed by Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Qatar, to capture the northwestern city of Idlib and territory in the south – the biggest victories in several years over President Bashar Assad.

In Yemen, al-Qaida has been boosted by the fight against the Iranian-backed Houthi rebels, who overran the capital, Sanaa, and much of the north and are fighting to take the south after driving the internationally recognized president, Abed Rabbo Mansour Hadi, out of the country.

Al-Qaida “has emerged as the only real fighting force countering the Houthis,” said Adaki Oren, an analyst with the Long War Journal, which monitors militant groups. “They have championed themselves as the vanguard of Sunni tribes.”

The militants overran Mukalla, the capital of Yemen’s largest province, Hadramawt, in early April. That brought it a flood of weapons and cash. But the group quickly stepped into the background. An umbrella group known as the Sons of Hadramawt is policing the city, made up of tribal fighters, local youth and al-Qaida militants. A local council is running government institutions in the city and even won the support of Hadramawt’s pro-Hadi governor, who also has fled abroad, a spokesman for the council, Lutfi bin Saadon, told the AP.

When rumors circulated that al-Qaida was imposing strict Shariah rules in the city, including banning music at parties and forbidding use of “qat,” a stimulant leaf chewed by Yemenis, the group issued a statement denying the reports and saying they were spread by those opposed to the tribes cooperating with al-Qaida.

The group says it is avoiding taking over territory to rule itself because that would distract it from fighting the Houthis and from its ultimate goal of targeting the United States – and perhaps draw U.S. drone strikes that have taken out a string of its prominent figures.

Still, its influence among local fighters worries some Yemenis. Across the south, it has allied with local militias, giving backbone to anti-Houthi fighters.

“Sleeper cells of al-Qaida are now awakening, thanks to Houthis,” said a southern activist, Adnan Agam. “The south will become a new Afghanistan. … It won’t be one or two cities under al-Qaida control, but all of the south.”

Associated Press writers Ahmed al-Haj in Sanaa, Yemen, and Lynne O’Donnell in Kabul, Afghanistan, contributed to this report.

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 6 May 2015, 11:58 am and is filed under
Islamic state
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Is criticising Putrajaya more serious crime than kiddie porn, ask student activists

by Diyana Ibrahim

The Malaysian Insider

6 May 2015

Majlis Amanah Rakyat’s (Mara) decision to give a “second chance” to child porn convict Nur Fitri Azmeer Nordin gives the impression that sexual crimes are less serious than criticising Putrajaya, said two student activists.

The duo, who had disciplinary action taken against them by their respective universities, said students who disagreed with the government faced suspension or expulsion from their institutions of higher learning.

Adam Adli Abdul Halim said Mara’s proposal was unfair because the same opportunity was not given to undergraduates fighting for their rights and vocal in defending democracy.

“Why the double standard? It is kind of weird when in this case, Mara can give a second chance, but not to those whose wrongdoings do not even constitute a crime.

“It is as though they are sending the message, never mind if you commit any crime, including sexual crimes of being in possession of kiddie porn, as long as you are not criticising the government,” the former student of Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris (UPSI) told The Malaysian Insider.

Adam Adli, who was expelled from his university for removing an Umno flag in Putra World Trade Centre (PWTC) in 2011, said if Mara could have such a liberal attitude towards Nur Fitri’s conduct, then the same treatment should be extended to government critics.

Mara’s stand showed that it wanted to be seen as progressive institution, he said.

“This issue made international news and now Mara wants to be seen as a progressive entity.”

Universiti Malaya Islamic Students Association (PMIUM) president Khairol Najib Hashim said the government should be consistent and treat all students equally, including those who criticised Putrajaya.

“Those who commit offences should be given the opportunity for self-defence, regardless of race and religion,” said Khairol who was one of the eight UM students slapped with disciplinary action for organising a function with opposition leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim last October.

“By right, the UM8 should be given the right of self-defence before the sentence was meted out, but instead, the sentence was given immediately while our appeals have yet to take place,” he added.

Imperial College student Nur Fitri is currently serving his jail term in London after being caught in possession of more than 30,000 videos and images, including abuse involving penetrative sexual activity with children, as well as a life-sized mannequin of a boy.

Although the Mara scholar had his study loan terminated upon his conviction on April 30, the institution’s council member, Nazir Hussin Akhtar Hussin, told the Bahasa Malaysia news portal mStar that Nur Fitri should be given a “second chance” as he was a “smart student” and could be an asset to the country.

This comes a day after the Rural and Regional Development Ministry said it would consider

filing an appeal to the Southwark Crown court to reduce Nur Fitri’s sentence.

Mara’s suggestion had been met with criticism from Malaysians on social media. – May 6, 2015.

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 6 May 2015, 12:28 pm and is filed under
Crime
,
university
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Is divorce looming in Pakatan?

 – Tajuddin Rosli

The Malaysian Insider

6 May 2015

The Pakatan Rakyat (PR) coalition was formed on April 1, 2008 consisting of PKR, DAP and PAS, having previously formed the Barisan Alternatif in the 10th general election.

Working independently, PKR, PAS and DAP knew it would be a mammoth task to uproot Barisan Nasional (BN). Hence, the mutual marriage among the three parties.

Different ideologies

Dissecting further, the coalition spelled trouble from Day 1. All three parties have completely different objectives and ideologies.

PAS has only been interested in forming an Islamic state. DAP’s vision is to establish a peaceful and prosperous social democracy to unite disparate ethnic groups while PKR was formed and continue to fight only for Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim and his family. There is no way they are in sync in any way.

Persistent infighting

On numerous occasions, the nation witnessed hair pulling between the three parties of Pakatan. Most recent was the hudud debacle.

Despite DAP and PKR consistently expressing their displeasure towards the hudud law, PAS went ahead with its long-term vision. Top office-bearers of DAP and PKR openly criticised the Islamic law implementation and that irritated PAS like never before. Internal fights commenced and dirty linen was washed in public.

In Sabah and Sarawak, the PKR and DAP alliance have completely cut ties with PAS. In the peninsula, the same claims are made but thin strands are still attached between them, a relationship even they cannot understand and explain.

Ugly faces in Permatang Pauh

The infighting has escalated several notches in Permatang Pauh in the wake of the by-election. Permatang Pauh PAS Youth initially called for a boycott to Datuk Seri Dr Wan Azizah Wan Ismail’s candidacy unless she apologises and retracts her statements against hudud.

Dr Wan Azizah did so behind closed doors to calm the nerves of PAS.

While everything seemed temporarily controlled, PAS members led by Bagan division deputy head held a protest in front of Kampung Pertama main mosque on Friday against PKR and DAP.

Banners were held lambasting DAP as rude and labelling PKR un-Islamic. PKR’s deputy Youth chief immediately responded querying the identity of the protesters and claimed they were not PAS members.

His defence is appalling and disgraceful because both the Bagan division deputy head, Md Yusof Ghazali, and information chief Azmi Jaafar gave interviews to the media present, citing the protest as a warning to Dr Wan Azizah and PKR.

Hudud in Rompin and Permatang Pauh

PKR secretary-general Rafizi Ramli has been reported in news portals saying it is not relevant to raise hudud issues at campaigns for the Permatang Pauh and Rompin by-elections.

Rafizi should look back at his own coalition because nobody is harping on the hudud issue as hard as PAS. Datuk Ahmad Yakob, who is also the menteri besar of Kelantan, had said PAS intends to promote Islamic law during the campaigning in the two by-elections and their desire is not opposed by both PKR and DAP. Who is speaking the truth now, Rafizi or Ahmad?

With their continuous disagreement and lack of consensus, how are they going to govern a country when they are unable to decide on a common objective?

The only picture I see is the Pakatan coalition wants to govern the country at any costs even if it occurs at the expense of the nation being in complete disarray between religious and common civil law. – May 6, 2015.

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 6 May 2015, 11:24 am and is filed under
Pakatan Rakyat
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


What ‘Draw Muhammad’ shootings say about Islamic State reach

By Patrik Jonsson

Christian Science Monitor

MAY 5, 2015

The Islamic State claimed responsibility for the foiled terrorist attack at a Muhammad cartoon contest in Texas Sunday. But that doesn’t mean the group had much to do with the attack.

The attempted terror attack by two Muslim-Americans in Garland, Texas, Sunday so far appears to confirm what terrorism experts have been saying for months: The Islamic State has no ability to carry out attacks in the United States.

But the incident shows that the Islamic State’s ability to inspire and, to a limited degree, direct “lone wolf” jihadis remains a challenge with no simple answers.

No evidence yet shared with the public suggests that the two men killed by a security officer when they opened fire on a building hosting a “Draw Muhammad” contest were hardened Islamic State operatives. They pledged fealty to the Islamic State in a tweet minutes before the attack.

But one of them, Elton Simpson, had been on the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s radar screen since 2006, and he faced charges in 2011 over claims that he wanted to join jihad in Somalia.

The degree to which he and his Phoenix-area roommate, Nadir Soofi, reached out to the Islamic State – or the Islamic State (also known as ISIS) reached out to them – is unclear. The FBI is combing through the men’s social media histories for clues.

But it is becoming increasingly clear that the Islamic State’s greatest threat to the US is in its online messaging, which Jessica Stern, co-author of the new book “ISIS: The State of Terror,” calls a “social contagion.” What is known about Sunday’s attack underscores that “it’s less important that ISIS actually speaks [directly to attackers], because ISIS’s goal is to inspire this kind of attack.”

This is terrorism on the cheap. The Islamic State doesn’t have to try to send operatives to the US. It can simply prod disgruntled Americans and claim the credit.

For the Islamic State, “trying to get guys from Syria or Iraq into the United States [to fight] would be stupid and fruitless, because it would take time and money, it would take guys away from the fight, and why would you even do it when you have a great force multiplier in the Internet, where you can get people to pop up anywhere, making you seem omnipotent and universal?” asks Tim Clemente, a former FBI counterterrorism agent.

On one hand, Sunday’s attack gave that impression. But it also suggested the limitations of outsourcing terrorism operations. America’s legal dockets are strewn with the stories of homegrown terrorists who were rumbled by the FBI or simply failed. CNN notes that the attackers had body armor and semiautomatic weapons and yet were killed by a traffic officer with a pistol.

The events showed that the attackers were “wannabes who have never really done anything legitimate, and who hope this act will give them acceptance,” Mr. Clemente says.

For that reason, the attack in Garland “doesn’t suggest to me that this is a clear escalation,” says Ms. Stern. Rather, it points to the Islamic State’s opportunism – both in recruiting would-be terrorists and in capitalizing on their exploits.

“This is something ISIS has been hoping will happen,” she says.

The Islamic State has made many claims of responsibility in attacks throughout North Africa and Europe, though this is the first time it has done so for an attack in North America.

The attack last October on the Canadian Parliament in Ottawa by a lone gunman seemed taken out of the Islamic State playbook, investigators said, but Canadian intelligence never found a credible connection.

The Garland attack also stirred memories of the attack by jihadists on the satirical Paris magazine Charlie Hebdo, as well as an attack at an event this spring attended by Lars Vilks, a Swedish cartoonist who has caricatured Muhammad.

Sunday’s event, sponsored by controversial free-speech activist Pam Geller, promised the artist behind the best cartoon of Mohammad a $10,000 prize. It included a keynote address from controversial Dutch politician Geert Wilders, who has decried the “Islamicization of the Netherlands.”

The Islamic State message does appear to hold some appeal for a minuscule fringe. In addition to Islamic State-inspired attacks, an estimated 3,000 Westerners – including perhaps “hundreds” of Americans – have traveled to Syria since 2011 to join violent jihad.

As of last October, Norwegian terrorism analyst Thomas Hegghammer found a low “blowback rate” for those fighters coming back to their home countries to engage in terrorism – only about 1 of every 150 to 300, much lower than the rate for foreign fighters in Afghanistan, for example.

He suggested that was because of the Islamic State’s primary focus on establishing a caliphate in the Middle East. “ISIS is unlikely to go all in on global [terrorism] operations the way al Qaeda Central has. The organization is not designed for that, and such a strategy is not compatible with its state-building ambitions,” he wrote on CNN.

In the months since, ISIS’s messaging campaign has become more global, but its operational reach has apparently remained focused on the Middle East. The result, experts say, is attacks like the one Sunday.

“It’s not as if ISIS has a cell in the United States or trains people,” Aymenn Jawad al-Tamimi, an Islamic State expert at the Interdisciplinary Center in Harzliya, Israel, tells The New York Times. “This is not ISIS coming to America.”

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 6 May 2015, 11:20 am and is filed under
Islamic state
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Is the 11th Malaysia Plan irrelevant?

Rama Ramanathan

The Malaysian Insider

7 May 2015

John F. Kennedy’s 1961 vision of putting a man on the moon energised the United States to “catch up to and overtake” the Soviet Union in technological prowess. The Soviets humiliated the US by being the first to put a human in space. Kennedy’s vision spurred the US into action to achieve technological domination.

Tun Abdul Razak’s 1971 vision, in the New Economic Policy similarly energised Malaysia. Razak wanted to eliminate poverty and to eliminate the association of occupation (and income) with race. Razak’s vision spurred the nation to recognise and reverse the effects of race-based choices with inequality-reducing choices.

The NEP reduced the income inequality between the Malay and Chinese communities. It succeeded so well that at the end of the NEP in 1991, the government decided to stop reporting figures for the Malay community. The data was hidden because the government lacked political will to end handouts which increased income inequality.

To avoid making the hard political choice of ending benevolence to rich Malays the government combined “other Bumiputera” with Malays and reported only figures for Bumiputera, Chinese, Indians and Others in national reports. Energising vision gave way to superficial vision.

Vision 2020, a great document, was still-born in 1991, probably because its goal is a “fully developed country”. What does that mean? [Did you know it calls for “a society that is democratic, liberal and tolerant”?]

Economically, Malaysia is fairly successful. Unemployment is low, life expectancy is high, our environment is relatively okay and we are a magnet for foreign workers.

Our growth has been mostly due to Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad’s choices during his 22 autocratic years as prime minister. He attracted foreign investment. He provided cheap land, electricity, water, labour and tax holidays plus institutionalised religious repression, autocracy under a veneer of democracy and denial of labour rights. Luckily for us, Singapore had no land; other Asean countries were unstable; Cabinet members were easily appeased.

We may note in passing that Dr Mahathir used Islam as the veneer for crony capitalism which in turn birthed endemic corruption. Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi tried to counter this with Islam Hadhari. His vision was “to demonstrate, by word and action, that a Muslim country can be modern, democratic, tolerant and economically competitive”. He failed.

The result is a nation with massive income disparities and hordes of conflicted citizens.

Hordes, across all ages, classes and ethnicities, are saying “enough of unjust policies”. Now people are eager to move from competing for wealth to sharing wealth.

The result is also a nation with a labour-averse citizenry – because “labourers” are thought of as people who must endure abuse without representation; labouring is thought to be suited only for foreigners willing to accept low wages, long hours and tough conditions. That’s why we have over 6.7 million foreign workers in Malaysia.

Now many of us are rich enough to think beyond our own survival and to think beyond braggart greatness.

We wonder if Malaysia’s growth will continue to be driven by cheap foreign labour. Is the role of citizens to be providers of food, housing, transport, supervision, medical and financial services for foreign workers? Or will we establish a respectable minimum wage and act vigorously to stop the abuse of labour and halt the widening of income gaps between the rich and the poor? What is the vision?

Our government lacks the political will and intellectual prowess to make tough choices. We have ministers like Datuk Seri Idris Jusoh, Datuk Seri Shahidan Kassim, Datuk Seri Ahmad Zahid Hamidi and Datuk Ahmad Maslan.

Idris says our education is world class despite mountains of data to the contrary. Shahidan claims the “indelible” ink used in GE13 was made delible for reasons of health and safety. Zahid abuses his power by imposing extra-judicial punishments on those who exercise freedom of expression. Ahmad, after bungling the GST implementation, says the long-entrenched service charges at hotels and restaurants is “optional”.

The vision of these blind men is to remain in office by bragging about minor wins and brushing off major losses. Datuk Seri Najib Razak recognises this. That’s why he’s appointed non-elected ministers to do the hard work of visioning and fighting corruption: Idris (Pemandu), Datuk Seri Abdul Wahid Omar (finance) and Datuk Paul Low (integrity).

Opposition lawmaker Liew Chin Tong has written that the 11MP is irrelevant because the 10MP failed and because governing based on long-term planning is outmoded.

Considering the calibre of elected ministers, I suspect Liew’s judgment of the 10MP is correct. But plan-based governing is at the core of Malaysia. Without the plan which is a vision-based blueprint, the civil service will stall. We can at least hope that a few good civil servants will stand up to blind ministers.

Blind activist Helen Keller said the only thing worse than being blind is not having a vision. We’ve got blind ministers. Must we also be without an economic vision? – May 7, 2015.

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 7 May 2015, 3:25 pm and is filed under
nation building
,
NEP
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Azizah’s solid and impressive win in Permatang Pauh by-election paves the way for her to be re-elected as Parliamentary Opposition Leader

Datuk Seri Dr. Wan Azizah Wan Ismail’s solid and impressive win in the Permatang Pauh by-election paves the way for her to be re-elected as Parliamentary Opposition Leader.

UMNO/Barisan Nasional  leaders had belaboured under the mirage that the Permatang Pauh by-election was a “once-in-a-lifetime” opportunity to wrest back the seat which for the past 17 years had been the command-and-communications centre for political change and the concept of Ketuanan Rakyat.

Despite UMNO Vice President Datuk Seri Zahid Hamidi’s promise of “shock and awe” at the beginning of the by-election, the UMNO/Barisan Nasional campaign, which was one of the dirtiest and dishonest in Malaysian election history exploiting and abusing  the social media with lies and falsehoods, fizzled out and did not even materially improve on UMNO/BN’s share of the total votes cast.

UMNO/BN had the Election Commission to be grateful and thank, for if the polling had been held on a weekend, allowing more voters from outstation to return to vote, and the voter turnout had reached 80% and not just 74% recorded yesterday, Azizah would have no problem securing a bigger majority than the 11,721-vote majority won by Anwar Ibrahim in the 2013 general election (when voter turnout was as high as  88.2%).

Azizah’s victory in the Permatang Pauh by-election is a signpost that  the future lies with inclusive politics – which embraces all Malaysians, regardless of race, religion or region – and not with sectarian or exclusive politics  bound to any single race or religion or the politics of dishonesty, either by peddling lies or delivering different political messages to different communities as UMNO/BN campaigners were guilty of in the by-election.

A lot of political pyrotechnics were staged during the Permatang Pauh by-election which attracted media publicity and frenzy, but the results  showed that voters are more level-headed and have more common sense  to be swayed by such histrionics and media hypes.

There are lessons to be learnt by Pakatan Rakyat parties from the Permatang Pauh by-election – the urgent need to regain the confidence, hope and trust of the majority of the national  electorate who had voted for PR in the 13th General Election.

There is no future for Pakatan Rakyat if the three PR parties cannot restore the confidence of Malaysians who had placed such high hopes and trust in Pakatan Rakyat.

                This entry was posted on Friday, 8 May 2015, 3:11 pm and is filed under
Elections
,
Pakatan Rakyat
,
Parliament
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Can Najib untangle the 1MDB-Tabung Haji bailout in the next 48 hours or will there be a political  explosion when Najib meets the UMNO division leaders on Monday

Datuk Seri Najib Razak’s position as Prime Minister and UMNO President has never been so fragile and precarious as now, and the question uppermost in many minds is whether Najib can untangle the 1MDB-Tabung Haji bailout in the next 48 hours or whether there will be a political explosion when Najib meets the UMNO division leaders on Monday.

Najib’s desperation over the RM42 billion 1MDB scandal as to approve a raid of Tabung Haji funds has created an unprecedented political spectacle of the current Prime Minister being sandwiched under  attack by former Prime Minister, Tun Mahathir and the current Deputy Prime Minister, Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin.

Mahathir is demanding that the bailout in the  land deal between Lembaga Tabung Haji (LTH) and 1MDB be called off immediately while  Muhyiddin warned  from Milan that the 1MDB scandal may explode on UMNO.

Muhyiddin admitted  that the debt-ridden 1MDB was the biggest factor that led to Barisan Nasional’s (BN) loss in the Permatang Pauh by-election as he was not even able to explain the scandal when campaigning because, “I don’t even know what to say”.

He said: “The rakyat wants to know, not just Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad. The rakyat wants to know why no one has been charged, why the 1MDB board has not been sacked, and about the position of the CEO and the prime minister as adviser.”

In fact, if the 1MDB-Tabung Haji bailout had been revealed earlier, BN would not only lose with a bigger majority in Permatang Pauh by-election, it could have even  lost in its stronghold in the Rompin by-election.

Former Attorney-General Tan Sri Abu Talib has posed legitimate questions whether the 1MDB-Tabung Haji bailout documents were classified under the Official Secrets Act (OSA), and who classified them as secret, with reference to the Inspector-General of Police Tan Sri Khalid Abu Bakar’s statement that investigations were looking into using the OSA against the perpetrators of the leak.

Will the IGP next say that all documents connected with the RM42 billion 1MDB scandal are protected by the OSA?

Police credibility and integrity will suffer another tumble under the present IGP if the police are seen as protecting  the perpetrators of the RM42 billion 1MDB scandal instead of siding with the public and national interest.

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 9 May 2015, 9:27 am and is filed under
Financial Scandals
,
Mahathir
,
Muhyiddin Yassin
,
Najib Razak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Adenan must prove himself on intentions

by Joe Fernandez

CPI

08 May 2015

Sarawak Chief Minister Adenan Satem in London on Tuesday and the day after, continuing his style since taking over from his predecessor and ex-brother-in-law Taib Mahmud, continues to say all the right things. They continue to be music to the ears of the environmentalists, other activists, the Orang Asal and even the Opposition.

In fact, he has even taken the wind out of the sails of the Opposition, being in the forefront with them, indeed away from the stand taken for so long by his ruling Parti Pesaka Bumiputera Bersatu (PBB).

In giving the benefit of the doubt to Adenan, although he’s a product of the very party and system under attack, we can best say that he may have realised belatedly that it cannot be business as usual in Sarawak for his administration. However, recognizing the need for change and being committed to that change are two different things.

We know all the usual cliches about actions speaking louder than words and the proof of the pudding being in the eating.

But let’s move beyond that.

Adenan hasn’t so far merely agreed to disagree. He’s in fact agreeing. But will anything come out of this or will it remain mere rhetoric and polemics? The prognosis could have been better on Tuesday night at the Malaysian High Commission in London.

Adenan gave a good speech, reiterating key points expressed before, but his arch critics and his own people did not applaud him when he touched on logging and the construction of dams. There wasn’t even a smile on the faces of Doris Jones Yapp of the Sabah Sarawak Union (UK) which runs the Sabah Sarawak Keluar Malaysia FaceBook Campaign Page. Likewise, Sarawak Report Editor Clare Rewcastle-Brown and Bruno Manser Fonds (BMF) Executive Director Lukas Straumann listened in stony silence along with the Penan activists. Obviously, they were not convinced or at least remain to be convinced. The clichés mentioned earlier refer.

Clare was told that the ban on her against entering Sarawak “should be considered lifted”. Was that a poor choice of words or a deliberate one? If deliberate, does it mean that the paperwork on removing her name from the blacklist must go through some unknown bureaucratic formalities or that Taib, who was the one who banned her, must first be consulted on the matter? Adenan was silent on the fate of at least 70 other people blacklisted during Taib’s 33 year rule. Some of these people have been on the blacklist since 1986 when Taib first began wielding Sarawak’s so-called autonomy on immigration matters.

Adenan, like Taib, cannot claim that Sarawak has autonomy in immigration matters. Nothing is further from the truth. Immigration is on the Federal List. The immigration powers of the Prime Minister can be delegated, but only to a certain extent, to the Chief Ministers of Sabah and Sarawak. Likewise, the immigration powers of the Home Minister can be delegated — to a certain extent — to the State Secretaries of Sabah and Sarawak. What do we mean by “to a certain extent”? It simply means the authorities can, to protect local jobs,  impose the work permit ruling against Malaysians from the peninsula wishing to work in Sabah and Sarawak. The authorities in the two Borneo states can also impose the work permit ruling against Malaysians from their respective states wishing to work in a Borneo state where they are not citizens.

Still, despite the “to a certain extent” caveat, we know what has actually been happening in Sarawak, Sabah too in some cases. Adenan, in that sense, has been no different from Taib in abusing the Immigration Act in cahoots with the Prime Minister and Home Minister. The Prime Minister and Home Minister cannot delegate immigration powers which they can’t delegate.

So, how much is Adenan really in charge and is there a Taib factor which continues to dog his administration? If Taib is not a factor, why was he allowed to become Sarawak Governor as he demanded?

Adenan himself has been busy banning Malaysians from the peninsula on the grounds that these “extremists and racists” must be kept out of Sarawak. Those banned so far have been activists and Opposition politicians. Except for Perkasa’s Ibrahim Ali and controversial lecturer Ridhuan Tee, there’s no evidence that the others are “extremists and racists”. In fact, the evidence is that the extremists and racists come from the Barisan Nasional (BN), the very coalition in which his BN Sarawak is a member.

For starters, Adenan doesn’t have the power to ban anyone as already illustrated, and even if he did for argument’s sake, his bluff can be called on the matter.

Again, we come back to the Taib factor.

Patently, Adenan did say that he’s in charge, apparently touching on a point of much cynicism and skepticism about his administration. His critics know that there’s only so much that he can do, given the lack of resources behind him and the fact that Taib has built up a powerful feudalistic dynasty and a formidable war chest.

The very people surrounding Adenan will probably allow him to play at being the Chief Minister that the people want, knowing that public sentiment is with him not only in Sarawak, but also in Sabah and the peninsula. In fact, so great is his popularity, that the people would even consider him as the right candidate to replace beleaguered Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak to “put things right” before 2018 when the 14th General Election would be held. This is not about indulging in wishful thinking and living on hope as the critics may think. This is called thinking out of the box.

The bottomline is that although Adenan has projected himself as the solution to the problem, it must be conceded that those who are part of the problem surely cannot be part of the solution.

PBB, in particular the Dayak-based Pesaka component, is part of the problem and along with Adenan, perhaps.

Adenan’s strongest card against the Taib factor and his administration.

The Sarawak Chief Minister must keep in mind that his fiercest critics didn’t applaud, didn’t even smile, when he pledged yet again to stop logging and the conversion of NCR land into huge oil palm plantations. Neither did members of his own administration.

The onus is on Adenan to prove that he’s indeed part of the solution, not part of the problem as the public perception may well indicate. In the end, this might be Adenan’s strongest card against the Taib factor and members of his own administration, Pesaka in particular, who remain stumbling blocks.

An early indication of Adenan’s strength would come when we see Doris, Clare and Lukas turn up in Kuching, followed by the 70 others on the blacklist including those banned since 1986. We pray that the lifting of the ban didn’t come too late for some of them. Quite a number of them are married to Sarawakians. If the ban on them is not lifted, or not lifted in time, the only way that they will return to Sarawak is in a coffin.

The true test of Adenan would come when he’s willing to face critics on his home turf. He doesn’t have to do anything else for now, or even later, since he’s unlikely to succeed to make good on many of his pledges.

In short, Adenan has to merely prove himself on intentions i.e. he’s saying what he means and means what he’s saying. It’s unlikely that Adenan would be faulted in the Court of Public Opinion if he can demonstrate that he meant well and acted in good faith in the greater public interest.

It would be a bit far-fetched to see Taib and members of his family being hauled away to the Court on money laundering charges, as critics expect.

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 10 May 2015, 6:55 am and is filed under
Sarawak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Najib Government is even more shambolic than the Abdullah Government, not only the  right hand not knowing what the left hand is doing, but  Cabinet Ministers and DPM  in the dark as to what the PM is doing

The Najib Government is even more shambolic than its predecessor, the Abdullah Government, not only the right hand not knowing what the left hand is doing, but Cabinet Ministers and the DPM in the dark as to what the PM is doing.

It has resulted in the Sabah Speaker  and Sabah UMNO Deputy  Liaison Chief , Datuk Seri Salleh Said Keruak virtually demanding for the resignation of the Deputy Prime Minister, Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin and three Cabinet Ministers, Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Hussein, Datuk Seri Shafie Apdal and Khairy Jamaluddin for “trying to save their own necks”  on the RM42 billion 1MDB scandal and the latest 1MDB-LTH  bailout fiasco by breaching the principle of collective Ministerial responsibility,  “making statements as if they are outsiders and not part of the Cabinet”.

Salleh asked:

“Are they suggesting that these matters currently attracting controversy were never discussed in the Cabinet meetings or that they were and that they had disagreed with the decisions?

“If Cabinet Ministers have anything to say then it should be done during the Cabinet meetings… so if they feel they no longer have confidence in the Prime Minister or disagree with certain Cabinet decisions then they should resign instead of trying to derail what the Prime Minister is doing.”

I agree with Salleh that it is “absolutely unethical” and unacceptable for any Cabinet Minister, including the Deputy Prime Minister, to continue as “members of the Cabinet and then deny all responsibility and refuse to accept collective responsibility.”

But this proposition cannot apply if the 1MDB-LTH land deal bailout fiasco was never discussed in the Cabinet, which would give justification for the quartet  – Muhyiddin, Hishammudin, Shafie and Khairy – to publicly express their concerns.

The best person to throw light as to whether the Cabinet had discussed the RM42 billion 1MDB scandal and the latest 1MDB-LTH land deal bailout fiasco is the Prime Minister himself, whether in his meeting with Sabah Umno leaders later today and with UMNO Division chiefs in Kuala Lumpur tomorrow.

The 1MDB-LTH land deal bailout fiasco has already opened a can of worms, with revelations by The Malaysian Insider that this is not the first instance in which Tabung Haji, a savings fund for Muslim pilgrims to perform the haj in Mecca, had been abused to help out an ailing company.

In 1998, under the chairmanship of then-prime minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad’s brother-in-law, the late Tan Sri Ahmad Razali Mohamed Ali, Tabung Haji overpaid for two buildings that it purchased in Kuala Lumpur.

The two buildings in question were TH Perdana, which it bought from Maju Holdings Sdn Bhd for RM117.08 million more than what it was worth, and TH Selborn, which was developed by Swasta Setia Holdings Sdn Bhd and sold at a price that was RM51.38 million more than its actual value.

Tabung Haji paid a total RM436.38 million for the two properties, even though the valuator estimated that they were worth RM267.92 million.

Malaysiakini meanwhile has quoted whistleblower site Sarawak Report that  the misappropriation of religious funds isn’t entirely new, citing the case in Sarawak where a state minister allegedly invested Baitulmal funds into development projects.

The relates to an expose in 2013, where Sarawak Assistant Islamic Affairs Minister Daud Abdul Rahman  is accused of awarding the construction contract for a state building to a company reportedly owned by him.

These cases will be an acid test, not only for Prime Minister Najib and  Sarawak Chief Minister Adenan Satem, but also for the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission whether they are serious about accountability, transparency and good governance and the fight against corruption and abuses of power in high political places.

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 10 May 2015, 3:09 pm and is filed under
Corruption
,
Financial Scandals
,
Mahathir
,
Najib Razak
,
Sarawak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.